Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/06/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
5373.png){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_19.05.32.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![168 File:Foundational Black Americans gather for the annual FBA "Rally 4 Reparations" event.jpg](#File:Foundational_Black_Americans_gather_for_the_annual_FBA_"Rally_4_Reparations"_event.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![190 File:"Murder Incorporated", Arthur Szyk (1894-1951).jpg](#File:"Murder_Incorporated",_Arthur_Szyk_(1894-1951).jpg){kind=link}
_in_front_of_her_photographs;_a._1930_©_Annie_(Anna)_Schulz.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:PD-CQ Roll Call
[edit]Related to deletion nominations Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Born Isopod and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump in July 2022, as well as the discussions at Template talk:PD-CQ Roll Call#Should this be used for more recent images? and Commons: Administrators' noticeboard#Economist Group/CQ Roll Call copyright issue. Files that use the {{PD-CQ Roll Call}} that are copyrighted as the template states that its only for images that are within the collection.
- File:AllanFung (cropped2).jpg
- File:Asa Hutchinson Judiciary Comittee Portrait Cropped.jpg
- File:Ben Ginsberg 2014.jpg
- File:Bertie Bowman 2018.webp
- File:Bertie Bowman.webp
- File:Cassidy Hutchinson (cropped).jpg
- File:Cassidy Hutchinson.jpg
- File:DeSantis Portrait 2023.jpg
- File:Donald Trump in 2022.jpg
- File:Eugene Goodman 2021 (jpg version) (cropped).jpg
- File:Eugene Goodman 2021 (jpg version).jpg
- File:Eugene Goodman 2021.webp
- File:GavinNewsom (cropped).jpg
- File:Harry Dunn December 2022 (cropped).jpg
- File:Harry Dunn December 2022.jpg
- File:Harry Dunn June 2022.jpg
- File:House chamber021 010615.jpg
- File:Hur judiciary 607 031224-1.jpg
- File:J. Michael Luttig, 2023 (cropped).jpg
- File:J. Michael Luttig, 2023.jpg
- File:James C. Ho (cropped).jpg
- File:James C. Ho.jpg
- File:Merrick Garland August 2023 press conference.jpg
- File:Michael Fanone 2021.png
- File:Nikki Haley 2020 Portrait Cropped (cropped).jpg
- File:Nikki Haley 2020 Portrait Cropped.jpg
- File:Nikki Haley and her family 2023.png
- File:Nikki Haley and her family 2023.webp
- File:Paul Vallas (3x4a) white background.jpg
- File:Paul Vallas (3x4a).jpg
- File:Paul Vallas 2014 (transparent).png
- File:Porter, Schiff, and Lee in October 2023.jpg
- File:RFK Jr (cropped 2).jpg
- File:RFK Jr 4x5.jpg
- File:Scalise, McCarthy, and Johnson during the 14th US House Speaker vote.jpg
- File:Sen. Roland Gutierrez (cropped).jpg
- File:Sterling being sworn in for the Jan. 6 hearings, June 21, 2022.jpg
- File:Tim Scott 3-3-2022 (cropped).jpg
- File:Tom Daschle 2014 (1).jpg
- File:Tom Daschle 2014.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).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}
_white_background.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&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}
reppoptalk 04:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, speedy deleted as copyright violations. --Bedivere (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:PD-CQ Roll Call
[edit]Final pass at the category, related to deletion nominations Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Born Isopod and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Donald Trump in July 2022, as well as the discussions at Template talk:PD-CQ Roll Call#Should this be used for more recent images? and Commons: Administrators' noticeboard#Economist Group/CQ Roll Call copyright issue. These are images that were made from around the time when the images in the actual collection were made, but are not in the collection as I can see it. I searched on the LOC website for each of these images and they did not turn up.
- File:Bob Smith (R-NH).jpg
- File:Bob smith 2002.jpg
- File:Foster Campbell 1990.jpg
- File:GIULIANI--Before a news conference on the American Community.jpg
- File:GIULIANI--Rudolph Giuliani, mayor of New York City, waits in.jpg
- File:Hearing On Renovation Of United Nations Headquarters Building.jpg
- File:IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS--Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld test.jpg
- File:IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS--Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld.jpg
- File:Joe Biden 1990.jpg
- File:Kathleen Donovan, Republican candidate in the 9th.jpg
- File:Larry Pressler 1991.jpg
- File:Larry Pressler and Conrad Burns 1991.jpg
- File:Rep. Bernie Sanders (1).jpg
- File:Rep. Bernie Sanders.jpg
- File:Ross Perot press conference (1).jpg
- File:Ross Perot press conference.jpg
- File:Senator Joe Biden, Jan. 1990.jpg
- File:Sens. Joe Biden and Strom Thurmond.jpg
- File:Strom Thurmond 1990.jpg
- File:StromThurmond.jpg
- File:Tom Daschle (1).jpg
- File:Tom Daschle.jpg
- File:Traficant 1993 (1).jpg
- File:Traficant 1993 (2).jpg
- File:Traficant 1993.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}
reppoptalk 00:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Error en licencia DonFelipe10 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Cleaning up of Darul Islam gangs around the Merapi Merbabu Complex by the TNI under the leadership of Lt. Col. Suharto, 1952..jpg
[edit]
I uploaded it by mistake Wikiuser0943 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Erroserroooooooooooooor Leo ab1981 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 14:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded by error. Request speedy deletion PaintMeASunrise (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @PaintMeASunrise Then you might want to nominate it for {{speedy delete}} instead of {{delete}}. Nakonana (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 13:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Further license review needed (I cannot properly review WikiMapia files). The original file is found here. WikiMapia attributes this image as by Daniela Merdjanova. Can {{WikiMapia}} be applied to this file, which the unreliable uploader Alexandre071109 (talk · contribs) did not attribute and source properly? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
F10=Personal files for speedy deletion
Trade (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
copyright issue Knowledgecrunch (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedmodyofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:محمد عادل صورة جديدة.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من تصوير اعلان بمدينة السادات.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من داخل التصوير.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل مع المطربة امينة والراقصة عزيزة.jpg
- File:المخرج لشااب محمد عادل.jpg
- File:المخرج الشاب محمد عادل.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep File:المخرج محمد عادل مع المطربة امينة والراقصة عزيزة.jpg, contains singer Amina Annabi which is in scope.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the file that may be in scope have been grabbed from facebook+is of poor quality. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedmodyofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope. Unused personal images.
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedmodyofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotion
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في اخر جلسه تصوير .jpg
- File:صورة للمخرج محمد عادل.png
- File:المخرج محمد عادل داخل الفندق.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في فندق كمبنسكي .jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل صورة حزينه.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في صورة جديدة.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في صورة حزينه.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل ينشر صورة.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل وشهادة تقدير من hp.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من تسجيل اغنية.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من تصوير اعلان.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من لوكيشن التصوير.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في الصحراء.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل ف تصوير ف الصحراء.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في التصوير.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل في السيارة.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل فندق كمبنسكي.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل وصورة جديدة.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل من تصوير اعلان بمدينة السادات.jpg
~★ nmaia d 09:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedmodyofficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL out of scope
- File:المخرج محمد عادلالمخرج محمد عادل.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل.jpg
- File:المخرج محمد عادل كايرو فيستيال سيتي.jpg
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL, out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by شاعر العاطفة محمد السعيد (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL out of scope
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد نبيل عمر (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL out of scope
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Nothing to indicate the cover was published before 1929 Trade (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1 - "2012 album cover". --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neda yeganeh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files uploaded for promotion, taken with various high-end cameras, making own work claims questionable
- File:Hamid Chacoch3.jpg
- File:Hamid Chacoch2.jpg
- File:Hamid Chacoch1.jpg
- File:Hamid Chacoch.jpg
- File:Amirhooshang Karimi2.jpg
- File:Amirhooshang Karimi1.jpg
- File:Amirhooshang Karimi.jpg
- File:Farshad arj 78.jpg
- File:Farshad arj98.jpg
- File:Farshad Arj 5.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi Razebagha.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi Jeyran.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi Shahrzad.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi Theater2.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi Theater1.jpg
- File:Parisa nami5.jpg
- File:Parisa nami4.jpg
- File:Parisa nami3.jpg
- File:Parisa nami2.jpg
- File:Parisa nami.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi and Amirhossein Fatthi.jpg
- File:Navid Goudarzi.jpg
- File:کامران حسین زاده و احمد نجفی و حسن اسدی.jpg
- File:Farshad arj pro.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 8.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 6.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 7.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 3.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 5.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 4.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 1.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh 2.jpg
- File:Kamran Hosseinzadeh کامران حسین زاده.jpg
- File:کامران حسین زاده در پروژه رادیویی.jpg
- File:کامران حسین زاده مجری.jpg
- File:کامران حسین زاده و شیرین احدنژاد.jpg
- File:مصاحبه با کامران حسین زاده.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope Lotje (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This is more or less COM:WEBHOST -- DaxServer (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Lymantria. --Rosenzweig τ 23:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO, copyrighted google maps map Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT but also COM:COPYVIO shutterstock image: [1] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO stock photo [2] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO stock image [3] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
stock image [4]
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL, out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد سيد محمد الخطابي ابراهيم (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL out of scope, self promotion
- File:بودى خطاپ.jpg
- File:بودى سيد خطاب.jpg
- File:محمد خطاب بودى.jpg
- File:محمد سيد محمد الخطاب.jpg
- File:محمد سيد خطاب.jpg
- File:بودى خطاب قلب بابا.jpg
- File:بودى بودى خطاب.jpg
- File:قلب بودى خطاب.jpg
- File:بودى خطاب وحبيبتو.jpg
- File:بودى خ.طاب.jpg
- File:خطاب بودى.jpg
- File:محمد سيد محمد الخطابي ابراهيم.jpg
- File:ابوك بودى خطاب هون.jpg
- File:عمك بودى.jpg
- File:بودى خطاب.jpg
- File:بودي خطاب.jpg
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10 / G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO Google maps copyrighted map Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F1. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SharbSawyer (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claim of own work. No exif, uploader claims to be in photo. PCP
- File:FireShot Capture 055 - Sawyer Sharbino - www.jpg
- File:Sawyer Sharbino.jpg
- File:Sharb.jpg
- File:SawyerSharbino.webp
Gbawden (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, online elsewhere earlier. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SharbSawyer (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope
Trade (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: G10 / F10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be compliant to COM:SCOPE (no realistic educational purpose). The description hints the file's self-serving purpose: "The Above photo is logo of my brand which has been designed by ourselves and i have full authority to use it." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied; per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Wahrscheinlich Fehllizenzierung als ""Eigenes Werk" - als Datum wird hier 2014 angegeben, Pavarotti starb aber bereits 2007. Wahrscheinlich wurde das Photo vom Hochlader nur bearbeitet. Lutheraner (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; will require Com:VRT permissions to undelete. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is my own portrait photograph, which I want to delete now due to privacy and security reasons Siddhadreams (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This is my own portrait photograph, which I want to delete now due to privacy and security reasons Siddhadreams (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Watermarked with a copyright to "AGV", previously published online at https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=448148962557179&set=pcb.448149995890409&locale=hi_IN in 2019. Belbury (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Image is very small and has larger versions on commons Mewhen123 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, low quality penis snapshot. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
No COM:FOP Philippines for photos of posters. Belbury (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of this image and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the original overwrite this FB-derived image, if the image is truly self-photographed work of the uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's still a photograph of a poster. The true copyright holder would be the company that created the poster, not the person who took a photo of somebody standing in front of it. Belbury (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Facebook size, no indication of own work & not in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No indication of own work on this facebook size & "quality" image which accompanies a draft article about a plitician. Notice it is a composite of two images. Each would need to be correctly licensed to be retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
With source "Twitter" and author "Unknown author" it is not possible to license this work as shown and it appears to be a copyright violation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Translated "Source Photo from the front Author Unknown author" . With unknown author it is not possible to retain this image as no permission can be obtained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused image with other images on the sign to the right. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Professional portrait, but small size, low quality and no useful metadata suggest this is not own work. File is also not in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Better quality and larger at https://hinducosmos.tumblr.com/image/641167248489431040, unlikely own work, see author signature lower right hand corner "U.K. Mittra". Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Unused small and low quality file, perhaps a screenshot, does not seem to be within COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This image has a transmission code suggestive of Facebook or Instagram, is Facebook size and resolution, but is claimed as own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
uncertain of any educational value with this image — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Source of this photograph is Facebook per metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Ecuador A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Ecuador, artist Jorge Dubon died in 2004 A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
File:An AusAID funded anti-smoking public health poster at Tonga's Viola hospital in Nuku'alofa. (10666191974).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Tonga A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ecuador A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ecuador A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Congressman Sherwin Tugna.jpg. Metadata shows "Ocs Alvarez" as the author and his outfit as copyright holder. Alvarez's website lists House of Representatives as one of his "clients", not "employers". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 3D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Licensing is invalid. {{PD-textlogo}} obviously does not apply as this logo is too complicated, with many graphics. If generated using Canva, Adobe Illustrator or other tool, this makes no difference as this is logo designer's copyrighted work. Unless, uploader Mamanzi (talk · contribs) is the author of the logo itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This photo was taken from [5], where it was released under a CC-BY-NC license. NC type CC licenses are not allowed at Wikimedia Commons (Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses), so the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 10:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Whether this is a simple logo or not is debatable, but as not being used on Wikipedia sites, this fails COM:SCOPE (must be realistically useful especially in educational and/or usable scope, outside personal use or enjoyment by the uploader). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
While the uploader is apparently the creator of this collage, he is, accd. to the file description, not the creator of the several images which were used to create the collage. These images are apparently less than 70 years old, so they are almost certainly still copyrighted, and the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of an old image dated "1927". Assuming France is the country of origin, more proper research and documentation is needed to determine if this is already in Public Domain in France. Worse, it may have been published later, in which the U.S. copyright status needs to be taken into account (if not simultaneously published in both U.S. and the country of origin). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
5373.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
5373.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be usable as per COM:Project scope. Description claims "Флаг Имамата Аусса" (Google Translate: "Flag of the Imamate of Auss"), but it is not currently used on any article or page across Wikimedia sites, not even one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
5373.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
5373.png){kind=link}
de:Claus Bergen died in 1964, so this painting by him is still protected by copyright in Germany, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2035. Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Per [6], Collier’s did renew its editions starting in 1931 and its articles starting in 1929. So this 1941 US magazine cover should still be copyrighted in the US, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2037. Rosenzweig τ 12:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
While the uploader may have taken the photo that was uploaded here, he is apparently not the author of either the aerial photograph we see on the wall or the newspaper articles we see below that aerial photo. Being from 1990, the aerial photo and the newspaper articles are almost certainly still copyrighted, and the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 13:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo taken in 1983, but the source is a book published in 2020. If this was the first publication, then it is still copyrighted in Argentina its country of origin. To keep this image we need the information of its first publication to ensure it is in the public domain in Argentina and in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1993. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Source is a blog, but it was taken Argentina in 1993. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1993. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1991. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in the Argentine newspaper La Voz in 1991. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1991. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1990. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in the Argentine newspaper La Voz in 1994. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Ad published in Argentina in 1971. It is in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in the Argentine newspaper El Litoral in 1973. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time.Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
As per latest consensus and communications from Taiwan's government, logos are not within the scope of {{PD-ROC-exempt}} nor {{GWOIA}}. See COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of governments and government agencies of Taiwan, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ministry of National Defense of Taiwan emblems. Wcam (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Only upload of Julio Cesar1452 (talk · contribs), claimed to be "uploaded while editing 'Olympique Lyonnais' on pt.wikipedia.org," but there is no evidence of actual usage (plain "vandal"-like activity of the uploader?). The categorization is nonsense ("Category:Oi"). Graphic is most likely out of realistic and/or educational scope/value. Unsure if the graphic may contain underlying copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Appears to be an uploader-made flag. In use only in a sandbox article with no sources. Potential hoax? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
the source is a website where this image isnt. The author is said to be an LA photographer and there is no evidence that permission is give. cc license is claimed by someone who appears to not own the image. Victuallers (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Created by accident via CropTool. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Uploader name doesn't match author's name, plus metadata says the source is Facebook. Needs VRT confirmation. Abzeronow (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Info applies also to file:Guachimontones1 (cropped).jpg (same file, cropped)--Wdwd (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Colostate0221 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: seven unused, nearly identical certificates confirming the existence of Colorado LLCs (almost certainly all owned and operated by the uploader, given context). Uploader is blocked on enwiki for related self-promotional activities.
- File:0221 Production Entity Fort Collins, Colorado.pdf
- File:0221 Innovation Entity Fort Collins, Colorado.pdf
- File:0221 Design Entity Fort Collins, Colorado.pdf
- File:0221 Animation Entity Fort Collins, Colorado.pdf
- File:0221 LOVE Entity Fort Collins, Colorado.pdf
- File:Pearl on the Rock Entity.pdf
- File:0221 Inc. Entity.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation: https://m.digi24.ro/stiri/actualitate/politica/diana-sosoaca-a-ajuns-in-presa-din-italia-dupa-ce-a-purtat-botnita-senator-antivaccinare-cu-masca-lui-hannibal-lecter-in-parlament-1764593 Kun Kipcsak (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Likely fictional coats-of-arms and flag. May be under copyright protection, and if not, these are essentially not used on any Wikimedia sites like English Wikipedia so possibly out of project scope.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد بهمنی7088 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL, out of scope, unused
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope, unused Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد اياد عبدالله (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:PERSONAL out of scope
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
personal images, out of scope, unused
- File:Mohammed Osman Shehata Mohamed.jpg
- File:تكريم محمد عثمان شحاته محمد من رئيس جامعة الأزهر وعميد كلية التجارة.jpg
- File:صورة من تخرج محمد عثمان شحاته محمد 2021.jpg
- File:طلاب المركز الهندي في محاضرة Cpp.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته فى المركز الهندي مع Prof Vidya.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته فى المركز الهندي مع Prof Ankit.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته مع اساتذته فى المركز الهندي Prof Vidya و Prof Ankit.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمدرس مساعد فى المركز الهندي1.jpg
- File:مجموعة من طلاب محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمدرس مساعد فى المركز الهندي بعد نهاية كورس CPP.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمدرس مساعد - فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمدرس مساعد فى المركز الهندي2.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمعيد فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء عمله كمدرس مساعد فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء تكريمه من رئيس جامعة الأزهر فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء تكريمه من Prof Ankit فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء تكريمه من Prof Vidya فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء دراسته فى المركز الهندي3.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء دراسته فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء شرح الكورسات للطلاب فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد اثناء ترجمة الكورسات للطلاب فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته اثناء عمله فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته اثناء دراسته فى المركز الهندي.jpg
- File:ثاني جائزة كأفضل طالب من المركز الهندي 2019.jpg
- File:أفضل طالب من المركز الهندي 2019.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته.jpg
- File:محمد عثمان شحاته محمد.jpg
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:PERSONAL out of scope
Quick-ease2020 (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AIMSMuseoMaritimo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploader's user name claims they are from the Asian Institute of Maritime Studies. But as per their website, "Copyright © 2020. All Rights Reserved." Who is the valid representative here or who is the valid licensor? The person or entity who has the valid right to release these images or logos under commercial Creative Commons licensing must submit an email to Wikimedia (through COM:VRTS procedure) to confirm and verify the use of commercial CC licensing over these images and logos.
- File:AIMS Tower.png
- File:AIMS Logo and Wordmark.png
- File:AIMS Program Wheel.png
- File:AIMS Regiment.jpg – claimed author is Kingsley Franco. Franco must send a COM:VRTS email to confirm that he released this image under commercial CC licensing as claimed on the description page.
- File:AIMS Museo Maritimo.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
SVG version existing Bruce The Deus (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shahi Jajin Mahsa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal files, out of scope
- File:آرتیس مَهسا و همسرش دوران دوستی.jpg
- File:مَهسا شاهی ججین (آرتیس مَهسا) و همسرش.jpg
- File:مَهسا شاهی ججین (آرتیس مَهسا) و همسرش حسین پناهی.jpg
- File:Artismahsa Image.jpg
- File:Mahsa Shahi Jajin Artismahsa Handmade.jpg
_%D9%88_%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%B4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D9%88_%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%B4_%D8%AD%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86_%D9%BE%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Questionable own work claims
- File:Ahad shaahin (13).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (12).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (9).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (10).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (8).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (6).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (5).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (4).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (3).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (7).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (2).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (11).jpg
- File:Ahad shaahin (1).jpg
- File:سید محمد رضا میر تاج الدینی (4).jpg
- File:سید محمد رضا میر تاج الدینی (8).jpg
- File:سید محمد رضا میر تاج الدینی (7).jpg
- File:سید محمد رضا میر تاج الدینی (6).jpg
- File:سید محمد رضا میر تاج الدینی (3).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}
.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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
he.wiki screencapture. Not in use, outdated, and available through history tab Poliocretes (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No longer in use on Wikidata as her item was deleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Not own works: mostly taken from www.marefa.org, which is also a wiki. Missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission.
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @P199 بله موافق هستم پرونده بی ارزشی است Solman9 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- (Google translate: "Yes, I agree, the case is worthless".) --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 02:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
artwork without VRT permission
HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope. Possibly copyvio
- File:X Fun puffyGoldStar w384 01.png
- File:Astrologyyoucansee.png
- File:SQUARE JOIN GROUP.png
- File:Gda Team women 07.png
- File:Football (soccer ball) plus fan saying "WOO HOO".png
- File:2 people cheering after a goal is scored.png
- File:Yellow football.png
- File:SQUARE GoalieHug W 02.png
- File:GDA HUG plus woohoo 01.png
- File:Goalie bendy 10.png
- File:Ullmark 01.png
- File:Swayman 01.png
- File:GDA TwoStars 01.png
- File:Crown3d TLDR moreSpace 11.png
- File:Silhouette 512 R for personality trait Restless.png
- File:Silhouette 512 P for personality trait Passionate.png
- File:Silhouette 512 M for personanity trait "magical".png
- File:Silhouette 512 D for personality trait Down-to-earth.png
- File:Silhouette 512 E for personality trait emotional.png
- File:Silhouette 512 A for personality trait Assertive.png
- File:Star10Point.png
- File:BluePlanetWhiteRing.png
- File:GreenStar5pt.png
- File:BlueStar5pt.png
- File:GreenSun.png
- File:GreenPlanetWhiteRing.png
- File:PPerson ICON wooHoo 01.png
- File:GDA LOGO redStar 01.png
- File:GDA LOGO runGuy 01.png
- File:GDA LOGO yayGuy 01.png
_plus_fan_saying_%22WOO_HOO%22.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Trade (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope. Possibly copyvio
- File:GDA LOGO pizza5 01.png
- File:GDA LOGO blueStar 01.png
- File:GDA LOGO redSun 01.png
- File:Star 5 points red and white on black.png
- File:RedPlanetYellowRing.png
- File:Keypine8.png
Trade (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope?
Trade (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the EnWiki drafts, I'd say this is very much out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by V.Diegtiar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Extremely low resolution, inconsistent metadata, probably not own works.
Quick1984 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Minnesota.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rebeccananonof (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused AI-generated images of various topics.
- File:Day of the African child photo grid.jpg - substantial misgeneration (broken "grid", malformed hands, nonsensical interactions with the "smartphone" like looking at its back side or holding one with another figure)
- File:Falling for the tribe.jpg - anime style women, no clear educational use case
- File:Woman yelling at pride rally and holding a placard labelled "politics off my body".jpg - potentially misleading generated content, substantial misgeneration (nonsense text and flags)
Omphalographer (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unclear usefulness etc Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Likely out of scope. Unused image of a non-notable individual. May also have copyright issues; previously used here but the image may be sourced externally. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded for an article on a non-notable webcomic (possibly of the uploader's creation). Draft rejected multiple times on en.wiki for lack of sources. Unused and unlikely to be used.
- File:Deus ex machina.png
- File:Switchstar (Planned for 2020).png
- File:Skyscraper (2018).png
- File:Global freezing (2006).png
- File:Moonlocking.png
- File:BATAS - "Limit" Material.png
- File:Webcomic Cover.png
- File:The great blocking.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sardor Sagdullayev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: plain text.
- File:Синтактик таркиби қисқарган гаплар ҳақида мулоҳазалари.pdf
- File:Xolnazarova Dilnoza.pdf
- File:Xolnazarova Dilnoza (2).pdf
- File:V.G.Gakning imlo.pdf
- File:Tezis.pdf
- File:Tarjima qilishning asosiy turlari va tarjimadagi muammolar.pdf
- File:Maqolaaa.pdf
- File:MAQOLA555.pdf
- File:Maqola 3.pdf
- File:M 5new.pdf
- File:M 4 new.pdf
- File:Fransuz va rus tillarida gaplarni leksiko.pdf
- File:Dfgoooo.mew.pdf
- File:10.Akramova.pdf
- File:08. Xolnazarova.D.R.pdf
- File:08.Murodova M.pdf
- File:6.Xurramova Matluba (2).pdf
- File:7.Aliqulova.pdf
- File:6.Xurramova Matluba.pdf
- File:6.Xolliyeva Aziza.pdf
- File:6.To'xtayeva Dilobar.pdf
- File:6.O'rolova.pdf
- File:6.Otamurodova Farida.pdf
- File:6.Qurbonova Dilnura.pdf
Omphalographer (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
probably a fair-use media. Not totally sure so I prefer doing a deletion request. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, grabbed from the web, compare [7]. --Rosenzweig τ 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Plusieurs erreur de ma part. Ratrepane (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nomination was withdrawn. --Rosenzweig τ 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arkadiusz.zyla (talk · contribs)
[edit]User has uploaded pictures of printed poems in Polish. They have no information on them on who wrote them or why they would be interesting? I believe they are out of COM:SCOPE. I do not read Polish, so if these are significant, please revert this request and keep.
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 49.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 47.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 48.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 46.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 45.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 44.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 43.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 42.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 41.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 40.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 38.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 39.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 37.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 32.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 36.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 31.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 35.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 34.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 33.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 30.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 29.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 28.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 27.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 26.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 25.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 24.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 23.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 22.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 21.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 20.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 19.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 17.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 18.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 16.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 13.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 15.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 14.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 12.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 11.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 10.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 08.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 09.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 07.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 06.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 05.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 04.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 03.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 02.jpg
- File:Poeta,pisarz,mim 01.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 49.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 48.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 47.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 46.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 45.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 44.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 43.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 42.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 41.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 40.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 39.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 37.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 36.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 35.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 32.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 34.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 33.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 31.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 30.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 29.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 28.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 27.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 26.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 25.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 24.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 23.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 22.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 21.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 20.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 19.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 18.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 17.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 16.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 15.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 14.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 13.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 12.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 11.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 10.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 09.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 02.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 08.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 07.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 06.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 05.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 04.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 01.jpg
- File:Poeta.Pisarz.Mim 03.jpg
- File:Wiersz dla Barbary.jpg
-- Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Same image as Commons:Deletion requests/File:ROC Ocean Affairs Council Logo.png. Wcam (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Not notable person, spam article several times deleted on huwiki, no proper description, controversial to Commons:What Commons is not Bináris (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This drawing, a 1988 work of Italian architect and designer en:Aldo Rossi (1931–1997), was taken from [8] and uploaded here with a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag, but I don't see any CC license at the source page. Rossi died in 1997, so his works are still protected until the end of 2067, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2068. Rosenzweig τ 10:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Die Architekten haben lediglich Umbauten am Hauptgebäude "De Lamel" vorgenommen (2021-2024) und sind nicht autorisiert die Zeichnung unter Lizenz allgemein zugänglich zu machen. Ich habe das Bild aus dem Wikipedia Artikel gelöscht. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of Memorial to Gustaf Svensberg in Pori, Finland, relief by Finnish local artist Olavi Koskinen, no Wikidata, died in 2021. Not in PD. No Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, only buildings. Date of unveiling not known. Htm (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Photo uploaded in Fi-wiki as fi:Tiedosto:Gustaf Svensbergin muistokivi by Olavi Koskinen Pori.jpg Htm (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Per discussion at Talk:Lauren_Elkin#Picture, not uploader's own work, picture is taken from [9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 06:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the uploader's questionable uploads, I doubt these two remaining photographic uploads are their self-photographed (own work) images. See their talk page for their other questionable uploads.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Screen capture of some discussion, not in use Poliocretes (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyright violation. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe holds the copyright to any legal tender currency in the country. The ZiG is about as legal tender as you can get in Zimbabwe. And thus, is NOT free. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I made this picture of the coins by my self, if its not allowed to make pictures of circulation coins you have to delete them all from wiki. Are you bored? 87.185.84.181 21:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: for Zimbabwe, only notes and coins up to the fourth dollar and bond notes can be uploaded, with the fifth dollar to follow soon. The comment by the IP editor above also appears unhelpful due to a possible use of whataboutism: whataboutism has a record of turning discussions into shouting matches. --Minoa (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete as legal tender is protected by copyright law in Zimbabwe. File will only be suitable for Commons at the moment it ceases to be legal tender and therefore loses its copyright protection. (see section 50 of Zimbabwe's Copyright Act) Eyesnore (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Low quality drawing, not educationally useful and out of COM:SCOPE. Belbury (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
_19.05.32.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_19.05.32.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
blurry capture of something? out of scope -- Deadstar (msg) 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
_19.05.32.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
_19.05.32.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source website does not have any type of licencing mentioned? www.juanarabia.com -- Deadstar (msg) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:La Venus Tropical
[edit]No FoP in Ecuador, artist Evelio Tandazo died in 2022
A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted anime character, clearly not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free content A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted anime character, clearly not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
File was taken from a Facebook post. I don't speak the language, I doubt it will mention anything about licensing, but can someone check. This will have to go for no permission otherwise. https://www.facebook.com/fleursdeslettres/posts/pfbid0SQwtL1DNQUi7C631o4ZQPxLUJNZGBszUHdeFri8Ec4tzJZn43FmSX3Jf8Uuyseyol?locale=zh_HK -- Deadstar (msg) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
seems to contain lots of non-CCBY material doesn't it? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Misspelled Indian as India and I am already uploading a better graph with the correct spelling. Blackout Sea (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, superseded by File:Victory Margins of Indian Prime Ministers.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mr Tortue as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: the logo comes from a brand, it is unlikely to be under cc-by-4.0... Either to be deleted or PD-textlogo.
Speedy is for cut-and-dried copyright. The justification above needs to be discussed and considered, therefore I have sent it to Deletion Nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Bosnia - Vozuća, June-July 1994.jpg Ђидо (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Not useful Gannu143 (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Info: Uploader's request, uploaded 4 years ago, replaced by File:Santy Sharma with co-actress Ankita.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:Santy Sharma with co-actress Ankita.jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Or useable Gannu143 (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Msescobar1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]possible copyvio: The subject of the image is marked as the author, A picture is from Facebook, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator
- File:Final de Sueños Curiosos.jpg
- File:Elenco completo de Nosotros el concierto.jpg
- File:Sebastian Escobar.jpg
- File:Nosotros concert.jpg
- File:Sueños Curiosos Teatro para Bebés.jpg
- File:Sebastian Escobar cantando en el teatro Luisa Vehil.jpg
CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO author took it from newspaper that took it from Facebook. I can't find the original photographer, but definitely not licensed under current license.
[10] indicates it came from facebook Quick-ease2020 (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
copyrigth violation; contemporary artwork; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
A cutaway drawing of a 1940s Japanese plane, taken from some Internet forum, but clearly published somewhere else first. There is no information however when and where that happened. The forum does not name an artist. The uploader claims that the author of this file was en:Isoroku Yamamoto (1884–1943), but this person was a Japanese admiral, not a draftsman or an artist. While he apparently ordered the design and production of this plane, this does not mean he is the artist who did this drawing. In the end, all that we really know about this drawing is that it cannot be older than the plane itself, so it was not created before the 1940s. Since we do not know the artist nor when and where it was created and published first, we cannot determine the copyright status of the drawing other than that it is not old enough that it simply must be in the public domain. The file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 12:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- O.K. Precaution counts. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Moegirlpedia.jpg and others
[edit]
Just uploaded a PNG version of the following files:
- File:Moegirlpedia.jpg
- File:Moegirlpedia Japanese.jpg
- File:Qiuwen Baike.jpg
- File:Qiuwen Baike dark.jpg
- File:Ruwiki 2.0 beta.jpg
Ahri.boy (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why this 1984 Japanese work should be in the public domain as claimed by the uploader. The file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 12:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- O.K. precaution counts. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Per the source page at [11] where this was taken from, this article is part of a work that was published 1997–2002 by Bright Star Publishing, probably some kind of loose-leaf collection. I don't see why this article should be in the public domain as claimed by the uploader, and the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 12:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- O.K. Precaution counts. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
According to the original nominator, "source is Twitter. Anyways, all phhots published in Argentina after March 1989 are copyrighted in the US due to the Berne convention".
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
ファイル投稿者本人による削除申請 Uechaaaaaa (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: CC licenses are not revocable. Too late for courtesy deletion either. --Yasu (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
ファイル投稿者本人による削除申請 Uechaaaaaa (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: CC licenses are not revocable. Too late for courtesy deletion either. --Yasu (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
アップロード者本人による削除依頼 Uechaaaaaa (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Likely copyvio; user account name matches the company name, but unclear if a copyright release actually exists. Ich (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Bogus PD claim (70 pma for an unknown author), random date of creation, missing date of first publication to meet COM:Russia 188.123.231.76 10:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Question why would the PD claim be bogus here? The depicted guy died in 1943, which means that the photo was taken prior to 1943. It's been more than 70 years. Nakonana (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Because an unknown author couldn’t have been died 70 years ago, as you claim. No matter when the depicted person died, the matter is when the photographer did. No matter the photo was taken, you must give evidence that this was first published more then 70 years ago, see COM:Russia#Durations. --188.123.231.76 19:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
No evidence that the source says this is copyright free or meets any of our licenses Doug Weller (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rudolf Gahlbeck
[edit]According to de:Rudolf Gahlbeck, Gahlbeck lived and worked in Germany and died in 1972. Copyright in Germany lasts until 70 years after the death of the author, so Gahlbeck's work will be in copyright in Germany until 2042. Thus none of his work is eligible to be on Commons under COM:L.
- File:Dompteuse (1928).jpg
- File:Heimwärts (1940).jpg
- File:Mutter (Momentaufnahme).jpg
- File:Rudolf Gahlbeck - Malchower Brücke (um 1943).jpg
- File:Rudolf Gahlbeck - Stadtansicht Malchow.jpg
- File:Willibald Kaehler.JPG
- File:Zeitgötzen (um 1930).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}
bjh21 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have written to the rights holders (the local museum) to obtain appropriate permission to use the images. Stay tuned. Sumwiki (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Needed permissions are submitted by it‘s copyright holder with Ticket#2024061810003274 to permissions-de@wikimedia.org. Awaiting further processing. Sumwiki (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination sadly, can be undeleted with VRT. --Gbawden (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Marcelin Flandrin est mort le 18 juin 1957 (mort il y a 67 ans : extinction des droits après 70 ans ou moins ?) Jacques Ballieu (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Per [12], Time Magazine did renew its editions starting in 1934 and its articles starting in 1940. So this 1941 US magazine cover should still be copyrighted in the US, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2037. Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hallo Rosenzweig, das ist sicher richtig, aber das Bild befindet sich auch hier: https://www.loc.gov/item/99472754/ Deshalb dachte ich dass man es in Wikimedia hochladen könnte. Gruß Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Siehe [13]: “Drawings and illustrations by Arthur Szyk are protected by copyright.” --Rosenzweig τ 06:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"Copy from an art magazine in the early 1930s" is not a sufficient source to assume that this (probably German) photograph is in the public domain as claimed by the uploader. The photo might well still be protected in both Germany and the US, and the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 12:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Per [14], this was taken from a nude art photo book published in 1938 in Berlin. [15] and other sites show the numbered list of photographers which was a part of this work. I couldn't find out which plate number this photograph is, but as de:Willy Zielke (1902–1989) is listed among the photographers, the dune setting makes me suspect that this photo (and others in the book) might have been taken by him when he was filming nude or semi-nude athletes on the Baltic sea coast for Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia film in 1936. Publication in 1938 means the photo is definitely still protected in the US until the end of 2033, and as Ziehlke died in 1989, his works are still protected in Germany until the end of 2059. Some other photographers in the list also died less than 70 years ago (Heinz von Perckhammer in 1965, Lala Aufsberg in 1976, Kurt Wendler in 1980, Heinz Hajek-Halke in 1983, Trude Fleischmann in 1990), so even if the photo is not by Zielke it's likely still copyrighted in Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Rosenzweig,
- thanks for the research. This copy was taken together with: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Schultze-Naumburg#/media/Datei:Zitat_aus_%22Kunst_und_Rasse%22.jpg from a book. Since I don´t remember it´s title and no photographer is indicated, the file might be deleted because of precautionary principles. Best Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per [16] it's plate #2 by Heinz von Perckhammer, so the file can be restored in 2036. --Rosenzweig τ 09:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Photo published in Argentina in 1994. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is a copyvio. 185.172.241.184 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
poster, de minimis does not apply HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely own works, contain calligraphy, appear to be copied from other sites from sizes, qualities and filenames.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 06:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 01:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cinémathèque française
[edit]France does not allow commercial Freedom of Panorama. The work author of 51, rue de Bercy was architect w:en:Frank Gehry. These commercially-licensed images infringe architectural copyrights.
- File:Cinémathèque française - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cinémathèque française Mars 2022.jpg
- File:Façade of the Cinémathèque Française.jpg
- File:Front of the Cinémathèque Française.jpg
- File:Parc de Bercy @ Paris (27734188676).jpg
- File:Paris - Cinémathèque Française (27801718906).jpg
- File:Paris - Cinémathèque Française (27801739016).jpg
- File:Paris - Cinémathèque Française (27835964935).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}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Grave of Julio Jaramillo
[edit]No FoP in Ecuador, artist Evelio Tandazo died in 2022
- File:Julio Jaramillo.jpg
- File:Monumento a Julio Jaramillo (23211657480).jpg
- File:Monumento a Julio Jaramillo Laurido (23139446739).jpg
- File:Tumba de Julio Jaramillo.jpg
- File:Vista general de monumento a Julio Jaramillo (23211678650).jpg
- File:Vista posterior de monumento a Julio Jaramillo (23507390955).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}
A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why these photos should be deleted? I remember I participated in a Wiki Loves Cemetery, and we visit the General Cemetery from Guayaquil, my native city. In this cemetery we have famous people buried there and that was the idea, taking pictures of our famous characters, and I took these pictures. Is there any issue with them? Mikaelashamrock (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mikaelashamrock the Ecuadorian copyright law does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture, visual arts and other works in public areas still under their designers' copyrights. See COM:FOP Ecuador. The revision of the copyright law in 2016 restricted Freedom of Panorama, retroactively. You are free to take photos but you cannot legally license your photos under commercial Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, like an Ecuadorian proud of our heritage I understand that copyright law. Like you said, "doesn't allow commercial uses of images of... blah blah blah". So according to you, an image I took with my cellphone for a Wiki Loves Cemetery almost 10 years ago (with other people that participated in that event), organized by Wikimedistas del Ecuador, it's under commercial use? I knew that any image that I, as Wikipedia user, took and uploaded without editing, could be added to Wikimedia Commons so we can illustrate our participation of this official event meta or description from Wikimedistas del Ecuador. Like I said before, the idea of the event was to take pictures of famous characters of our history that are buried in our local cemetery. It wasn't focused on the sculptor but in the artist and his grave (in this case, Julio Jaramillo). If you or any other editor have any issue with the pictures users take during events, I consider Wikimedia Foundations should clear this topic about what we can photograph and what no Mikaelashamrock (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ps. Please, enlighten me, so I can tell the rest of the group of Wikimedistas del Ecuador that from now on we can't take pictures in our events, especially if they are in our cemetery, because our photos taken by us with our cellphones are not from us. Thanks Mikaelashamrock (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mikaelashamrock according to COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. The only allowed licenses mandate unrestricted commercial reuses (like in postcards, travel vlogs, advertising materials, or tourism souvenir items), like {{CC-BY-2.0}}, {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}, and {{CC-zero}}. As you see, {{CC-BY-NC-ND}} just redirects to a speedy deletion tag.
- The Ecuadorian Freedom of Panorama — the Article 212(7) of the 2016 Organic Code of Social Economy of Knowledge, Creativity and Innovation – only permits uses of any copyrighted public artwork and architecture only for scientific or educational purposes. Notice that they did not inherit the "dissemination of arts or culture" that was present in the 1998 law's Article 83(f), so it is no longer allowed to freely share the copyrighted cultural and artworks of Ecuador, except for the two purposes (scientific use and/or educational use). Since dissemination of arts or culture is no longer legal, it is not OK to use commercial Creative Commons licensing over images of contemporary works of art and architecture of Ecuador – whose designers or artists are not yet dead for more than 70 years.
- Regarding Wikimedia Foundation, they already cleared this thing a long time ago. From their resolution regarding licensing policy, they explicitly excluded Wikimedia Commons from creating an "exemption doctrine policy" (EDP), which is adopted in many Wikipedias as well as Wikivoyage to allow hosting of images or content that are unfree or under non-commercial licensing. Anything disallowing commercial uses is not-free.
- The only option is for Wikimedistas del Ecuador to file a petition calling for the Ecuadorian government and authorities to liberate Article 212(7) of the law so that free uses of Ecuadorian buildings and monuments still under their designers copyrights are allowed, not restricting to just "scientific or educational purposes" only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mikaelashamrock the Ecuadorian copyright law does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture, visual arts and other works in public areas still under their designers' copyrights. See COM:FOP Ecuador. The revision of the copyright law in 2016 restricted Freedom of Panorama, retroactively. You are free to take photos but you cannot legally license your photos under commercial Creative Commons licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama of 2D works in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source is Twitter. Photo taken in Argentina in 1993. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Blatant copyvio. 185.172.241.184 08:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in Argentina in 1992. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Blatant copyvio. 185.172.241.184 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- File:Gabriel Batistuta Argentina seleccion 1991.jpg
- File:Argentina seleccion 1991 Diego Simeone.jpg
- File:Oscar Ruggeri Argentina seleccion 1991.jpg
Photo published in Argentina in 1993. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Blatant copyvio. 185.172.241.184 08:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Photo published in the Argentine sport magazine El Gráfico in 1991. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. Günther Frager (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Blatant copyvio. 185.172.241.184 08:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama of 2D works in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
(I do apologise for the length of this DR. However, this template is based on an alleged subtle flaw in a national legislator's transposition act for a EU directive and its interplay with the directive and national copyright law. The complexity is in the template.)
The template is factually incorrect. It was authored by a (now indefinitely blocked) Commons user on the basis of one user's extremely far-reaching, personal interpretation of the Austrian transposition act of the EU Term Directive. The user's interpretation is clearly at odds (as he and the creator of the template have both acknowledged) with the corresponding provision in the Term Directive itself (i), clearly at odds with the legislative motives accompanying the draft of the transposition act (ii), and, against this backdrop, is ultimately based on an incomplete interpretation of the Austrian transposition act, disregarding the general need to interpret national provisions in conformity with Community law and in consideration of the lawmaker's intent (iii). Unsurprisingly, no user has ever been able to come up with any support for this interpretation in the literature or in existing case law, and a thorough review of the literature indeed suggests that the interpretation is not shared by a single scholar of Austrian copyright law. To the contrary, it is plainly at odds with a leading treatise on Austrian copyright law (iv). The entire template is the result of original research gone awry. It should have never been created.
Background. The Term Directive (now Directive 2006/116/EC) of July 1, 1995, stipulates that "[t]he rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death". Article 1(1). In order to achieve the directive's goal of harmonising copyright terms, Article 10(2) then provides as follows:
The terms of protection provided for in this Directive shall apply to all works and subject matter which were protected in at least one Member State on the date referred to in paragraph 1 [1 July 1995], pursuant to national provisions on copyright or related rights, or which meet the criteria for protection under [Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property].
In other words, Article 10(2) stipulates "that the harmonized terms of protection apply in all Member States on the condition that the particular work or other subject matter was still protected in at least one Member State of the European Community or in one Contracting State of the European Economic Area on 1 July 1995". Walter/von Lewinski, European Copyright Law, 2010, § 8.10.12.
One obvious implication of this provision is that starting in 1995, a work could be protected until 70 years after the author's death in a Member State even though the work had previously entered the public domain pursuant to that Member State's national laws. In the words of the CJEU:
It is clear from Article 10(2) of the Directive that application of the terms of protection laid down by the Directive may have the effect, in the Member States which had a shorter term of protection under their legislation, of protecting afresh works or subject-matter which had entered the public domain [...] That solution was adopted in order to achieve as rapidly as possible the objective, formulated, in particular, in the second recital in the preamble to the Directive, of harmonising the national laws governing the terms of protection of copyright and related rights and to avoid the situation where rights have expired in some Member States but are protected in others.
— CJEU of 29 June 1999, C-60/98 – Butterfly v. Briciole de Baci, para. 18 et seq.
Austria transposed the Term Directive through a 1996 amendment to the Copyright Act (BGBl 151/1996).
Rationale for the creation of this template. Article VIII(2) of the 1996 amendment stipulates:
In as far as this Federal Law provides for a prolongation of the term of protection, it shall apply to works produced, recitations and performances given, photos taken and broadcasts effected before April 1st, 1996:
1. for which the term of protection has not expired on July 1st 1995 according to the regulations in force so far, or
2. which are protected in a Member State of the European Economic Area and for which the protection period in this Member State has not expired on July 1st, 1995.
Template creator observes that "this Federal Law" refers to the transposition act. They further observe that the transposition act does not in itself provide for a prolongation of the term of protection for photographic (and, in fact, most kinds of) works. (This is because Austria had already extended their term of protection to 70 years in the 1970s. However, works that had entered the public domain before did not benefit from that extension.) Because the transposition act does not extend the term of protection for works, they conclude that photographic works were therefore not subject to a revival of protection in 1996. Finally, template creator observes, uncontested, that photographic works published prior to 1932, having never benefited from the 70-year term eventually introduced by the national legislator, had already fallen into the public domain under Austrian law long before 1995.
(i) The claim in the template is clearly at odds with the Term Directive. It is straightforward to see that the Term Directive provides otherwise, stating that the 70-year term "shall apply to all works and subject matter which were protected in at least one Member State [on 1 July 1995]". Article 10(2). Under template creator's view, the Austrian lawmaker limited this fundamental stipulation in the Term Directive to the few categories of works and related subject matter for which the Austrian transposition act itself introduced longer periods of protection. As far as photographs are concerned, what this template claims is that, say, a photograph from 1930 can under no circumstances benefit from the 70-year term even though it was most definitely protected in another Member State on 1 July 1995. (This would, in itself, be a rather absurd result: The authors of works or related subject matter whose term of protection had to be extended as a result of new EU requirements would have received an additional treat from the national legislator, wheareas the authors of works or related subject matter that the national legislator itself had previously deemed worthy of a longer period of protection would have been denied it.)
(ii) The claim in the template is clearly at odds with the motives of the legislator. In the motives accompanying the (eventually adopted) draft of the transposition act, the Austrian government notes that "Article VIII(2)(2) and Article IX(1)(2) correspond to [entsprechen] Art. 10(2) of the Directive, which provides that the term of protection as provided in the Directive is to be applied to all works or subject matter which were protected, as of 1 July 1995, in at least one Member State on the basis of its national provisions in the area of copyright law or related rights" (emphasis added). 3 der Beilagen XX. GP, p. 33. It is evident from this comments that by no means was the intent underlying Article VIII(2)(2) to restore protection only for the small number of works for which the transposition act itself provides a longer term of protection. Rather, the government meant to fully comply with Article 10(2) of the Term Directive and extend this approach to all works and subject matter within the scope of the Copyright Act.
(iii) The claim in the template is irreconcilable with established rules of statuatory interpretation. Template creator's justification for their interpretation of the unfortunately worded Article VIII(2)(2) of the transposition act is devoid of any discussion of the fact that, under the jurisprudence of the Austrian Supreme Court, national provisions must be interpreted in conformity with Community law. "National courts have to interpret national law in light of the wording and the intent of a Directive." OGH of 31 August 2010, 4 Ob 120/10s = MR 2010, 392, 396 (note Walter) = ÖBl 2011, 38, 40 – Thermenhotel L II. "When interpreting national provisions, courts have to obey the wording and the intent of the directives to the greatest extent possible." OGH of 2 September 2015, 7 Ob 107/15h – Spätrücktritt in der Lebensversicherung ("Marleasing formula", cf. CJEU of 13 November 1990 – Marleasing SA v. La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA). For purposes of interpreting national law in light of Community law, "the wording of a norm is not an uncrossable line; rather, what matters is the purpose of the norm. The application, required by the CJEU, of all methods of interpretation of national law means that a development of the law by the judiciary [Rechtsfortbildung] beyond the wording of the law may be necessary." OGH of 15 February 2011, 4 Ob 208/10g – Fußballer des Jahres IV. "A contradiction between national law and a directive must be avoided if at all possible." OGH of 16 December 2014, 4 Ob 209/14k.
Here, even following template creator's reading of Article VIII(2)(2) of the transposition act (which ignores the motives of the legislator), it is straightforward to see that Austrian law can be interpreted in conformity with Community law. After all, nothing in the transposition act or the Copyright Act (or, for that matter, any other provision in Austrian law) directly conflicts with Article 10(2) of the Term Directive. Rather, even if template creator's reading of the provision is to be followed, the plain wording of Austrian law would simply be incomplete, in that it would only provide for the revival of protection of some but not all kinds of works for which this was required by the European lawmaker. Therefore, no contra legem reading of Austrian law would be necessary to reconcile it with the requirements of the Term Directive's Article 10(2). At the same time, it follows the established jurisprudence of the Austrian Supreme Court that an unintended gap [planwidrige Regelungslücke] in a national law can be filled by the courts. See, OGH of 15 February 2011, 4 Ob 208/10g – Fußballer des Jahres IV.
(iv) The claim in the template has no support whatsoever in existing case law or the literature. To the contrary, it is refuted by at least one leading commentator on Austrian copyright law. Dokalik in Kucsko/Handig, urheber.recht, 2nd ed. 2017, §§ 101–116, para. 7, notes: "The extension of the term of protection pursuant to Art. VIII(2) of the 1996 amendment applies to the works created, speeches and performances performed, photographs created and radio programmes broadcast prior to April 1, 1996, whose term of protection, under the previous provisions, had not expired by July 1, 1995, or that are protected in a member state of the European Economic Area and whose term of protection in said member state had not yet expired on July 1, 1995."
It is clear from this that, according to Dokalik, a restoration of a work's copyright protection does not depend on whether the implementation act extended the term of protection or not. What matters is that the the work was protected in a Member State on July 1, 1995.
Conclusion. It follows that the template should be removed as a licensing option. The implication of template creator's view, shared by nobody in the legal world, is that Austria has not only failed to properly transpose the Term Directive but that there is in addition no way for courts to interpret Austrian law in a way compatible with the directive. In order for this template to work, Austria must be in breach of EU law, meaning that a rights owner could potentially sue the Austrian government if people use their {PD-Austria-1932}-tagged image (cf., Zöchling-Jud, Richtlinienkonforme Interpretation am Beispiel der Leerkassettenvergütung, Medien und Recht 34(1), 2016, pp. 26 et seq.). One does not have to be an expert on EU law to realise that the interpretation advanced in this template would, if correct, be nothing short of a legal sensation.
Wikimedia Commons is not the proper venue for adventurous interpretations of the law (Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle). Throughout the EU, it is assumed that with the transposition of the Term Directive, one can safely assume that a work is protected until 70 years after the death of the author if it was protected in any one Member State on July 1st, 1995. Austria should be treated no differently than all the other Member States. — Pajz (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment I've posted a link to this discussion on Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Question: if this is deleted, what happens to files tagged with it? I've tagged several files with this in the past, and with some of them there might be other reasons why they are PD, and that is probably also true for other people's files. Is there a good way to notify everyone with a file tagged with this of this discussion? Tokfo (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- If any qualify for {{PD-anon-70-EU}} (or any other valid tag), that can be used instead. It's never wrong to add multiple tags, if they all apply -- that can help users in third other countries where one particular tag may not be valid, but a second tag could be. And of course for situations like this, which are hopefully rare (but can happen with law changes too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There is one case where an EU country's law did not fully implement the directive -- I believe Romania made their move to 70pma non-retroactive, which was OK at the time of the law, but they have since joined the EU and did not change it. That however, is backed up by some research and court decisions as well. Going the other way, I believe the UK did not implement Article 1(4) of the directive, which may have helped made some PD statuses more clear on certain works published anonymously, but we do go with the actual law in a country in that case -- as the EU directive does not have a direct effect, if my understanding is correct, but rather just the implementation in the national law. And it would not be the first time that some "unfortunate wording" in a law ended up with a result somewhat different than the legislator's intent. That all said, I would highly prefer such tags (ones at odds with EU directive) to be backed up by at least some outside legal opinions, and preferably a court case confirming the interpretation, as I mentioned on the talk page. As a non-Austrian though, I was not about to nominate the tag for deletion ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. As Carl Lindberg says, multilicensing is not a issue, but this template is potentially damaging to Commons so COM:PCP says delete it. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment An aside, but template seems to have been used as a catch-all for pre-1932 Austrian works. Some paintings, drawings and text got into the category when template states to only cover photographs. Even if this template is kept, this template needed some curation badly. Abzeronow (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Unless I misunderstood this case, it seems to imply that the 1993 CE restored all copyrights of artistic works, irrespective of the works themselves being protected by 1 July 1995. This seems to be an abusive and wrong interpretation of that Directive, and it has already been tested on court in 2016, with the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that Directive 93/98/EEC harmonizing the term of protection of copyright in the EU does not have the effect of restoring or reviving rights that, prior to its entry into force (1 July 1995), were for any reason in the public domain in all the EU Member States. They further ruled that in that regard, it is irrelevant whether the loss of rights prior to that date was due to application of a national law requiring formalities that do not comply with the Berne Convention in order to maintain the rights in a work.. If you answer to this comment, and speacially if I misunderstood something here, please ping me as I'm very interested in this discussion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, hi, yes, this is a misunderstanding. What I'm saying - and that is perfectly in line with Montis - is that if the work was protected in any one member state on 1 July 1995, then copyright in a member state where it was no longer protected on 1 July 1995 was restored/revived (to 70 years pma). Indeed, as the CJEU pointed out in Montis, if the work had been in the public domain in *all* member states on 1 July 1995, then there would be no restoration/revival of copyrights anywhere. But what the template here claims is something entirely different: The template claims that for photographic works it doesn't at all matter if the work was protected on 1 July 1995 in other member states because due to a flaw in the Austrian transposition law, Austria would under no circumstances restore copyright in these works. And that is clearly not what the Term Directive says. Does that clarify it? Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pajz: Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still confused. Isn't this a general tag about photos published in Austria? I find it very odd that a photo published in 1930 in Austria, which have entered the Public Domain in Austria in 1950 according to the country own laws, would still have a copyright elsewhere in 1995. What am I failing to understand here?-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, well, the Term Directive stipulated a term of protection of 70 years pma for (photographic and other) works. It then said that every Member State had to accord this term to all works that were protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State. Meaning that the work may well have been out of protection in Austria between 1950 and 1995, but as long as it was protected in one other Member State in 1995, Austria had to grant it protection for 70 years pma starting in 1995. Let me give you an illustration of this point: A few years ago, the Hamburg Appeals Court had to deal with the following case: Plaintiff took a photo of a submarine in 1941 (first published in 1943). Defendant reproduced this photo on the front cover of a book without permission. The Court sided with the defendant in finding that the work had entered the public domain under German law in 1968 because the term of protection at that time was 25 years following the first publication. However, the Court then found that owing to the transposition of the Term Directive, protection was restored on 1 July 1995 to 70 years pma. The reason for that was that the Court found the work was protected in Spain on 1 July 1995, which, since 1879, granted 80 years pma protection to photographers. The Court then analysed the development of international law between Spain and Germany, eventually finding that due to the principle of non-discrimination in the EU, Spain had to grant the same protection to a German photographer. Therefore, the Court concluded that on 1 July 1995, the work was protected at least in Spain and that therefore, Germany had to protect it for 70 years pma thenceforward. (OLG Hamburg, March 3, 2004, 5 U 159/03 = ZUM-RD 2004, 303 - U-Boot-Foto, full text available on Wikisource). Best, — Pajz (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pajz: I see. It is an old sentence by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, which seems to be some first or second instance regional court, recalling the old and much used Phill Collins case, but ignoring all that is written there. The non-discriminatory principle was never supposed to be used in such an abusive way, and that is quite clear from the Phil Collins case they use to justify such an odd court sentence. In any case, this is directly contradicted by the 2016 EU court sentence, namely: "Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995.". Given the blatant differential of authority (and dates) between the 2003 Hamburg court decision, and the one from the Court of Justice of the European Union (2016), I don't see any reason at all to use Hamburg as a reference and ignore the EU own court on its own maters. At best it could be used for Germany, and stop there. Therefore, I reinforce my opinion of Keep for this license, as it seems to be perfectly OK, and far from anything that would grant the use of the Precautionary Principle.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, couldn't you be more precise and identify the exact claim it is in this DR that you take issue with? I'm really not following your train of thought here. (1) Are you saying that the Term Directive only extended copyright protection to 70 years pma in Member States where the work was still protected on July 1, 1995? (2) And/Or are you saying that if a work entered the public domain in Member State A in say, 1970, it definitely was not protected anymore in Member State B on July 1, 1995? If you could answer these questions, I think it would be for the benefit of this discussion. — Pajz (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC) (Also, just for the record: I gave you an example decision illustrating a point that I felt you were asking about. You framing it now as if what I said rested on the decision, is unjustified, factually incorrect and generally referred to as a cheap rhetorical trick.)
- @Pajz: It's not me, but the EU court in the mentioned sentence, that says precisely that: "Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995." It seems clear that the 2003 Hamburg court decision was an abusive interpretation of the 1993 EC directive, which would never pass an EU court (at least today), as it is directly contradicted by that 2016 sentence. As for your questions: (1) That 2016 EU court sentence says: Yes, if the work was previously protected by national legislation of the country, and that protection was already extinguished (for whatever reason, it does not matter). (2) See (1).-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, that's very helpful. So you are saying that the Term Directive only extended copyright protection to 70 years pma in Member States where the work was still protected on July 1, 1995. However, aside from the wording of Art. 10(2) not containing any such limitation, the CJEU has also repeatedly told us that this is not the case. In Butterly, it told us that "[i]t is clear from Article 10(2) of the Directive that application of the terms of protection laid down by the Directive may have the effect, in the Member States which had a shorter term of protection under their legislation, of protecting afresh works or subject-matter which had entered the public domain". In Sony/Falcon, it even told us that the term of protection stipulated in the Directive is "also applicable, pursuant to Article 10(2) thereof, where the subject‑matter at issue has at no time been protected in the Member State in which the protection is sought", importantly noting that "according to the wording of Article 10(2), the first alternative requirement under that provision concerns the prior existence of protection for the subject‑matter at issue in at least one Member State. That provision does not require that Member State to be the State in which the protection for which Directive 2006/116 provides is sought." Supreme Courts across Europe have followed the CJEU's jurisprudence (e.g., German Federal Supreme Court of 7 October 2009, I ZR 80/04 - Tonträger aus Drittstaaten II). Leading treatises on European copyright law also agree with this interpretation. (See, e.g., Stamatoudi/Torremans, EU Copyright Law, 2014, para. 8.56: "[W]here copyright in a work had expired in one or some Member States, it will revive in every EU country (including those Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004) if it was still protected in another Member State on 1 July 1995."; Angelopoulos in Dreier/Hugenholtz, Concise European Copyright Law, 2nd ed. 2016: "As a consequence of the non-discrimination rule, a work that received protection in a country with a longer term of protection prior to the adoption of the Term Directive, such as Germany, which had a 70-year pma rule, will under the new rules also be protected in Member States which granted only 50 years pma, even if that protection had already expired in those Member States.") What you are relying on in Montis is a sentence taken out of context. The context becomes quite clear from the decision's reasoning, the conclusion of which can be found in para. 37: "It must therefore be held that the first condition laid down in Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation, but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995 and which is not protected in the territory of any other Member State." The premise of the judgement is of course that the subject matter was not protected in any other Member State, and the question presented was answered on that basis. — Pajz (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pajz: It's not me, but the EU court in the mentioned sentence, that says precisely that: "Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995." It seems clear that the 2003 Hamburg court decision was an abusive interpretation of the 1993 EC directive, which would never pass an EU court (at least today), as it is directly contradicted by that 2016 sentence. As for your questions: (1) That 2016 EU court sentence says: Yes, if the work was previously protected by national legislation of the country, and that protection was already extinguished (for whatever reason, it does not matter). (2) See (1).-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, couldn't you be more precise and identify the exact claim it is in this DR that you take issue with? I'm really not following your train of thought here. (1) Are you saying that the Term Directive only extended copyright protection to 70 years pma in Member States where the work was still protected on July 1, 1995? (2) And/Or are you saying that if a work entered the public domain in Member State A in say, 1970, it definitely was not protected anymore in Member State B on July 1, 1995? If you could answer these questions, I think it would be for the benefit of this discussion. — Pajz (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC) (Also, just for the record: I gave you an example decision illustrating a point that I felt you were asking about. You framing it now as if what I said rested on the decision, is unjustified, factually incorrect and generally referred to as a cheap rhetorical trick.)
- @Pajz: I see. It is an old sentence by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, which seems to be some first or second instance regional court, recalling the old and much used Phill Collins case, but ignoring all that is written there. The non-discriminatory principle was never supposed to be used in such an abusive way, and that is quite clear from the Phil Collins case they use to justify such an odd court sentence. In any case, this is directly contradicted by the 2016 EU court sentence, namely: "Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995.". Given the blatant differential of authority (and dates) between the 2003 Hamburg court decision, and the one from the Court of Justice of the European Union (2016), I don't see any reason at all to use Hamburg as a reference and ignore the EU own court on its own maters. At best it could be used for Germany, and stop there. Therefore, I reinforce my opinion of
- DarwIn, well, the Term Directive stipulated a term of protection of 70 years pma for (photographic and other) works. It then said that every Member State had to accord this term to all works that were protected on 1 July 1995 in at least one Member State. Meaning that the work may well have been out of protection in Austria between 1950 and 1995, but as long as it was protected in one other Member State in 1995, Austria had to grant it protection for 70 years pma starting in 1995. Let me give you an illustration of this point: A few years ago, the Hamburg Appeals Court had to deal with the following case: Plaintiff took a photo of a submarine in 1941 (first published in 1943). Defendant reproduced this photo on the front cover of a book without permission. The Court sided with the defendant in finding that the work had entered the public domain under German law in 1968 because the term of protection at that time was 25 years following the first publication. However, the Court then found that owing to the transposition of the Term Directive, protection was restored on 1 July 1995 to 70 years pma. The reason for that was that the Court found the work was protected in Spain on 1 July 1995, which, since 1879, granted 80 years pma protection to photographers. The Court then analysed the development of international law between Spain and Germany, eventually finding that due to the principle of non-discrimination in the EU, Spain had to grant the same protection to a German photographer. Therefore, the Court concluded that on 1 July 1995, the work was protected at least in Spain and that therefore, Germany had to protect it for 70 years pma thenceforward. (OLG Hamburg, March 3, 2004, 5 U 159/03 = ZUM-RD 2004, 303 - U-Boot-Foto, full text available on Wikisource). Best, — Pajz (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pajz: Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still confused. Isn't this a general tag about photos published in Austria? I find it very odd that a photo published in 1930 in Austria, which have entered the Public Domain in Austria in 1950 according to the country own laws, would still have a copyright elsewhere in 1995. What am I failing to understand here?-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- DarwIn, hi, yes, this is a misunderstanding. What I'm saying - and that is perfectly in line with Montis - is that if the work was protected in any one member state on 1 July 1995, then copyright in a member state where it was no longer protected on 1 July 1995 was restored/revived (to 70 years pma). Indeed, as the CJEU pointed out in Montis, if the work had been in the public domain in *all* member states on 1 July 1995, then there would be no restoration/revival of copyrights anywhere. But what the template here claims is something entirely different: The template claims that for photographic works it doesn't at all matter if the work was protected on 1 July 1995 in other member states because due to a flaw in the Austrian transposition law, Austria would under no circumstances restore copyright in these works. And that is clearly not what the Term Directive says. Does that clarify it? Best, — Pajz (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- In reading the 2016 ruling, it appears that both parties agreed that the works in question were not protected in any Member State in 1995, and the court therefore assumed that was true, and thus considered Article 10(2) satisfied. The ruling still states the principle that a work could be protected in any Member State and thus be revived; the conclusion though does seem to state something else (though it could be in the narrow situation where there was a law which extinguished copyright due to lack of formality, not normal expiration). Otherwise, it is at complete odds with the 2009 EUCJ ruling in Sony. They simply decided that these works were not protected in any Member State in 1995, per the agreement of both parties (and I think the plaintiff tried to argue it later, but the Netherlands court disallowed that because it was too late to bring the argument). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This would make about 1500 images up to (speedy) deletion - see here. --JuTa 10:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- They probably should not be speedied, as many may also be {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, and we'd have to check that (or other tags which could apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- The number that would have to be speedied is far less than 1500. More in the neighborhood of 200 as most of the files that would be affected are by Madame d'Ora/Dora Kallmus or Georg Fayer Have gotten as far as the S part of the category in checking these files, a lot of these are also {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Abzeronow (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: "In reading the 2016 ruling, it appears that both parties agreed that the works in question were not protected in any Member State in 1995, and the court therefore assumed that was true, and thus considered Article 10(2) satisfied." I can't find any evidence of such an agreement, where have you seen it? To me, it continues seeming quite clear that the court is saying that when copyright existed in the national legislation and was extinguished, it must not be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: Sorry, I documented that more in the parallel discussion. The ruling states:
- 31. At the outset, it must be recalled that Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98 provides that the terms of protection provided for in that directive are to apply to all works and subject matter which, on the date referred to in Article 13(1) of that directive, namely 1 July 1995, are either protected in at least one Member State, pursuant to provisions of national law on copyright or related rights, or, alternatively, meet the criteria for protection under Directive 92/100.
- 32. As regards the first of those conditions, it is apparent from the file before the Court, and as the Advocate General stated in point 63 of his Opinion, that, on the one hand, the works at issue in the main proceedings had initially been protected in the Member State in which protection is sought, but that that protection was thereafter extinguished, prior to 1 July 1995, and, on the other, it must be held that, on that date, those works were not protected in any other Member State.
- So the CJEU states and appears to agree with the principle that any work which was protected in *any* member state in July 1995 had its copyright restored. But, by reference of "point 63 of his [Advocate General's] opinion", they say they must hold that the works in question were not protected in any member state. So, going to the Opinion of the Advocate General:
- 62. However, in reply to a question posed at the hearing as to whether the chairs were protected by copyright in any Member State (since in the documentation presented the validity of those rights in Germany appeared to be a matter of contention), both Montis and Goossens bluntly answered ‘no’.
- 63. We must assume therefore, as a proven fact, that on 1 July 1995 the Charly and Chaplin chairs lacked copyright protection in any State of the European Union. Consequently, Montis cannot invoke the retroactive effect of Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, relying on the first alternative requirement which triggers it.
- There is a footnote on that point 63:
- According to Montis, the fact that proof of such validity in Germany could have been produced in the context of another action involving a third party changes nothing, since the present preliminary-ruling proceedings are a procedural issue within the dispute pending before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) in which it is not now appropriate to discuss the facts or produce fresh evidence.
- That appears to me that they agree with the Opinion and ruled based on that, which was that since both parties agreed that the works in question were not protected in any Member State, the court had to accept that and move on to other arguments. The footnote also references the fact that the lower court had disallowed the retroactive effect argument on procedural grounds, as Montis brought that argument too late to be considered in the case, and I guess the CJEU declined to consider it as well since they are answering questions as part of the lower court's proceeding. The plaintiff at that point was maintaining that the works *should* have been protected due to the extinguishing law being illegal, but the core of the CJEU ruling seems to be that the law was not illegal, thus the works were in fact extinguished and not protected in that country in July 1995 -- which I would agree with -- but does not speak to our question of whether a work which was protected elsewhere was restored in Portugal (or any other EU country). It seems to me the court sidestepped that question, and the ruling is relatively narrow. Even if it is a bit wider, it probably only really applies to applied art specifically, since that protection was more nebulous -- the Berne Convention did not mandate copyright protection for it, so countries before the EU directive had much wider latitude to protecting it with copyright or not, so it's possible that applied art was not protected by copyright in a more countries than usual in July 1995 (it sounds like there was a question on Germany, at the very least). I would think there would be much less question on whether other types of works were protected by copyright in 1995. The conclusion of the ruling sounds more expansive, but they perhaps simply meant that any such extinguishing laws were valid, and therefore if a work was not protected in any Member State due to them, then the works were not restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Pajz: "The premise of the judgement is of course that the subject matter was not protected in any other Member State, and the question presented was answered on that basis" That's certainly not possible that applied arts where not protected in any other Member State by 1995. I can't see how that interpretation would make any sense. Can you please explain?-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not an interpretation. The CJEU explicitely states that in the very judgement you're discussing: "As regards the first of those conditions, it is apparent from the file before the Court, and as the Advocate General stated in point 63 of his Opinion, that, on the one hand, the works at issue in the main proceedings had initially been protected in the Member State in which protection is sought, but that that protection was thereafter extinguished, prior to 1 July 1995, and, on the other, it must be held that, on that date, those works were not protected in any other Member State." ¶ 32. The CJEU then uses this fact of the case to arrive at the conclusion that you are taking out of context here. This can be gleaned from ¶ 37: "It must therefore be held that the first condition laid down in Article 10(2) of Directive 93/98, read together with Article 13(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation, but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995 and which is not protected in the territory of any other Member State." The "and ..." part would not have made any sense whatsoever had the CJEU assumed that Art. 10(2) can, as you claim, never restore copyright protection in a country where it had previously expired under national law. That is just not what the CJEU says, and therefore the Montis decision is entirely consistent with the Court's Butterfly decision a few years earlier: "It is clear from Article 10(2) of the Directive that application of the terms of protection laid down by the Directive may have the effect, in the Member States which had a shorter term of protection under their legislation, of protecting afresh works or subject-matter which had entered the public domain." Indeed. And for that to happen, the work needs to be protected, on 1 July 1995, in at least one Member State. That is exactly was not the case in Montis. — Pajz (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I'm talking only as a simple user who has just skimmed through everything said before and has not dealt with the legal details. I do not attack anyone involved in the discussion personally, but criticize the whole chaotic system of Commons and Wikipedia. I have known this license for several years. I was glad she gave me the opportunity to upload many interesting photos to commons, in my opinion. I have always tried to work as accurately as possible and, for example, to pay attention to the often disregarded desire for a multilingual description. These photos of Fayer or d'Ora cost me a lot of time. I trusted in the correctness of using this license because I got to know it in the context of a deletion discussion edited by two administrators (sysops).
Now suddenly someone comes up with the idea that this is not true. Where is the legal security for users? What are the conditions when years of existing rules no longer apply overnight? In the legal field, the retroactivity of laws is very restrictive. Everyone should generally be able to trust that his lawful actions will not be detrimental later on. How am I supposed to work here if I do not know if it's ok tomorrow or was it a waste of time, because the work was in vain and files are deleted from some legal niggles. If the files uploaded by me under this license should be deleted, everyone can guess what opinion I have about it ... Working in such a mess in the future, where the right hand does not know what the left does, would be just crazy but not for me anymore. -- Walter Anton (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
_um_1930.jpg){kind=link}
_um_1930.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=121521766){kind=link}
- Delete per nom and Abzeronow. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Delete Per nomination and further explanation by Pajz (having "known this license for several years" is certainly not a reason to keep it if it turns out to be wrong). However, each of the 1511 images currently using this template might be in the public domain for other reasons. Actually, the first image I randomly clicked on seems to be fine: File:Erzherzoginnen Elisabeth Franziska und Hedwig.jpg - it's a 1912 photo by Carl Pietzner who died in 1927, so it's correctly using {{PD-old-auto-1923|1927}} and in the public domain both in Austria and in the US. In this case, the public domain claim doesn't rely on {{PD-Austria-1932}} which just can be removed. So I would suggest not speedily deleting the images, but changing PD-Austria-1932 into a warning template that says that the files need to be individually checked for their copyright status and deleted if no other reason for a PD claim can be found. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
TDLR: Kept for now, but must be deleted when files have been checked.
First of all, a big "thank you" to Pajz for the very detailed analysis of the situation. The situation of files that fell under this provision in Austria prior to 1995-07-01 and were still under copyright on that date in another EU country (for example, because they were published elsewhere) is undoubtedly clear: They fell back under protection in Austria. It's my understanding that the main confusion is whether Austrian files that did not have an obvious separate copyright in other European countries still have to considered copyrighted in those countries at 1995-07-01. In my opinion, Pajz gave enough evidence to at least seriously consider that this is the case. The ruling by the EU Court of Justice mentioned by Darwin seems to contradict this, but there is a lot of doubt on the circumstances of the ruling and whether it applies to our situation (especially cast by Carl Lindberg's analysis). Therefore, I believe we can not keep this license template per the Precautionary Principle.
I marked {{PD-Austria-1932}} as invalid, added an explanation of the situation to Category:PD Austria 1932 and added the category to Category:Commons backlog. All files need to be checked. If another license applies to them, this template should be removed and the file can be kept. Otherwise the files need to be deleted, but this should be done via a regular deletion request and in thematic batches (for example by author or source) that can easily be handled. When not files are left with {{PD-Austria-1932}}, the template can be speedy deleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Obsolete and invalid template, which was kept conditionally. Last discussion showed that Austrian photographs taken until 1932 are PD only in the US. Now there are no images with this template, so it's time to delete it. Michalg95 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eh. It is no longer a licensing template. It may be of use to make it more clear when trying to use it, rather than have someone try to recreate it, or if someone tries to import a file from en-wiki using the en:Template:PD-Austria template (unsure if that gets mapped to this one or not). I guess the question is a mistake less likely with the template deleted, or existing with the error message and instructions on how to fix it. I guess at the very least it should be removed from any licensing tag categories that make it seem OK, but I could see deletion as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Unused template, as above. 185.172.241.184 09:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Abzeronow. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 15:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
More extensive license review needed.
The metadata claims "OCS ALVAREZ" as the author and "ACME INNOVATIVES 2012" as the copyright holder. This portrait may be related to the case at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-04#File:Gomez-l.jpg, a declined undeletion request concerning a deleted image of a portrait of a Congresswoman. Ocs Alvarez is an apparent commercial photographer whose outfit is Acme Innovatives. According to a part of the response from the House of Representatives received by the undeletion requester for a congresswoman's portrait, many of the recent portraits of representatives "were taken by Ocs Alvarez who was hired by our Institutional Information and Design Service (IIDS) to do the photoshoots for the last three years" (as of 2022). From Alvarez's website, the Philippine House of Representatives is one of his clients. Note that he refers to HoR as his client, not his employer!
This image of a congressman, therefore, may not be eligible for {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} unless more info on copyright transfer or employment terms to Alvarez is determined. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: The other photo seems unrelated. We need VRT for this photo. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. This image was probably taken from this youtube video. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per [17], Collier’s did renew its editions starting in 1931 and its articles starting in 1929. So this 1942 US magazine cover should still be copyrighted in the US, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2038. Rosenzweig τ 12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
![12:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/06/15#c-Rosenzweig-20240615124200-File:"Murder_Incorporated",_Arthur_Szyk_(1894-1951).jpg){kind=link}
- Hallo Rosenzweigh,
- weil die Veröffentlichung vom DHM, Berlin (LEMOLeMO Objekt - "Collier", 1942 (dhm.de) genehmigt wurde, wäre es dann möglich das Titelbild auf WIKIPEDIA hochzuladen? Gruß Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Szyk ist vor über 70 Jahren gestorben, das Bild ist darum in Deutschland (und auch in Österreich und der Schweiz) gemeinfrei. Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia würde es also akzeptieren. Das gilt auch für die anderen Bilder von Szyk. Wg. US-Urheberrecht geht es hier (Commons) erst 95 +1 Jahre nach Veröffentlichung. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 06:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It makes no sense to delete or revise historically relevant data, purely in the interests of current political, financial, (or "woke") sensitivities.
This is a war poster of it's era, reflecting true propaganda sentiment, no different from what we experience today, via-a-vis Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Belarus, in Western Europe and in the United States.
It is both historically accurate and relevant in it's context of historical time.
It's purpose was to fuel domestic hatreds (and other sentiments) during a period of intense global conflict where recruitment for the frontlines in England, the United States, Europe, Russia,China, India, Africa, and Australasia, to fight, what was portrayed to domestic audiences, as "imperial aggression" and "tyranny, was paramount.
To deny it (such propaganda) never happened is gross hypocrisy and a denial of historical fact.
Yes,criticize it, if you will, by all means. But to deny it ever existed, is delusional. Pat Emek 03.07.24 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A04:4A43:842F:F079:E49B:D2C4:E4C9:B9A7 (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
![09:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/06/15#c-2A04:4A43:842F:F079:E49B:D2C4:E4C9:B9A7-20240703094400-File:"Murder_Incorporated",_Arthur_Szyk_(1894-1951).jpg){kind=link}
- You're not making any sense. Nobody here is denying the magazine cover's existence (it's not a poster). --Rosenzweig τ 09:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyrighted magazine. Undelete in 2038. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
![17:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/06/15#c-Abzeronow-20240903173100-File:"Murder_Incorporated",_Arthur_Szyk_(1894-1951).jpg){kind=link}
identisch mit File:CKLee Stuttgart 5-pjt.JPG Pjt56 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: slightly different photos. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trade as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: g10. Not very spammy. I allow discussion. We can change description and filename. Taivo (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: could be used educationally. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sui Generis album covers
[edit]Album covers of Argentine band Sui Generis. These albums were published between 1972 and 1980. The artwork is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but they were not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, they are still copyrighted in its country of origin. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep these images.
- File:Sui Generis - Vida.jpg
- File:Suigeneris adios vol1.jpg
- File:Suigeneris adios vol2.jpg
- File:Suigeneris antologia.jpg
- File:Vida 1980 Sui Generis.JPG
Günther Frager (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
File:Trude Fleischmann (1895–1990) in front of her photographs; a. 1930 © Annie (Anna) Schulz.jpg
[edit]_in_front_of_her_photographs;_a._1930_%C2%A9_Annie_(Anna)_Schulz.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_front_of_her_photographs;_a._1930_%C2%A9_Annie_(Anna)_Schulz.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A 1931 image using the obsolete license {{PD-Austria-1932}}. Lifespan of the author is unknown. JuTa 19:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Anni Schulz died in November 1943, according to https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/reflexionen/geschichten/799472-Beruf-Fotojournalistin.html?em_no_split=1 (".... Anni Schulz war eine der wenigen jüdischen Fotografinnen, die sich entschloss, in Wien zu bleiben. Sie war mit einem nichtjüdischen Mann verheiratet und hoffte, die Verfolgung so überleben zu können. Sie starb Ende November 1943 in Wien im Alter von nur 46 Jahren.") Mutter Erde (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
File:Trude Fleischmann (1895–1990) in front of her photographs; a. 1930 © Annie (Anna) Schulz.jpg
[edit]_in_front_of_her_photographs;_a._1930_%C2%A9_Annie_(Anna)_Schulz.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
As shown by the previous deletion request, this ca. 1930 Austrian photograph, showing photographer Trude Fleischmann, is itself in the public domain because its creator, photographer Annie Schulz, died in 1943, and because it was published in 1931 in Austria, it also passes the {{PD-1996}} test and is in the public domain in the US as well.
It does however show Trude Fleischmann in front of several of her photographs. Fleischmann died in 1990, so her works are still protected in Austria until the end of 2060. I don't think these photos by her are de minimis here, so the file should either be deleted or Fleischmann's work blurred / cropped out. The full photograph can be restored in 2061. Rosenzweig τ 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2061. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farhad.mazlumi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Iranian logos COM:TOO Iran
HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EnriqueArrossagaray (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scan of newspapers published in Argentina in 1976. They are not photographs, so {{PD-AR-Photo}} doesn't apply. Even it was the case {{PD-1996}} doesn't apply. Anonymous works, the text in these case, is protected for 50 years in Argentina. Thus, they are still copyrighted. The protection in the US is even larger due to URAA restoration.
- File:Noticia La prensa 1976 10 19 Pág 9.jpg
- File:Noticia Diario Crónica 1976 10 19 Pág 3.jpg
- File:Noticia Dirario La Nación 1976 10 19 Pag 14.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistent PD rationale, work of 1976, not old enough to be PD. 188.123.231.76 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Link with PD rationale from when uploaded in 2010 has gone dead; archived copy at [18] It is a multi-page PDF, from a quick skim I did not see anything that would make this image PD, but I will let others perhaps more familiar with Albania copyright law to make determination. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP, not public domain in Albania. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Derivative work of Memorial plaque to First Volunteer fire department building in Pori, Finland, relief by Finnish artist Mikko Ketonen (no Wikidata), plaque unveiled in 2003. Not in PD. No Freedom of Panorama in Finland for 3D-art, only buildings. Htm (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Plaque uploaded as fi:Tiedosto:Porin ensimmäisen paloaseman muistolaatta by Mikko Ketonen 2003.jpg in fi-wiki.--Htm (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sepidnoor
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Small images, no EXIF. Other uploads by this editor have been blatant copyright violations.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
--Sepidnoor (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination; please provide proof via OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think it is extremely unlikely that these are all {{Own work}} as claimed.
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Works of fa:امین الله رضایی (d. 2004). The permision of his heir is needed and should be submitted through COM:OTRS. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dubious cliam of own work, portrait photo, group shot and very close detailed image, smaller than Facebook size with no metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yours sincerely, Sepidnoor (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP. If your are indeed the copyright holder of these images, further evidence should be submitted through COM:OTRS. Considering your history of uploading, your own-work claims cannot be taken at face value. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely to be own works, no source and no evidence of a free license.
Yann (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
protected calligraphy work by living person Pouya Latifian (b. 2001)
HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
three more calligraphy works
HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
low-quality file without metadata. Given the user's record, own work claim cannot be trusted HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC) |
Low-quality file w/o metadata, uploaded by a user with a bad record of uploading copyvio
HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 15:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Re-upload of previously deleted files (please see above).
HeminKurdistan (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- They made by AI
- I don't know why deletions? Wikipedia allows to upload AI's pictures. Doesn't it?
- I told that which AI apps I used for them. So in which reason these pictures became deletions candidates?
- Sepidnoor (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as either AI-upscaled photos with no source, or AI-generated images of a real historical figure who may not have looked like this. --Belbury (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm dubious that this is simple enough to be in the public domain. (Note: this is a highly used file) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The TOO in the US is pretty high so I would vote Keep for this file. Fma12 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per @Fma12: . Hàlian (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
