Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08
August[edit]
August 8[edit]
File:Nasyonal Aktivitede Zinde İnkişaf.jpg[edit]
uludağ sözlükten alınma gerçekliği şüpheli resim Hellbat31 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I may be wrong, but I think the only real issue is COM:TOO Turkey. I'd presume that this logo is original enough to be copyrightable in Turkey, but someone else might know whether that's true or not. If it is, correct me if I'm wrong, but 1969 would be way too recent for the logo to be out of copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Athough the use of three crescents is seen often on flags, per Category:Flags with three crescents, I think this particular arrangement is above TOO. The image has to be deleted as a consequense. --Ellywa (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Екатерина Яновская (talk · contribs)[edit]
Spam. Fake ('own') license for logos of that business
- File:Ресторан Блинбери на Гагарина.jpg
- File:Логотип БлинБери 2023.jpg
- File:Логотип БлинБери.jpg
- File:Обед в ресторане БлинБери.jpg
- File:БлинБери, Тверская.jpg
- File:БлинБери, ресторан на Тверской.jpg
Bilderling (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- The content of File:Ресторан Блинбери на Гагарина.jpg seems OK - the facade of a building, concentrating on the restaurant on the ground floor - but the 2GIS watermark is problematic. File:Обед в ресторане БлинБери.jpg is probably OK, as I think any individual labels are probably de minimis. The logos by themselves are no go, and the interiors that show architectural details or prominently feature the restaurant's logo presumably violate copyrights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, deleted all. The food with labels is imho not de minimis, the purpose of the photo is to show these labels. The 2GIS watermark leads to the suspicion that the photo was made by another person then uploader, so probably copyrighted as well. --Ellywa (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
August 9[edit]
File:Ottoman destroyer Basra.jpg[edit]
No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. It is not shown per COM:EVID that this photo has been published in the Ottoman empire, as is required per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ottoman Empire. If an original source from that previous state is found the image can be undeleted. In any case undelete in 1911+121=2032. --Ellywa (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Samsun class destroyer alongside Yavuz.jpg[edit]
No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Samsun class destroyers at Izmir, Turkey - 1926.jpg[edit]
No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Turkish destroyer Samsun.jpg[edit]
No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: The book says exactly this: "Samsun during manoeuvres in the Sea of Marmara in the 1920s. Guleryuz" Page 110. The image is from 1920s so it's post-Ottoman era, but pre-Turkish copyright law. This image should be from Historical Branch of the Turkish General Staff, and since it's a state publication from over 70 years ago it should be public domain. I don't have any additional info. --Khutuck (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Turkish Republic was proclaimed 100 years ago so odds are that the image was taken after that because the ship was laid up until 1924. Judging by the Turkish copyright tag, everything seems to depend on publication and we don't know if the image was published anywhere before Güleryüz and Langensiepen published it in their book in 1995. Furthermore I don't know what the copyright status is for Turkish government photos, published or unpublished. If the photo was even taken by an official photographer because it's not attributed to the Turkish Navy in the book like some of the other photos. I can easily see the photo being taken by an officer for his own use.
- And what about the status in the US because it needs a US PD tag? Without confirming publication before 1928, it doesn't fall under the usual US PD tag. And the URAA tag depends on if it was out of copyright before 1996 in Turkey.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: This image is very likely in public domain as Turkish government photos have 70 years of copyright after publishing, but I don't have a way to prove that. Since we can't build Wiki based on my feelings, I'm OK with the deletion. I'll look for an image from Ottoman period, all images I currently have are post-1923. --Khutuck (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Yarhisar.png[edit]
No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Villa Clara2.jpg[edit]
Copyrighted by the Cuban government, seen here https://web.archive.org/web/20110420195044/http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/provincias_masinf/villa%20clara.htm CubanoBoi (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Similar files uploaded by the same user:
- File:Artemisa.jpg
- File:Camaguey2.jpg
- File:Ciego de Ávila.jpg
- File:Cienfuegos2.jpg
- File:Granma.jpg
- File:Guantánamo.jpg
- File:Holguín.jpg
- File:La Habana2.jpg
- File:Las Tunas.jpg
- File:Matanzas.jpg
- File:Mayabeque.jpg
- File:Sancti Spíritus.jpg
- File:Santiago de Cuba2.jpg
—holly {chat} 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:JuanpaQuijanoConductor.jpg[edit]
Is this really a selfie? If it is, we could choose to keep it as a photo of a tattoo and eyebrow piercings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Found it in his Instagram feed at [1]. Now the question becomes, is User:Juanpa Quijano Of actually him? I left a comment on the photo and let's see if he responds. —holly {chat} 00:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Maximilien Roberti.jpg[edit]
wrong date, probably wrong source and author - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Fixed errors, "PD-EU-no author disclosure". Tineye has not found an attribution for a creator. --RAN (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- RAN argued here above for keeping this file of a drawing or painting or so with reference to the "PD-EU-no author disclosure" template. Here he changed the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} template into the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. According to COM:EVIDENCE, which is is considered to be an official policy on Wikimedia Commons, (background color for highlighting added):
| “ | In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:• the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and • that any required consent has been obtained. |
” |
- The PD-EU-no author disclosure can only be used if the image was published before 1953 and at that time it was anonymously published. The burden of proof for that template lies on the person who added that template while arguing for the file to be retained.
- Take the discussion here were RAN wrote "A 1939 image is PD-EU, Tineye could not find anyone making an active copyright claim." So he starts with a false claim. RAN seems to be convinced that every drawing, photo, painting, sketch or so that was made in the 1930's or 1940's in a country that is now part of EU were published before 1953 unless it shows up in TinEye. And not only that, all of these images that don't show up in TinEye were anonymously published before 1953. If I look through some of our old family albums of that time, I'm pretty sure (almost) none of them were published before 1953 and also (almost) none of them would show up in TinEye. For an image that looks to be older than 70 years, not showing up in TinEye doesn't automatically mean published before 1953! RAN, based on what source do you claim this pre 1953 publication? - Robotje (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It is your same yellow highlighted argument rejected here and here and here. If you want a valid argument for deletion, use resources to show that you found a named creator, not the theoretical possibility, that a named creator may exist. --RAN (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete Portrait painting of a non-notable person screams out of scope to me. —holly {chat} 00:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Censored according to public broadcasting regulations Info Card Boomerang Thailand Version.png[edit]
Posible copyright violation or COM:SD#F10 Wutkh (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not real reason given. Copyvio and F10 contradict each other. Günther Frager (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Censored according to public broadcasting regulations Info Card.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as this image, if authentic, seems to be well in COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how the F10 rationale could be argued in an image that is just text. Günther Frager (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Enghlab Iran.jpg[edit]
This photograph was taken by w:Abbas (photographer) in 1979 in Iran, and is now in possession of The British Museum (after purchase from Magnum Photos in 2010). [2] I found no proof that it was published in Iran, in that case it can be in PD. But if it was not published in Iran (for example, it remained on an archive) then Iranian law is unliekly to be applicable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Abbas was a member of en:Gamma (agency), a French company, in 1979, so the country of first publication was probably France. —holly {chat} 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Comte de Grasse, Grasse.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). There is now a license for the photograph. However, there is no commercial freedom of panorama in France, so we need evidence that the statue itself is in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed if we're going to comply with COM:DW and COM:L. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Looks like it could be old enough, but I have had a rough time trying to find out when it was made. I hope someone else knows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Da es noch weitere Abbildungen derselben Statue gibt ([3]), auf die kein Löschantrag gestellt wurde , scheint mir dieser etwas willkürlich. MfG --Phi (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Translation into English: "Since there are other images of the same statue ([1]) for which no deletion request was made, this one seems somewhat arbitrary to me." That's not an argument against deletion. Phi, if your objection is that policy should be applied consistently, nominate the other photos in the category for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Or better yet, tell us what year the statue was completed and, most importantly, when the sculptor died. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC30046 Wreckage.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without permission.". Photograph was taken in the United States in 1947. If published contemporaneously, it would need to have its copyright registered and renewed for it to be subject to copyright protection today. Has anybody checked for the renewal record? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- The author cannot be the en:San Diego Air & Space Museum because they did not open until 1963, 16 years after the crash. I searched the 1973 and 1974 catalogs for the terms "United Airlines", "United Air Lines", "DC-4", "NC30046", and "Douglas", with only the last one getting any hits (including other aircraft manufactured by Douglas), so even if a copyright notice had appeared when it was first published, it certainly wasn't renewed. —holly {chat} 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Japanese engineers making Haste with the restoration work of the Oilfields in Balikpapan.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source udner incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, it would be in the public domain in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Balikpapan Coast Obstacles, 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source under incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Japanese ships bombed, Balikpapan 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: on source under a incompatibe NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Destroyed Oil Refinery in Balikpapan, 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source uder incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC999E Transcontinental & Western Air.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: (C) G Haven Bishop / The Huntington Library. 1930 photograph from the United States, per source. If first published anywhere near that time, this would have needed to have had its copyright both registered and renewed. Has anyone looked for renewal records on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- the source has listed the photographer and exact date the photo was taken, and where the photo is held. Was it copyrighted to begin with? or was it promotional material for the soon to be defunct airlines. The sources are noted and easily followed back to the Huntington Library. I do not think it warrents Deletion almost 100yrs later. 107.77.215.117 23:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
File:NC28394 Eastern Airlines Wreck.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. United States photograph first published in the 1940s; it would need to have had its copyright both registered and renewed for this file to be subject to copyright protection today. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC1946 Trans World Airlines Wreck.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. U.S. photograph taken in 1942, quite possibly by an employee of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Even if not a government work (which would be {{PD-USGov}}), this would need to have a copyright registered and renewed if published anywhere around the time it was taken. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC14715 Pan American World Airways.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright © 2018-2023 AirHistory.net. U.S. photograph taken no later than 1943. If published anywhere around that time, it would need its copyright registered and renewed for the photograph to still be subject to copyright protection in the United States. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC16014 American Airlines.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. Photograph taken at Chicago Municipal Airport (in the United States) c. 1943. If first published anywhere near then, this would need to have had its copyright registered and renewed for the photograph to be subject to continuing copyright protections in the United States. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy so that discussion can be had. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC86513 Transcontinental & Western Air Wreck.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. Photograph of a 1946 plane crash in the United States. If published within 15 years of that date, it would have required copyright registrration and renewal for it to be subject to copyright protection through the present day. Have renewal records been checked? Sending to DR for broader discussion rather than actioning the speedy — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:N90904 American Overseas Airlines Wreck.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. {{PD-Canada}}? Photograph was created in 1946, so it's in the public domain if not subject to crown copyright. If subject to crown copyright, it's also PD in Canada, since that was over 50 years ago. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC21786 Wreckage (Pennsylvania Central Airline Flight 105).jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. 1946 photograph from the United States. If not taken by federal investigators (which would render this PD), it would still need its copyright registered and renewed for it to be subject to copyright protection today, provided that it was published within 15 years of it being taken. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:NC88842 Wreckage.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. 1942 photoghraph from the United States. If not taken by federal investigators (which would render this {{PD-USGov}}, it would be in the public domain unless its copyright were both registered and renewed, provided that this was first published within ~20 years of its creation. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, so as to open discussion on this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Кувшинка 2.jpg[edit]
дублікат Лілія Мірошниченко (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Лілія Мірошниченко: What is the duplicate file? —holly {chat} 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Cairo 1961.jpg[edit]
I couldn't identify nor original author nor date of publishment so this file fails copyright declaration by {{PD-Egypt}} A09 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Blason famille Advisart.svg[edit]
AFAICT this is an exact duplicate of File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg (as is File:Dampierre.svg). I have been advised that in such cases, the preferred solution is to either delete the duplicate file (and just note all the different things "gules a chevron argent" can be the arms of in its description), or if someone would like this image to be kept at this title, then please upload a new version that distinguishes itself through some arbitrary difference like making the chevron a few pixels wider or the red slightly darker (as at File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg, File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg, or File:Blason famille de Poligny (Franche-Comté).svg) so that they are no longer exact duplicates. -sche (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Advisart and Dampierre are different families that have similar coats of arms, thus these are different files that are in use and must be kept, as well as Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are their arms "similar", or are they both defined identically as "gules a chevron argent"? Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Omphalographer. They are both defined as "gules a chevron argent".--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Then all of these images should
Redirect to a single image, ideally with a generic title, containing a "gules a chevron argent". The arms of these families are "gules a chevron argent", not a specific graphical rendition of those arms. The arms of the Poligny family do not have a broader chevron than the Burguzahars, for instance; the images on Commons do, but both images are equally representative of both families, just as a single-story and a double-story lowercase "a" both represent the same letter. - A similar solution should be implemented for other arms with simple blazons which are claimed by multiple families. Omphalographer (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually it would be fine if all of these images would Redirect to the generic-titled Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg. The problem would be if Adivsart.svg would redirect to Dampierre.svg…
- I fix old CoA images but I don't creat new ones if a generic file exists. Once I have created the Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg, I use it for other families that use "gules a chevron argent"
- --Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Actually it would be fine if all of these images would
- Then all of these images should
- Hi @Omphalographer. They are both defined as "gules a chevron argent".--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are their arms "similar", or are they both defined identically as "gules a chevron argent"? Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- PS @-sche you could also nominate for deletion File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg or File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg which are identical, as well as some File:Blason Séverac-le-Château.svg, File:Blason Sévérac-le-Château 2.svg, File:Blason Sévérac-Le-Château.svg which are useless duplicates of File:Blason Famille de-Sévérac.svg--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_(21094934080).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362769912).jpg){kind=link}
_(20639762998).jpg){kind=link}
_(20184919509).jpg){kind=link}
_(20857251826).jpg){kind=link}
_(20367195035).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_~256_colour_indexed.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_by_Francesco_Netti.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Murcia_fb.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
'_issue.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_오버워치_게임_레고.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.13.19 File:Three recipients of the "For the Defence of Leningrad" medal in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) Russia 1943. (40060751273).jpg](#File:Three_recipients_of_the_"For_the_Defence_of_Leningrad"_medal_in_Leningrad_(Saint_Petersburg)_Russia_1943._(40060751273).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_k_13.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,dem_Truppenübungsplatz_in_der_belgischen_Stadt_Leopoldsburg.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- In the absence of much other input, I'm going to ping @C.Suthorn and Jmabel: this is the kind of thing I was talking about at the village pump: the files are duplicates, but at least one user wants to keep them (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dampierre.svg). BTW, I have just noticed that File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg vs File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg only appear to have slightly different shades of red in their thumbnails, but when I click through to the files themselves (Hasparren vs Basse-Navarre) they are identical to each other. Does that mean they are, or are not, duplicates? -sche (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- A redirect of Advisart.svg, which is a coat of arms that will never change and that is not in use anymore on wp, to the generic File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg would be relevant. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Otherwise, mixing the other two files together, which are certainly identical, is not a good idea in my opinion.
- In other words, if the the first (Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg) is redirected to the second (Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg), even if it won't change anything visually of course, there's a risk of creating inconsistencies in terms of SEO (not a so big deal, as the files are used on the same page, but this may be more of a concern for unrelated files). These are not huge files, their presence has little impact on the servers, and the primary task is rather to classfy all these. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- You pinged me (i only commented at VP, had this DR not even on the watchlist), but not @RZuo who also commented at VP. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- A redirect of Advisart.svg, which is a coat of arms that will never change and that is not in use anymore on wp, to the generic File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg would be relevant. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- if they are all defined in the exact same way:
- keep the oldest file.
- rename it to a generic title (by its definition for example).
- redirect all other files to it.
- RZuo (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
File:Dampierre.svg[edit]
AFAICT this is an exact duplicate of File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason famille Advisart.svg for extended commentary. -sche (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This one is in use, and specific to Dampierre-city. Otherwise Redirect to the generic-titled Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg --Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- (Note, to closer or anyone else: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason famille Advisart.svg where I brought up both files and where this is discussed more, and at least one user who hasn't commented here has expressed that such exact duplicates should be deleted.) -sche (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi -sche, "to closer or anyone else",
- I agree, nevertheless coats of arms of cities can change and, as a result, the file can be modified and should not be deleted (once they exist) in order to avoid creating a new file with the same name… This happened, for example with this file.
- --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
File:Línea 9 del metro de Santiago.png[edit]
Out of COMMONS:SCOPE, no use Sfs90 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, a map is useful and should be kept if it's indeed the uploader's own work. However, it's a pretty complex map, so it's probably copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep probably under {{OpenStreetMap}}. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
August 10[edit]
File:ParizhskayaKommuna1941.jpg[edit]
No publication information is given making it impossible to determine copyright status Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Alqazweeni.jpg[edit]
No proof that PD-Iraq allies. No source or date of publication known HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Imam chamseddine.jpeg[edit]
No proof that PD-Iraq allies. Date and source unknown. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KìttyCãssiø (talk · contribs)[edit]
Dubious claim of own work. A mix of cameras and some with no exif. File:Tomoko Kawase fast4.jpg is clearly marked (c). PCP
- File:There will be love there cover full.jpg
- File:Tomoko Kawase fast1.jpg
- File:Tomoko Kawase fast3.jpg
- File:Tomoko Kawase fast2.jpg
- File:Tomoko Kawase fast4.jpg
- File:The brilliant green 100年MUSIC FESTIVAL.jpg
- File:Thebrilliantgreen DFDZ-5007 1280.jpg
- File:Thebrilliantgreen DFCZ-1004 1280.jpg
- File:The brilliant green - LIKE YESTERDAY Promo.jpg
- File:Thebrilliantgreen DFCZ-1003 1280.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Autorennen Rennautos Auto Racing Race Cars (Sonderausstellung Verkehrszentrum München).jpg[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image likely taken inside the museum, so the text is protected by copyright and FOP does not apply. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: by Krd as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Several files in Category:Sonderausstellung Wahnsinn Illegale Autorennen (Exhibition). —holly {chat} 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Seyyed Nasir Hosseini, the representative of Wali Faghih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist).jpg[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not a work by Tasnim, no photographer credit nor an indication of being created by the agency HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ghaemi60 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Questionable own work claims. One has visible watermark (motahari.ac.ir) and one is a copyrighted logo. Only one upload by this user is known to be not a copyvio File:سید حسن مدرس.jpg, which is a historical picture in public domain wrongly claimed to be own work.
- File:20161109065808!سپهسالار-شبستان زمستانی1.jpg
- File:Sepahsalar mosque.jpg
- File:Shahid motahari university.png
- File:سپهسالار-ضلع جنوبی حیاط.jpg
- File:Rouhani (in Youth).jpg
- File:Rouhani (Friday prayers).jpg
- File:Ayat Allah Rouhani.jpg
- File:Rouhani.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Mural en la Facultad de Estadística e Informática.jpg[edit]
wrong ubication with personal data. I will add a similar photo with correct information after delete Koffermejia (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Guernica at the Whitechapel - geograph.org.uk - 1593698.jpg[edit]
Copyright violation? Apparently there is permission from the photographer. But I do not see permission from the heirs of Jacqueline de la Baume Dürrbach (1920-1989, see mutualart.com), the creator of the tapistry, and Pablo Picasso (died 1973), the maker of the painting which was the inspiration for this tapestry. JopkeB (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, per no copyright violation. This is a major artwork exhibited in the United Nations Building as a part of their art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- And why is this not copyright violation?
- Is the Freedom of Panorama in the United Kingdom so broad that it includes temporary exhibitions? Because this photo was not taken in the United Nations Buildings, but during a temporary exhibition in London.
- Is the Freedom of Panorama in the United States (where the United Nations Buildings in New York are) so broad that it includes pieces of art indoors?
- I think both these questions should be answered with "NO". So it is indeed copyright violation. And it does not matter for copyrights whether it is about a major artwork or not. JopkeB (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- And why is this not copyright violation?
File:VANNING2023-08-06 21.03.07.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by 222.117.173.33 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Looks useful if there's no copyright problem, but it needs relevant categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and I put it in Category:Unidentified automobiles, as Google Lens couldn't figure out the logo on the bottom car. —holly {chat} 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Fingerprint JPG.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by 范 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- This could have educational use if the license is OK. Yann (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but needs categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, and placed in Category:Fingerprint scanners. —holly {chat} 19:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:CCTV JPG.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by 范 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- This could have educational use if the license is OK. Yann (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but needs categories. I don't understand why there's an allergy to companies providing useful images of their own products. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; placed in Category:Closed-circuit television (CCTV). —holly {chat} 19:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Atatürk Cerrahpaşa'da Cumhuriyet Gazetesi.png[edit]
Turkish newspaper. I cannot make out a date on it. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- The date can be seen on the higher resolution version of the same newspaper (here). As we have seen, the date for the newspaper is "PAZARTESİ 15 KANUNUEVVEL 1930" (right upper corner) means "MONDAY DECEMBER 15 1930". According to the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No.5846 article 27 the protection period ends after 70 years. Consequently the stated image has no copyright, kind regards. Yeminli Savaşçı (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; undelete in 2026. —holly {chat} 19:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Лімниця 24.jpg[edit]
poor quality Luda.slominska (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Such assessments of image quality as "poor quality" should not be the yardstick for deletion. On the one hand, this would open a gateway for the arbitrary exercise of discretion and, on the other, even images with minor technical characteristics can make an important contribution to documentation and illustration - you never know what might be used for what. --Anil Ö. (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deletion policy: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. That`s the case.--Luda.slominska (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: We don't seem to have another photo of this view, so I tagged it with {{Blurry}} and we can revisit deletion when there's a suitable replacement. —holly {chat} 19:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:ΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΠΛΑΚΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΕΚΚΛΗΣΙ ΠΑΝΩ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΚΕΝΟΤΑΦΙΟ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΣΤ'.JPG[edit]
The whole text of this inscription - created/inaugurated in 1991 according to the signature at the bottom - is still under copyrights belonging to its original author. And as its length proves, it's far more than a simple mention or anything like that. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 19:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
August 11[edit]
File:Chris Brown in London (2023).png[edit]
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment not found elsewhere in reverse image searches. @Shizhao: what sort of permission from who do you think is missing? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Chris Brown in London, Influence tour (2023).png[edit]
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:ComeTogetherChrisBrown.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Prince Edward's signature.svg[edit]
No evidence that the source or author has released the rights under a CC license and Template:PD-signature doesn't apply per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Pasabordo Jhonatan y Gabo.jpg[edit]
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If for no other reason than that the uploader is a username and the metadata mention a specific person. But it's true that we don't know who has the rights to the photo and have no proof that the copyright holder consented to the license. It would be best to resolve this through COM:VRT, but it would be a shame to delete a photo COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Leather jumpsuit IMG 8892.png[edit]
I don't think this file should be deleted, but it has been nominated for speedy deletion by an anonymous user (red linked user page) for not being of 'educational' value, a reason I don't understand and should be elaborated if it is to be used for this file. E.G. (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Abusive speedy deletion request (unvalid argument/reason) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe the reson for the DR was that this is an AI image. And we should be quite careful about what AI images we accept, because you never know what they actually show. Here, however, a real image would probably look very similar. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 19:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Kulim Hi-Tech Park.jpg[edit]
Unused logo *angys* (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep You want to throw away a PD logo for w:Kulim Hi-Tech Park? I sure hope this is not deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Not much information at COM:TOO Malaysia so we should assume it's pretty low. The flower graphic is certainly more creative than File:Petronas Logo.svg. —holly {chat} 20:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Habib ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri bin muhammad assegaf.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Uhai as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. File is currently used on Indonesian Wikibooks, so it may be COM:INUSE if that book is in-scope on the sister project. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The Wikibooks page it's used on is spam created by the image uploader and is similar to the now-deleted spam user page of the uploader. Uhai (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:*
Keep I don't think we have the right under Commons policy to rule on why an image is COM:INUSE or whether we approve of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also requesting deletion of files uploaded by sockpuppet accounts of this user, ASEQWD and Ahmad asegaf:
- * File:Ahmadbarok.jpg
- * File:Ahmadsegaf.jpg
- * File:Barokasegaf.jpg
- * File:Mubarokwibowo.jpg
- * File:Mubarokmeliano.jpg
- * File:Janesbakoy.jpg
- * File:Habib muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg
- * File:Habib ahmad bin abdillah assegaf.png
- * File:Habib ahmad jans assegaf.jpg
- * File:Habib ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg
- * File:Ahmad jans assegaf.jpg
- * File:Habib ahmad jans assegaf 1.jpg
- * File:Al-Habib ahmad jans assegaf.jpg
- * File:Ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg
- All personal photos. Common instance of a spammer spamming on more obscure Wikimedia projects with few contributors and little to no moderation which also allows them to take advantage of COM:INUSE. The header of COM:EDUSE states that "[files] must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". These images fall under the first and fourth bullet points of COM:SPAM; therefore, COM:INUSE does not apply in this situation. None of these images have any educational value and this user does not, on any of their sockpuppets, seem to have any number of constructive contributions on any project, making them a non-contributor. Uhai (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'll look forward to hopefully reading the reasoning of the closing admin for keeping or deleting the files that are in use. I see you left out the sentences starting three sentences after the header of COM:EDUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." So no, EDUSE cannot be a countervailing guideline. I don't see how COM:SPAM can override COM:INUSE, either. Note what's not mentioned here: "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere." Right, not if they're displayed as a gallery. Nothing is mentioned about their being used in articles on Wikimedia sites, because that would make them automatically useful per COM:INUSE.
- I don't think it's the job of Commons to remove spam that's in use on other projects. We have more than enough to do as it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- The spam is on other projects but the images themselves are on Commons. Removal of images such as these is an application of common sense. COM:INUSE was not meant to apply to situations such as this and, like I said, is heavily abused regardless by spammers such as this individual. I don't see how this Instagram-filtered, low-quality selfie, beyond all policy citing and wikilawyering, has any argument for educational value when the stated goal of Commons is to host educational media:
- File:Ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg
- I don't understand why Commons users are so often averse to removing unequivocal garbage, especially considering how easily the user can re-upload the images (and probably will anyway, if the reviewing admin chooses to delete).
- Regardless, if there's an argument to be made for how any of these files have educational value and cause to be retained, beyond "well COM:INUSE says we should keep it!!!", I'm all ears. That's what deletion discussions should really be about. See COM:SNOW. Uhai (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are other solutions to deal with spammers, such as blocks and userbans, and it's not up to Commons users to decide what should be used on other projects. If you want to appeal to SNOW, my response is that I don't want to spend time making decisions for other projects or encouraging people to use Commons in lieu of removing images from their projects. Get cross-wiki spammers banned across all projects, and maybe you can appeal to stewards to remove all the images from other projects. Once they're no longer in use, come back here and request deletion, or maybe there'd be a basis for speedy deletion tags at that point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete the whole crap, LTA Category:Sockpuppets of Habib mubarok assegaf (34 accounts within one year). --Achim55 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Info: Now all accounts are locked globally. --Achim55 (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- In addition, this file has been removed from everything but an absurd id.wikibooks.org page. Once that page is deleted, we can delete this file from Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Glory, Halleluyah! It's no longer in use anywhere. Let's delete it before this individual inserts it somewhere else! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- In addition, this file has been removed from everything but an absurd id.wikibooks.org page. Once that page is deleted, we can delete this file from Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 4.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Gamowebbed as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: -reason|1=no educational value|help=off. There isn't a speedy criterion for general COM:SCOPE issues, so this has to go to DR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Substantially similar to a number of other images by this uploader that were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/AI porn images, including images 1 - 3 in this series. While this image isn't as explicitly pornographic as those were, it still seems intended more to titillate than to provide educational value; all of the same arguments apply.
- Two other images from this series remain - File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 5.jpg and File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 6.jpg - and should probably be deleted as well. Omphalographer (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per above Gamowebbed (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality example of AI-generated image, therefore in scope at least to illustration that topic. Unvalid reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other AI-generated images on Commons, most of which are considerably less "distracting" than these. The theoretical possibility that an image could be used doesn't necessarily mean that it's in scope; see COM:NOTUSED for details. Omphalographer (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: My main consideration is impartiality. If one chooses to keep or delete a file just on basis of what one may like/prefer, it's contrary to NPOV. It's the case here, I see no other argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are plenty of other AI-generated images on Commons, most of which are considerably less "distracting" than these. The theoretical possibility that an image could be used doesn't necessarily mean that it's in scope; see COM:NOTUSED for details. Omphalographer (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I originally voted delete on the mass AI porn purge because it was out of scope personal art clogging commons; a few images by this promptmaker (it’s a word now because I say so) is fine. A little bit of “fan service” is also fine as we literally have a whole category for that. Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, decent enough to me. Being "distracting" isn't a valid rationale; nominator could have ADHD and be easily distracted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 20:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Skyline de Uberaba.jpg[edit]
Enviei por engano o arquivo "Skyline de Uberaba.jpg", e solicito a remoção dele pois um arquivo idêntico já havia sido enviado por mim anteriormente: File:Skyline_de_Uberaba.png Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ordered a universal replace, but CommonsDelinker is slow today, so will come back and delete this after all usages have been replaced. —holly {chat} 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Mahbanootata.jpg[edit]
No watermark or photographer credit, not a work by Fars HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The source states "Fars Media Corporation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License", and a reverse search only shows news portals owned by Fars Corporation. I don't read Farsi to see if somewhere it states the image has a different provenance, e.g., from another news agency. Günther Frager (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- The source reads "به نقل دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان", meaning that the content was provided to Fars by the public relations department of the Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- HeminKurdistan is referring to the first paragraph which states: "According to Fars News Agency University Group, citing Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, a retired member of the statistics department of the university donated part of her capital to..." No indication that the photo was provided by University people. Charlatana (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Charlatana That exactly means that the content was provided by that institution and this is not a work by Fars News. This image lacks typical watermark and photographer name. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- The syndicated version of the content: [4]. Clearly not a work by Fars. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- @HeminKurdistanُYou're right. I hadn't seen this picture before. The source you mentioned published the picture 10 hours before Fars. This leaves no doubt that Fars has violated their copyright. I have no objection to deletion. Charlatana (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Charlatana That exactly means that the content was provided by that institution and this is not a work by Fars News. This image lacks typical watermark and photographer name. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- HeminKurdistan is referring to the first paragraph which states: "According to Fars News Agency University Group, citing Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, a retired member of the statistics department of the university donated part of her capital to..." No indication that the photo was provided by University people. Charlatana (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- The source reads "به نقل دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان", meaning that the content was provided to Fars by the public relations department of the Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Xtra Market logo 2020.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Taichi as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is literally a text logo, and with 152,346 likes for Xtra Foods on Facebook, I think it's in scope, though it would probably get deleted as out of scope for not having a Wikipedia article or just not being used. However, there is no COM:TOO Panama page, so I have no way of judging whether it's problematic that way, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hola @King of Hearts. Le digo que por favor, retire la imagen de File:Xtra Market logo 2020.png de borrados, ya que la compañía me dio los derechos de la imagen. Gran Sonic (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Close to the line for COM:TOO US with the gradient, c.f. the American Airlines logo example. I think it is ineligible for copyright in the US though. For Panama, however, I would Weak delete due to uncertainty due to the applicable threshold of originality, per COM:PCP. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Laberge - Images de la vie, 1952.djvu[edit]
Was not PD in home contry as of URA data. 1960+50 = 2010, and is thus potentially still copyright in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- this book was published in home country in 1952... it is thus PD-Canada. --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; undelete in 2048. —holly {chat} 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Abocado Rosado, Misuraca.jpg[edit]
It should be identify as a part of a group of related images prior to upload FColman (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't understand the reasoning, but this is your own photo, so OK. Next time, please use {{speedydelete|G7}} (uploader request of new file) for faster response. —holly {chat} 20:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Tabla-salarial-ugt-inv-2023-color-horizontal-2.pdf[edit]
Out of scope? Looks like a fee table for a company. Promotional? Omphalographer (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It is not promotional. UGT is the biggest trade union in Spain. The table indicates salaries for security personnel. Günther Frager (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It could be useful, but Commons doesn't usually host PDFs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
August 12[edit]
File:Saudi Arabia - Road Sign - Stop (Arabic).svg[edit]
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wanted to delete the Saudi traffic sign file that belongs to his side and that can't be edited to prevent overloading the file so I actually uploaded it separately which is standard for all Saudi traffic signs, the rest of the signs. Completely delete it. Mongolia44 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by มองโกเลีย๔๔ (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- @มองโกเลีย๔๔: I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. If it's easier, just write in your native language and I'll try to use Google Translate instead. —holly {chat} 21:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Former US Journalist Joins Ukraine’s Military Medic Unit.webm[edit]
This video (and its Ukrainian version, File:Історія американської трансгендерної журналістки, яка служить як медик в лавах ЗСУ.webm) contains content that is taken from Reuters, a news agency, in multiple instances. The uses appear to use several videos taken from the news agency, which is not freely licensed. If we are to host this on Commons, we would need to remove the video from Reuters and replace it with black screen (or other free filler video), but we can't host this on Commons in its current state. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 01:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
File:近鉄19200系電車SA01編成（元近鉄12200系電車NS56編成）.gif[edit]
別のサイトですでに使われているから 和寿平瀬 (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- 別のサイトで使われているということは消しる理由ではありませんが、これは和寿平瀬さん自分のアップロードだし、どこにも使われていないから、消してもいいと思います。 —holly {chat} 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion. —holly {chat} 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:BäuerinUndKühe.jpg[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Burundi stamps of Burundi are copyrighted until at least 50 years after the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. And in case anyone wants to say it's PD because the image in the middle was created in 1890, the stamp clearly contains unique artist elements separate from the painting that can be and probably are copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SpoPetrosyan (talk · contribs)[edit]
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Coat of arms of Sforza family.svg[edit]
This coat of arms doesn't represent the original coat of arms of the sforza family, the original coat of arms isː Azure with a lion rampant or holding a quince; the eagle is an augmentation awarded by the holy roman emperor to the Visconti family, from whom the Sforzas took the arms upon ascending to the throne of the duchy of milan MostEpic (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for that clarification, I was trying to get to the bottom of File:Arms of the House of Sforza.svg by User:Heralder which showed these quarterings but gave no explanation. Is that file name accurate? So the Eagle quartering the Visconti Biscione is the Imperial Eagle/Reichsadler, an augmentation awarded by the Holy Roman Emperor to the Visconti family (do you know any more details as to date, etc?), and the Sforzas continued to use these arms upon ascending to the throne of the Duchy of Milan. So in fact these are the augmented arms of Visconti being used by Sforza. They are not Sforza arms at all. Is that correct? I hope the position is now shown clearly at Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sforza. Instead of deleting the image, which I fully accept is wrongly described/named (thanks for having raised this issue) how about just changing the incorrect filename to "Reichsadler". That might be simpler. Always useful to have images of that in various forms.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; please rename the file as needed. —holly {chat} 22:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Spanish Empire cross Flag.png[edit]
Duplicate of File:Flag of Cross of Burgundy.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Spanish Empire Flag.png[edit]
Duplicate of File:Flag of Spain (1785–1873, 1875–1931).svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Atomium 9 april.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source states: Авторские права © MasimovAsif.net Все права защищены 2012-2023 DMacks (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader's user-page identifies themself as "Masimov Asif" links to that website as their own (even also have it in their username), so it's reasonable to assume they own the license whether or not they have a suitable release on a different site where they uploaded it. Still to check: license on the sculpture itself. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{FoP-Belgium}} allows it, so it's just a question of the licensing of the photo/photographer. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Mini Europe Brussels.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The claimed source states: Авторские права © MasimovAsif.net Все права защищены 2012-2023 DMacks (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader's user-page identifies themself as "Masimov Asif" links to that website as their own (even also have it in their username), so it's reasonable to assume they own the license whether or not they have a suitable release on a different site where they uploaded it. Still to check: license on the sculpture itself. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{FoP-Belgium}} allows it, so it's just a question of the licensing of the photo/photographer. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:La plage de La Tonnara (5830083177).jpg[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Title card for a freely licensed video. Educational use? Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes if the video is of any educational use, no if it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Not used anywhere, so doesn't seem to be within scope. —holly {chat} 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by EuroShowSC (talk · contribs)[edit]
Above COM:TOO Spain which I think is the relevant TOO. The FC Barcelona logo has been deemed above the TOO per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of FC Barcelona and I think these logos are as complex or more complex than the FC Barcelona logo.
.svg){kind=link}
- File:Rayo de Barcelona FC.svg
- File:XbuyerT.svg
- File:PIO FC.svg
- File:JIJANTES FC.svg
- File:El Barrio KL Logo.svg
- File:1K FC.svg
Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging King of Hearts and Ellywa who took part in the FC Barcelona DR. Jonteemil (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 01.jpg[edit]
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Also:
- File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 02.jpg
- File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 03.jpg
- File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 04.jpg
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
{{PD-UAexMilitary}} is sub-template from {{PD-UA-exempt}}. It is not like {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. These works are not symbols or signs of the AF of Ukraine.
It is possible, what these works were released under some free license. If such permission will be found, images can be re-licensed.
Similar case and its resolution with updated permission and successful re-licensing see here --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сгоревший вагон Д1-657-3.jpg. Alex Spade (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@DinoSoupCanada: You probably know better about this than I do, your thoughts? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper[edit]
I thought about posting this on COM:VPC rather than to create a DR but I hope the discussion is better when making a DR. Maybe I'm completely an idiot here and the files are OBVIOUSLY covered by FOP Spain here but what the hell, #BeBold. And for the record I'm not saying that these files are copyright violations, I'm asking if they are, but in a DR since I hope that brings to a better discussion than at COM:VPC. Anyway, here goes:
COM:FOP Spain says that works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.
To interpret this, one must know how Spanish courts define permanently located since this is not a completely unambiguous phrasing. Commons:FOP#Permanent vs temporary says that whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent". […] Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same.
What makes this case unlike the standard FOP case I guess is that the copyright ownership belongs to the club, not the artist of this wall painting. What effect does that have on the FOP/copyright question? Also in this case, the design already exists, before the wall painting ever existed, and it will continue to exist after the wall painting has been removed or the building torn down. What effect do those two facts have on the ”If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same.” question. Also can there really be a general #Permanent vs temporary page when so many different countries have different law books? Do all courts agree with each other across the borders on this matter?
Lastly, it should be said that some of these might be covered by COM:De minimis eventhough they might be considered copyvios and hence be kept regardless. For example File:009 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí).jpg seems as a more obvious de minimis case so decided not to nominate that file.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg
- File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí).jpg
- File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper-2.JPG
- File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper-3.JPG
- File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper.jpg
- File:FC Barcelona training facility (33630127961).jpg
- File:FC Barcelona.jpg
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Jonteemil (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- And if anyone is questioning whether the logo at all is copyrightable the FC Barcelona logo has been deemed above COM:TOO Spain per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of FC Barcelona. Jonteemil (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This logo of FC Barcelona appears on the facilities of the sportive city of the club and you see it walking on the street. If you take a picture of these buildings, the logo fatally appears. Besides, this is the modern interpretation of a logo created in 1910's. --Enric (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- A logo created in the 1910's can still be copyrighted so we need COM:EVID of the logo being in the public domain in that case. Jonteemil (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep for me. Not sure what the copyright ownership has to do with FoP, unless you are suggesting it was painted there without permission from the copyright owner. You don't have the right to use the logo elsewhere, but photos depicting it in its public setting should be fine. A crop which removes its public context may be problematic, especially for a 2-D work as it may be more of a copy than a depiction of it. The fact other copies may exist before or later is irrelevant (there are no FoP rights over other copies, unless they are also permanently placed in public). If someone makes 20 castings of a statue, but only one is put up in public, photos of that statue are still fine. The "natural lifetime" part of FoP is not relevant here (since many other copies can exist); just the fact that this copy was placed in public without a scheduled time to be removed ("leaving it in the public place indefinitely"). Even if there was just architectural or three-dimensional FoP, it would only be photos focusing on the logo, or intentionally including it for effect, which would be an issue and I only see a couple of those in there. All other photos would be incidental, I would think (a different concept from "de minimis" but still mentioned on that policy page). As for differing laws in different countries, there are precious few cases on this type of thing anywhere, so often we really don't know -- those courts may well look to cases in other countries for guidance, though they could disagree and rule differently. If we ever get contrary rulings, then we would update the page. So yes, there are always theoretical doubts that a court could rule differently than we have seen before, but until one actually does we tend to go with the best guidance we can, even if the logic is from a different country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have the right to use the logo elsewhere, in that case, wouldn't it be in violation of COM:Licensing? Jonteemil (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- No. You have the right to use the photo which shows the logo in its public context, since that is the only content which is licensed. If you crop to a de minimis item for example, it is no longer de minimis. Or use of the logo itself needs a direct license for that, which we do not have. The only thing which is licensed is the photographic content. For example, with a photo of a statue, we need a license for the photo, and (if not in a FoP country) we would need permission from the sculptor something roughly equivalent to FoP permission -- we do not require the statue itself to be fully licensed, which would let other people make copies of the statue itself. We just need permission for the photo to be used as a photo. And of course, it's usually more trademark rights which cover logos, not copyrights, but that is a Commons:Non-copyright restriction so we ignore that for licensing requirements (which are strictly about copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- No ned to use De minimis. A photo showing only the logo is still covered by FOP-Spain. De minims would be relevant in a country with FOP for buildings but not for 2D works, but FOP-Spain covers both.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Correct for these. The nominator was asking some more hypothetical questions though, so just mentioning that for non-FoP countries as well. But even with FoP, don't think you could take a straight-on photo, and crop it to remove all public context, then use it. If something amounts to a copy and can serve as a substitute, it would violate article 40bis of Spain's law -- The Articles of this Chapter may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer. That slight limitation is imposed by the Berne Convention (the wording in Spain's law is taken directly from the treaty). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- So File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg should be deleted in violation of article 40bis? Jonteemil (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's the closest one, but I think that is still a photo of the logo in its public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- That kind of photos (File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg) has never been deleted in Commons, and "unreasonable" has never been understood here this way. Photos of murals are the textbook example of FOP. The "unrasonable" and "legitimate" are usually understood about works placed outside without permission. Here, it's reasonable and safe to assume that the club is using its own logo with permission and that it has willingly placed the logo in its own wall facing the street. No reason to delete.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's the closest one, but I think that is still a photo of the logo in its public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- So File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg should be deleted in violation of article 40bis? Jonteemil (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Correct for these. The nominator was asking some more hypothetical questions though, so just mentioning that for non-FoP countries as well. But even with FoP, don't think you could take a straight-on photo, and crop it to remove all public context, then use it. If something amounts to a copy and can serve as a substitute, it would violate article 40bis of Spain's law -- The Articles of this Chapter may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer. That slight limitation is imposed by the Berne Convention (the wording in Spain's law is taken directly from the treaty). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- No ned to use De minimis. A photo showing only the logo is still covered by FOP-Spain. De minims would be relevant in a country with FOP for buildings but not for 2D works, but FOP-Spain covers both.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- No. You have the right to use the photo which shows the logo in its public context, since that is the only content which is licensed. If you crop to a de minimis item for example, it is no longer de minimis. Or use of the logo itself needs a direct license for that, which we do not have. The only thing which is licensed is the photographic content. For example, with a photo of a statue, we need a license for the photo, and (if not in a FoP country) we would need permission from the sculptor something roughly equivalent to FoP permission -- we do not require the statue itself to be fully licensed, which would let other people make copies of the statue itself. We just need permission for the photo to be used as a photo. And of course, it's usually more trademark rights which cover logos, not copyrights, but that is a Commons:Non-copyright restriction so we ignore that for licensing requirements (which are strictly about copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have the right to use the logo elsewhere, in that case, wouldn't it be in violation of COM:Licensing? Jonteemil (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep Obvious FOP case. The pictures are clearly taken from the street (in case of doubt, a quick Google Street View check confirms it) and the logo is clearly a work placed permanently in a public place with permission of the copyright owner. It would be hard to imagine a more obvious example of FOP-Spain.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment This discussion should have been on COM:VPC. Of course, "the discussion is better when making a DR" because when you threaten with deleting valuable files from Commons, editors are more pressed to answer than if you just ask questions on the Village Pump, but this way of acting is not fair.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it should but my experience of VP is that participation isn't that big. That's why I chose a DR. Jonteemil (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Even exceed TOO in Spain, {{FoP-Spain}} applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Bucha massacre aftermath, c. April 2022.jpg[edit]
Also:
- File:Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 02.jpg
- File:Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 01.jpg
These are not PD-UA-exempt. {{PD-UA-exempt}} is not like {{PD-USGov}}.
- These are not official documnet in the terms of law, because these works have not political, legislative, or administrative nature.
- These are not official sign of symbol.
- Such works do not fall section "daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information" (see Ukrainian juridical commendatory here for example).
It is possible, that these works were released under some free license. If such permission will be found, images can be re-licensed.
Similar case and its resolution with updated permission and successful re-licensing see here --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сгоревший вагон Д1-657-3.jpg. Alex Spade (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- @DinoSoupCanada: You probably know better about this than I do, your thoughts? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have not looked into this much but I think you are correct. However, if the government site says that it's in public domain, than it can stay. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- The current source of these works is not the government site licensed by any of free license, and not every Ukrainian gov.site is free licensed, only some of them are free licensed. The current source is just twitter message lacking any license. It is possible, that these works were released under some free license, but these are not exempt indeed. Alex Spade (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have not looked into this much but I think you are correct. However, if the government site says that it's in public domain, than it can stay. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Animoca Brands logo.svg[edit]
This is a logo for a Hong-Kong based company, so COM:L requires that this be freely available in both the United States and in Hong Kong. While simple, and probably under COM:TOO USA, COM:TOO Hong Kong indicates that the TOO in Hong Kong presumed to be equivalent to that of the United Kingdom (i.e. very low). With things like the logo of Edge Magazine being under the U..K.'s threshold of originality, it seems likely that this logo (particularly with the crowned figure for the "o" in "animoca" and the placement of "BRANDS" as negative space) is above the TOO in the U.K., and thus would appear to be above the TOO in the administrative region of this logo's origin. For these reasons, I believe that the file should be deleted in line with COM:PRP as being non-free in Hong Kong. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
File:Bob Kustra.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Putitonamap98 as Copyvio (Copyvio)
Flickr source https://www.flickr.com/photos/navyoutreach/28934948200/in/photolist-oGf4B1-4NU63C-cHgi-7YV12S-KzjvNd-L5Tb2f is "all rights reserved" but also says "US Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1stClass Marie A. Montez) Released" and EXIF has the U.S. Navy in the copyright holder field. Would seem a clearly public domain photograph regardless of default setting on Flickr. Abzeronow (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; US government work; assuming the Flickr account is legit, they probably just left the default licensing settings. —holly {chat} 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
August 13[edit]
File:Кузнецов ИА(для вики).wmv.ogv + File:Noname10.mpg.ogv[edit]
COM:NOTUSED These two files were uploaded by same user (Колосова_Галина). She has not got any other contribution on Commons or any other Wikimedia project. These files are not used in any Wikimedia project. We can not identify these person, there are not articles about Кузнецов И.А. or Волков Нестор Иванович in Ru-Wiki. The uploader had not registered in Ru-Wiki or in any Wikimedia project. It is possible, that she is registered in Ru-Wiki as Галина_Колосова, but that user has not got any edits (including deleted). Alex Spade (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Nous avons l'autorisation d'exploitation de la photo par l'auteur lui-même.
File:Caroline Loeb par Stephane Coutelle1 jpg.jpg[edit]
annoncé comme étant téléchargé depuis un site internet. Ne semble pas une oeuvre du contributeur Limfjord69 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with VTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Riksvåpenet.jpg[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- This design is made especially for the use of the Norwegian parliament "Stortinget". It is explained here: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/stortingets-designhandbok/stortingets-riksvapen/ Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hans Cappelen care to explain? I see no reason to keep lower-quality jpeg version File:Riksvåpenet.jpg when we have File:Coat of arms of the Storting (monochromatic).svg. No global usage refers of use of the jpg file on Wikimedia projects, not that nobody in the world uses an image like that. Delete Platonides (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hans Cappelen that is correct. These are exact duplicates. And if you read the file description of the newer vector versions of the 6 variants of the coat of arms of the Storting that are in use today you will see that I have explained precisely what each coat of arms is used for. Also with references. There is absolutely nothing lost by deleting the raster versions. Only the opposite, so that people who stumble across the coats on the Commons know what their use is and of course the files are of better quality. Delete Worldlydev (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hans Cappelen that is correct. These are exact duplicates. And if you read the file description of the newer vector versions of the 6 variants of the coat of arms of the Storting that are in use today you will see that I have explained precisely what each coat of arms is used for. Also with references. There is absolutely nothing lost by deleting the raster versions. Only the opposite, so that people who stumble across the coats on the Commons know what their use is and of course the files are of better quality.
- Hans Cappelen care to explain? I see no reason to keep lower-quality jpeg version File:Riksvåpenet.jpg when we have File:Coat of arms of the Storting (monochromatic).svg. No global usage refers of use of the jpg file on Wikimedia projects, not that nobody in the world uses an image like that.
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Riksvåpenet, tofarget.jpg[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is for the eclusive use of the Norwegian parliament the "Stortinget", look here: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/stortingets-designhandbok/stortingets-riksvapen/ Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hans Cappelen that is correct. I probably should have linked to the superseding versions right here in the deletion requests so that you could easily see the newer version for yourself. There is nothing lost by deleting this raster version. This coat of arms should be deleted, just at the other should be. Read the explanation here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riksvåpenet.jpg Delete Worldlydev (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hans Cappelen that is correct. I probably should have linked to the superseding versions right here in the deletion requests so that you could easily see the newer version for yourself. There is nothing lost by deleting this raster version. This coat of arms should be deleted, just at the other should be. Read the explanation here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riksvåpenet.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:National Formosa University logo.png[edit]
Copyrighted calligraphy work, per COM:TOO Taiwan. Larryasou (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:暨大附中師生於學校藝文中心集會.jpg[edit]
可能侵犯肖像權，故提刪 Naven227 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Vista aerea di Frigento.jpg[edit]
Unlikely to be own. Image widely been found on the internet (e.g. here) with no exif data. 3knolls (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- The image is mine because the author gave it to my dad in 2015: that's why I printed it a few years ago and it's a poster on my room's wall. The author took it about 10 yers ago while flying over the village. I met him yesterday in order to speak about this image. I specifically asked if I could upload and he said yes. However, the image is not everywhere online. It's just available on 2 web pages: here (and in the same web page, just the English translation) and here. It's easy to check: just use Google Lens. However, the images on those web pages are low quality, mine is HD and it's easy to know why: I have the genuine file. The photo was uploaded on social media a few years ago and then deleted. So it's easy to find out why someone else has it: they downloaded it in low quality from Facebook years ago to be able to misuse it. I hope my report can clear up the misunderstanding. I apologize for the bad English, I hope it's all understandable. And I apologize for any possible mistake too, I'm just a beginner in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I look forward to receiving your feedback. Thank you. Frg.gm (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Frg.gm: First thing, you should not have claimed it as "own work" since you did not take the photo, and you should put your dad's friend's name as the author (if he doesn't want his name published, you can put
Family friend of [[User:Frg.gm]]. Next, please read the instructions at COM:VRT. The author must send an email saying that he is the creator of the photo and that he agrees to the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose. OK? Please try to get that done soon. If this is not done within let's say two weeks (December 15) then we will need to delete this. Thank you! —holly {chat} 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Frg.gm: First thing, you should not have claimed it as "own work" since you did not take the photo, and you should put your dad's friend's name as the author (if he doesn't want his name published, you can put
Files in Category:Waldemar Kolmsperger d. J.[edit]
The painter who created these paintings/frescoes in German or Austrian churches, Waldemar Kolmsperger the Younger, died in 1954, so his works are not in the public domain in Germany and Austria yet, and the files should be deleted. There is no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany, and while freedom of panorama in Austria (COM:FOP Austria) does extend to building parts (like church windows, among many other parts) also when photographed from the inside, it does not cover frescoes.
The works were created in various years from 1925 to 1945 and had their US copyrights restored by the URAA. The files can therefore be restored in various years from 2025 to 2041, depending on if the German/Austrian or the US copyright will run longer. I'll add notes and categories.
- File:Au hl Leonhard Indoor Böhringer 12.JPG
- File:Au hl Leonhard Indoor Böhringer 13.JPG
- File:Au Hl Leonhard04.JPG
- File:Maria Himmelfahrt (Pfons) 10.JPG
- File:St. Michael (Jesenwang) Deckengemälde Langhaus.jpg
- File:Jesenwang St. Michael 764.jpg
- File:Jesenwang St. Michael 767.jpg
- File:Jesenwang St. Michael 771.jpg
- File:Jesenwang St. Michael 772.jpg
- File:Völklingen Versöhnungskirche Innen Deckengemälde.JPG
_10.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Deckengem%C3%A4lde_Langhaus.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are these really original paintings by Waldemar Kolmsperger, or merely reconstructions of the original frescos by Josef Adam Mölk († 1794)? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- (referring to the fresco in Pfarrkirche Matrei/Br., I didn't see there are several different places, even in different countries, mixed together). --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- de:Pfarrkirche Matrei am Brenner (as well as the file description) says it's a 1945 work by Kolmsperger, no word about a reconstruction of an older work by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 22:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, then this should be clarified before the picture is unnecessarily deleted. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- What is there to "clarify"? We have a clear statement that it's a work of Kolmsperger. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Where is this "clear statement"? And where does ist say that it is an original work by Kolmsperger and not a restoration? Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- What is there to "clarify"? We have a clear statement that it's a work of Kolmsperger. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, then this should be clarified before the picture is unnecessarily deleted. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- de:Pfarrkirche Matrei am Brenner (as well as the file description) says it's a 1945 work by Kolmsperger, no word about a reconstruction of an older work by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 22:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
And wait... He died in 1954, so on 1 January 2025 his works will be in the public domain. What's that about 2041??? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Licensing: “Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” As explained above, based on the year they were created, some of the works are still protected in the USA (because of the URAA law). US copyright terms of that kind run for 95 years. The work from Pfons/Matrei dates from 1945, so it is still protected in the USA until the end of 2040. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- That is absurd. The 70-years-after-death rule has always ben applied to artworks from Austria. If that would really be the case, then thousands of images had to be deleted (or better be moved to the German Wikipedia). (And, btw, how likely is it, that the heirs of an Austrian painter are going to court in the US and sue someone based on some obscure American law?) Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- You may find it absurd, but others don't, and it's official policy here at Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is absurd. The 70-years-after-death rule has always ben applied to artworks from Austria. If that would really be the case, then thousands of images had to be deleted (or better be moved to the German Wikipedia). (And, btw, how likely is it, that the heirs of an Austrian painter are going to court in the US and sue someone based on some obscure American law?) Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and yes the whole idea of URAA-restored copyrights is absurd, but it is also US law, and as Commons servers reside in the US, we have no choice but to follow it. —holly {chat} 22:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Воронки. VTR 16.jpg[edit]
Фото не зображує об'єкт ПЗФ України Мокрицький Павло (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Авжеж, не заперечую, дійсно зайве Іван Вєтров (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Steamsnipe Kai Cenat.ogg[edit]
Although from a YouTube video with a YouTube CC-BY license, Agent uses clips from Cenat's livestream during many parts of the video as it is a video about streamsniping. The clip is from 12:37 in the video, which is also from Cenat's livestream. Agent doesn't have copyright over Cenat's livestream. reppoptalk 18:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 22:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Mohammad Reza Shah et Soraya à Rome.jpg[edit]
This photograph was taken outside Iran and most likely by a non-Iranian photographer. [5] I found no proof that PD-Iran applies. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statue of Aristide Briand in Ouistreham[edit]
This 1934 sculpture by French artist Emile-Oscar Guillaume is located in France. Guillaume died in 1954, so the work is not in the public domain in France yet. French freedom of panorama excludes commercial uses and is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. The sculpture's US copyright was restored by the URAA and runs until the end of 2029. So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2030.
- File:Aristide Briand (1862 -1932), Ouistreham, Lower Normandy, France - panoramio.jpg
- File:Square et statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham 2.jpg
- File:Square et statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham.jpg
- File:Statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham.jpg
,_Ouistreham,_Lower_Normandy,_France_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Rosenzweig,
- There's serious doubt about the French sculptor Émile Guillaume's year of death. 1954 or 1942 ?
- Two art websites and the base Leonore, an Archives nationales de France database that lists the records of the members of the National Order of the Legion of honor, give 1942 as year of death for Émile Guillaume.
- The French Wikipédia article gives 1954 as year of death and gives as the source of a such information, the birth records in Paris archives where the date of his death would have been added. But I didn't find this information with the link in the article. The university of Nantes and an editor website where a book on Émile Guillaume has been published also gave 1954 year but an interview of the book author gave 1942 ǃ
- The Wikidata element gaves both 1942 (4 references, one of which is the serious Benezit dictionnary of artists (I can't read it) and 1954 (1 reference, the above-mentioned Paris birth record).
- So it probably needs some further researchs
- TCY (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Which means 1954 is not some absurd theory, but a serious possibility. Per COM:PCP, we then have to assume 1954 could be true and act accordingly. A 1942 death year would not change anything for the US copyright of this statue anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 06:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Legion of Honor file has an Avis de décès which says he died 17-7-54 in Paris. I don't know why their overview says he died on 01/01/1942 (a death date of January 1 is a bit suspicious anyway, not impossible of course, but it looks a bit like a placeholder). --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- On further investigation, the year of birth appears to be 1954. It can be seen on the cover of the biography dedicated to him]. And the sculptor is the great-grandfather of the author's wife. And in the book, it's written : "Samedi 7 juillet 1954 à 7h00 du soir, décés à son domicile du square Vergennes à Paris (15e)" (Saturday, July 7, 1954 à 7PM, death at his home, square Vergennes, Paris (15th arrondissement).
- As this lady seems to have the rights, I'll ask her if she'll accept the photos. :)
- In the meantime, OK to remove the photos from Commons and to restore them no later than January 1, 2025 when his works will be in the public domain in France (January 1 following the 70th anniversary of his death if I not mistaken). TCY (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here at Wikimedia Commons, we also have to consider US copyright (see Commons:Licensing), and that runs to the end of 2029 for a 1934 sculpture. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- July 7, 1954 was a Wednesday by the way, not a Saturday. July 17, 1954 (as noted in the avis de décès) was a Saturday, so that would fit. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Legion of Honor file has an Avis de décès which says he died 17-7-54 in Paris. I don't know why their overview says he died on 01/01/1942 (a death date of January 1 is a bit suspicious anyway, not impossible of course, but it looks a bit like a placeholder). --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Newmont Suriname, 1.png[edit]
Original video on YouTube is a news item of ATV-Networks about a gold mine in Suriname. For this TV program they used still photos taken from an airplane or so. Not clear if these photos were provided to the press or if ATV-Networks took those pictures. If ATV-Networks had used their own drone, most like they wouldn't have shown it as a still photo. Robotje (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- News item on ATV-Networks was in 2019, other website used same photo here in 2016. - Robotje (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Иркутский национальный исследовательский технический университет Logo.png[edit]
Not a state or municipal symbol / sign. Does it overcome the threshold of originality? Maxinvestigator (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Azerbaijan's military checkpoint to the Lachin corridor.jpg[edit]
Image is not free. Wrong license NMW03 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1) the exemption template (PD-AZ-Exempt) should be updated to the current copyrights law of 2013
- 2) by the current law, "News of day, data about various events and the facts of information character" are exempt from copyright, it is my understanding that that this image falls under this exemption. R.Lemkin (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know that but I don't think it falls under that NMW03 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? The checkpoint was installed in April and is newsworthy. The website of the Azberbaijani Foreign Ministry, has discussed the checkpoint multiple times under the category of "Press service." The checkpoint's installation is news. R.Lemkin (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know that but I don't think it falls under that NMW03 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete No, this isn't "news of the day"; that sort of exemption tends to protect facts, not what essentially amounts to a stock photograph. Merely that a photograph is included in a news report does not appear to remove its copyrights; the law's English translation at WIPO states the exact exemption as News of day, data about various events and the facts of information character (Azeri: günün yenilikləri, müxtəlif hadisə və faktlar barədə informasiya xarakterli məlumatlar). But this photograph seems to go beyond that narrow exception, so this should be deleted in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The exemption states "News of the day...and the facts of information character."
- The website of the Foreign Ministry literally has discussed the checkpoint multiple times under its "Press service," sometimes twice on the same day or on consecutive days. If this isn't "news of the day," then what is? To be clear, are you saying that no photos published by the Foreign Ministry can be exempt from copyright? R.Lemkin (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, that phrase has a technical meaning in the context of the Berne Convention; see page 30 of this guide. Article 1, Section 8 of the Berne Convention is the relevant treaty to look at, and you will notice that the language is the exact same. The exemption is quite narrow in practice. Just as Associated Press photographs taken yesterday are copyrighted in the United States, even if they are used in newspapers, so too are press photographs taken by citizens of Azerbaijan. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
August 14[edit]
File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 01.jpg[edit]
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Logo above COM:TOO Netherlands and COM:FOP Netherlands is probably invalid on stickers. Jonteemil (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- See also: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 02.jpg", as it's the same sticker. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
_02.jpg){kind=link}
File:Sol de america escudo.png[edit]
We need COM:EVID that it qualifies for PD-old. A 100 old logo can still be copyrighted if the author died >100 years ago. Jonteemil (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment That would be less than 70 years ago, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Paraguay. And this is not a 100-year-old logo; it's a 114-year-old logo. Your arguments still obtain, but the chance that the logo's creator was alive less than 70 years ago are significantly lower than if it were 100 years old and the creator had to be dead for 100 years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 02.jpg[edit]
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per "Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 01.jpg". Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
File:Japan Rugby League One logo.svg[edit]
Possibly above COM:TOO Japan. Jonteemil (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Chinese Taipei Rugby Football Union logo.png[edit]
Above COM:TOO Taiwan which is very low. Jonteemil (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stanstead-Lodge-1949-1200x8891.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag)
1949 British photograph possibly {{PD-UK-unknown}} but it would still be under copyright in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader quite clearly left this description "This photograph belongs to Stanstead Lodge, Lewisham which has the copyright for the photograph. The current owners of the Lodge have given permission to use this photograph, the only copy of which hangs in a room at the Lodge. It is unknown who the photographer was or who took the photograph on behalf of the Lodge". No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it is public domain in the UK, but the current owners of the Lodge cannot assume the rights of the photographer, and the copyright for the photograph was restored by URAA since this photograph only became public domain in the UK on January 1, 2020 which is after January 1. 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stickstoffdioxid an der Station Kiel-Theodor-Heuss-Ring.svg and File:Stickstoffdioxid an der Station Kiel-Theodor-Heuss-Ring 2.svg[edit]
Please delete first versions as source has changed. For the old source I now was not able to find any explicit license. Of course the data in this form is probable not protected, but the first versions are not needed anymore. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Unité d'habitation de Firminy-Vert.jpg[edit]
Architectural copyright copyvio. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in France, and Le Corbusier is not yet dead for more than 70 years, so this building is still under his posthumous copyright as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
File:God Mother Kafé 44.jpg[edit]
Possible copyvio: The uploader is nto the author as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
August 15[edit]
File:大甲鎮農會.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as no permission (No permission since). TOO? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:广州大学校训.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). TOO? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Calligraphy/handwriting work is considered copyrightable in China. See COM:TOO China.
File:رقیه بنت الحسین.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work. This looks a lot like {{PD-text}}, so I'm doubtful that we actually need permission here, but is it in-scope? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is in scope, considering that we host hundreds of similar files in Category:Names in Arabic calligraphy. Also, image search brings no results. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:2010-gorsko-galeria-rzezby-ptakow.jpg[edit]
photo of artwork without permission from author of this sculptures. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Milano, 1999 - C'era una volta una fabbrica.pdf[edit]
Notwithdtanding the previous License review, this PDF contains a series of press clippings which would not necessarily be licenseable under Creative Commons terms. The document itself doesn't contain a clear indidcation of Creative Commons release. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- The licensing statement has been provided by the municipality of Milan, which hosts this scan on behalf of the school which published the work. The editor is s:it:Autore:Giuseppe Deiana, known to use free licenses. The inclusion of quotations doesn't alter the overall licensing status. Nemo 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete The press clippings clearly can't just be re-used without permission and there's no reason to think they optained it. I don't think the fair use thing is valid either since its apparently whole pages of clippings from the originals. You can't just copy complete pages of an original document and then republish them under the guise of fair use. That's not how it works. - Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Tammy Wynette--1975.jpg[edit]
Copyrighted — Racconish 💬 07:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Improv Themes 1953.png[edit]
Adriaan Engels dead in 2003 [6]. eien20 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Bartholomäus Bruyn d. Ä. 012.jpg[edit]
File:Bartholomäus Bruyn (I) - Portret van een ridder - GG 868 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg, File:Bartholomäus Bruyn d. Ä., , Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie - Bildnis eines Ordensritters - GG 868 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg Oursana (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
_-_Portret_van_een_ridder_-_GG_868_-_Kunsthistorisches_Museum.jpg){kind=link}
File:Kubah-masjid.jpg[edit]
violating no-FoP in Indonesia Veracious (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:FC Cartagena Logo.png[edit]
Link provided is a dead link. It is not specified who this "Kakashi" author is, and if he has just drawn an existing logo himself for his website. There is no indication that FC Cartagena itself has given permission for its logo to be shared, and this page on their website strongly indicates it hasn't https://www.fccartagena.es/aviso-legal Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094934080).jpg[edit]
_(21094934080).jpg){kind=link}
_(21094934080).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1955 drawing published in work by Methun/Wiley - Not Public domain ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: published in 1955 where I see there is no copyright notice, so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Embryogenesis in plants (1955)[edit]
Sourced from 1955 work by Methun/Wiley, Not necessarily Public domain.
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (20660304194).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094903890).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094920720).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21095159698).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272449902).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272508892).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272519742).jpg
- File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21283131295).jpg
_(20660304194).jpg){kind=link}
_(21094903890).jpg){kind=link}
_(21094920720).jpg){kind=link}
_(21095159698).jpg){kind=link}
_(21272449902).jpg){kind=link}
_(21272508892).jpg){kind=link}
_(21272519742).jpg){kind=link}
_(21283131295).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: published in 1955 where I see there is no copyright notice, so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Claude Wardlaw was British and died in 1985 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/appliedsedimenta50tras/[edit]
Diagrams from 1950 published by Wiley. Not necessarily PD.
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19746663325).jpg
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19559941359).jpg
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19123942584).jpg
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19746667645).jpg
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19558486770).jpg
- File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19558417628).jpg
_(19746663325).jpg){kind=link}
_(19559941359).jpg){kind=link}
_(19123942584).jpg){kind=link}
_(19746667645).jpg){kind=link}
_(19558486770).jpg){kind=link}
_(19558417628).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: published in 1950 where I see a copyright notice, but doing a renewal search returns just three renewal results for this author and none for this title or this date: so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-not renewed}} as its copyright details.
- Also noted - https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb0580022s;doc.view=content&chunk.id=div00024&toc.depth=1&brand=oac4&anchor.id=0 confirming the author as American. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Bio-ecology (1939) (20362769912).jpg[edit]
_(20362769912).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362769912).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1939 image from work published by J Wiley and Sons, Not necessarily PD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Only one title by this author renewed for a 1939 book called Plant-biology, so {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies. ShakespeareFan00 you appear to be doing several drive-by deletion nominations without any investigation that I've figured out in a few minutes to save several files. Ww2censor (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cytochemistry- a critical approach (1953) (20639762998).jpg[edit]
_(20639762998).jpg){kind=link}
_(20639762998).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sourced to 1 952 by J Wiley and Sons, Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep this book does not appear to have had its copyright renewed per this search so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Ww2censor (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- James_Danielli was British and was still alive in the 1980's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/biochemistryofse00mann/[edit]
Sourced to a 1953 publication by Methun/Wiley - Not necessarily PD as claimed.
- File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20183080508).jpg
- File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (19748358104).jpg
- File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20371036325).jpg
- File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20362530802).jpg
_(20183080508).jpg){kind=link}
_(19748358104).jpg){kind=link}
_(20371036325).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362530802).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: published in 1954 where I see there is no copyright notice, so it is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not seeing a renwal, but the primary author was working in the United Kingdom. Thaddeus Robert Rudolph Mann (4 December 1908 – 27 November 1993) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/elementsofecolog00clar/[edit]
Sourced to a 1954 publication by Wiley - Not necessarily PD
- File:Elements of ecology (1954) (20628306903).jpg
- File:Elements of ecology (1954) (21249320825).jpg
- File:Elements of ecology (1954) (21061502918).jpg
_(20628306903).jpg){kind=link}
_(21249320825).jpg){kind=link}
_(21061502918).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply Ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Biochemistry of plants and animals, an introduction (1960) (20184919509).jpg[edit]
_(20184919509).jpg){kind=link}
_(20184919509).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sourced to a 1960 publication by Wiley. Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Besides which, that image is like PD anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Design for a brain; the origin of adaptive behavior (1960) (20857251826).jpg[edit]
_(20857251826).jpg){kind=link}
_(20857251826).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sourced to a 1960 publication by Wiley, Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- William Ross Ashby (6 September 1903 – 15 November 1972) was British. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:LIFE.svg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Emu as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. If this is really logo of political party, then maybe the logo has educational value. I allow a week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/alphaamanitincon00henc/[edit]
Sourced to a 1979 thesis , Identifiable author and not a Federal work that I can see.
- File:Alpha-amanitin-concanavalin A conjugates as inhibitors of specific cell types (1979) (17923196689).jpg
- File:Alpha-amanitin-concanavalin A conjugates as inhibitors of specific cell types (1979) (17486816274).jpg
_(17923196689).jpg){kind=link}
_(17486816274).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Rem Re-Zero Cosplay otaku.jpg[edit]
Original version: File:Cosplayers of Rem and Ram at FFACG 20160715a.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Best management practices for grazing Montana (1999) (20367195035).jpg[edit]
_(20367195035).jpg){kind=link}
_(20367195035).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sourced to a 1999 publication of a State agency in Montana. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Angre Rue Grison n°19.jpg[edit]
We have a claim in the ticket:2023081010004811 that the photo was made from a private garden without permission. Initially I thought that it was made from this street position but Google view shows trees there that were not much smaller 3 years ago. Also, metadata does not suggest about using tele. If the photo was not made from a public location, we may have not only privacy infringement, but also a copyright problem, depending on the architect death date. (FoP works only in public locations.) @Torsade de Pointes: can you comment on these, please? Ankry (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. The picture has been taken from a public place, namely : from a narrow street running behind the pictured house. You can easily verify it if you ask ‘Rue Chasse Lotteau, Angre Honnelles’ in Google Street View (go to the southern part of the mentioned street). Best regards. Torsade de Pointes (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but not convincing to me. As you can see in the linked above Google street image, the space between trees is so narrow that it is unlikely to make a good photo of the building from Rue Chasse Lotteau. Moreover, I doubt if the photo could be made from the street (which is 70m away from the building) using 16mm lens (which has view angle ~100 degrees). But I would appreciate another opinion. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- What you see in Street View is the situation as it was ten years ago. Since then, the trees have grown taller, making more likely that there would be sufficient space between the trunks to take that photograph. I can’t remember exactly of course, but what I’m sure about is that I did not jump over the wall to take that picture!—Torsade de Pointes (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm the person requesting that the image be removed because it's not the facade visible from the main street! This is our private garden! This garden has a 2m wall all around the house. It is therefore not possible to obtain this view without climbing the wall or taking a ladder (or other indiscretion). We've lived in this house for 30 years, so we've known about all the changes for several years, and this wall hasn't changed. On the other hand, this photo is no more than 5 years old (there were other plantations before that). Please remove this photo. 95.182.192.53 07:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- What you see in Street View is the situation as it was ten years ago. Since then, the trees have grown taller, making more likely that there would be sufficient space between the trunks to take that photograph. I can’t remember exactly of course, but what I’m sure about is that I did not jump over the wall to take that picture!—Torsade de Pointes (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe, but not convincing to me. As you can see in the linked above Google street image, the space between trees is so narrow that it is unlikely to make a good photo of the building from Rue Chasse Lotteau. Moreover, I doubt if the photo could be made from the street (which is 70m away from the building) using 16mm lens (which has view angle ~100 degrees). But I would appreciate another opinion. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Sjøforsvarets avdelingsvåpen.png[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution around edges. Worldlydev (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe .svg is the preferred format for this type of image. Nv8200p (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Larvea and Webbing - Cydalima perspectalis.jpg[edit]
"Photo courtesy of Matteo Maspero and Andrea Tantardini, Centro MiRT - Fondazione Minoprio (IT)". Not a U.S. Government work. Metadata links to https://gd.eppo.int/ which doesn't appear to have a Creative Commons license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure if it makes a difference, but it says it is PD on flickr. P,TO 19104 (pls ping!) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Guards Armoured Division D-Day.png[edit]
Already made here: File:Guards Armoured Division Structure.png Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Alte Nationalgalerie, Arnold Böcklin, Selbstbildnis mit fiedelndem Tod.JPG[edit]
we have several others of that image without the reflecting light. Not used in any project as well Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Zunächst sollte man feststellen, dass das von mir hochgeladene Bild gut gelungen ist. Die geringfügige Reflexion im oberen Bildbereich gibt dem Foto sogar eine gewisse Lebendigkeit.
- Natürlich kann man das auch anders sehen, und ich wäre somit nicht beleidigt, würde das Bild tatsächlich gelöscht. Dguendel 14:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:1872 Boecklin Selbstbildnis mit fiedelndem Tod anagoria.JPG[edit]
we have several others without the reflecting light. Used in one project before I exchanged it already with a better one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Logotipo TV Cidade Nova Mutum.png[edit]
Possibly exceeds threshold of originality * Pppery * it has begun... 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE and I doubt this is above COM:TOO Brazil or COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:München (9497915918).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
fully copyrighted, no FoP (because temporary advertisem.) Mateus2019 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Crop the left half of the photo away and Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Opening van de Daniël den Hoed kliniek (1965) (cropped).jpg[edit]
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted sculpture by Robert van der Veen. The photograph is CC0, but the underlying work is still in copyright. Multichill (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This includes the photos in Category:Works by Robert van der Veen. Commons:De minimis might apply to some, but having them in Category:Works by Robert van der Veen kind of defeats the argument.
- File:Burgemeester Thomassen (r.) in gesprek bij het borstbeeld van Daniël den Hoed, Bestanddeelnr 918-3539.jpg
- File:Heren en dames tijdens de opening, Bestanddeelnr 918-3543.jpg
- File:Jongeman naast borstbeeld van Daniël den Hoed, Bestanddeelnr 918-3540.jpg
- File:Opening van de Daniël den Hoed kliniek (1965).jpg
_in_gesprek_bij_het_borstbeeld_van_Daniël_den_Hoed,_Bestanddeelnr_918-3539.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not sure if Robert van der Veen (Q117353355) is still alive or not. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep one file (File:Heren en dames tijdens de opening, Bestanddeelnr 918-3543.jpg), because of Commons:De minimis. Delete other 4 files. Delete Category:Works by Robert van der Veen. --- Vysotsky (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:King Michael I and Queen Anne of Romania.jpg[edit]
1. The King was exiled from Romania by the communist government. The marriage took place in Greece. The author is unknown. There is no reason why Romanian law should determine copyright. 2. The marriage took place in 1948. There is no reason that a decree issued in 1956 shall determine copyright. HENCE: NO VALID LICENSING. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
File:CSD Berlin 2023 015.webm[edit]
copyrighted music in video, not cc licensed Victorgrigas (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- As the subject are the people and the protest on the video the music in the background could be considered de minimis. GPSLeo (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I added a revision without audio track. However I think the music is de minimis. Nobody would watch the video for its music content. The same music can be found at youtube or spotify for free in superior quality and in different versions without background noise and complete from second 1 to the end of the track. It would also be difficult to find one specific song within the more than 5 hours running time of the video. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
August 16[edit]
File:Aagreatwestern.png[edit]
I'm not finding this company, so presumably little-known and out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's a logo of a Brazilian football club created in 1928 and dissolved in 1954, see https://historiadofutebol.com/blog/?p=71836 Not an own work, of course. But maybe we can keep it after changing the license: Brazilian anonymous works are in PD upon 70 years after the first publication. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have no objection to keeping this file if it could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023)[edit]
Not covered by FOP Spain, as there is not any shred of panorama here - instead, the images and crops only cover copyrighted material, interfering in the author legitimate interests of exploitation of his work. Notably, it goes against this disposition of the law: "The above may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."
- File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 02.jpg
- File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 03.jpg
- File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 04.jpg
- File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 07.jpg
- File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 02.jpg
- File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 03.jpg
- File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 04.jpg
- File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 05.jpg
- File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 08.jpg
- File:Sinking of the SMS Gneisenau (Detail from History of Malaga by Idígoras).jpg
- File:Umar ibn Hafsun (caricature).jpg
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Darwin Ahoy! 02:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete as this is merely the reproduction of an artwork not owned by the uploader, in spite of being uploaded as "own work". Rkieferbaum (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- The photos are my own work. The public mural is by Ángel Idígoras. He is duly credited in the image description and in the wikidata item of the mural. All my images of public street murals are my own work and their creators are duly credited in the image. You can check it here. Dcapillae (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
These files correspond to a public artwork. It is a mural that is publicly displayed on the street in Malaga, Spain. In this panoramic image you can see the complete mural. These files are only extracts from the mural (check it out here). It is a work of public art in the street. --Dcapillae (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Spain allows 2D art per COM:FOP. If you want to change our interpretation of Spanish law, you should start a thread at COM:VPC instead of opening individual DRs that argue for an interpretation of the law which is contrary to longstanding consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts Pardon me, but who are you, to have any expectation that your personal opinion would prevail over what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists, and why do you have any expectation that somehow COM:VPC would prevail over these courts? Not only Spanish FOP (article 32.2) do not apply to copyrighted works extracted from it's panorama, due to its obvious interference with the normal exploitation of the work by its author, but there are actually serious doubts that it still exists at all for commercial use after the introduction of article 40bis - "Tras la introducción en nuestro ordenamiento del artículo 40 bis LPI 183, la doctrina que se ha ocupado de esta cuestión se ha pronunciado unánimemente en contra de permitir, al amparo del artículo 35.2 LPI, la utilización de obras ubicadas en la vía pública cuando haya fines lucrativos / After the introduction into our legal system of Article 40 bis of the LPI 183, the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." (source, p. 75) but I'll not go into this last one, at least for now, since it would revoke the entire Spanish FOP. The cases in this DR are similar to others that have a clear court sentence in Spain against the commercialization of such works. See, for instance, the jurisprudence and court cases cited here, page 74 and following ones, notably the cases of "Conjunto Escultorico Los Raqueros" and "Toro de Osborne", among others, which ruled against the commercialization of reproductions of these works by 3rd persons, despite being located in a public space. Darwin Ahoy! 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have a solid enough understanding of Spanish law to form a personal opinion on the matter. However, it is important to note that what you call "what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists" is nothing more than your personal interpretation of what Spanish legal professionals have written, which does not override the community's interpretation of the same. The community may decide to change their interpretation at VPC if you provide sufficiently compelling arguments, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts No, it is not my interpretation at all, as can be seen from the court cases, quotes and sources mentioned above, which apparently you didn't care to read. Darwin Ahoy! 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Did the courts rule specifically on this mural? If not, then your claim that the precedent is applicable here is original research. Whenever we have general jurisprudence that appears to affect a very large category of images, we always want to first filter it through the community, who may: 1) decide that such images are free enough for Commons anyways (e.g. we have long allowed COM:DM photos even though they prohibit certain types of derivative works such as extracting a 2D billboard from a cityscape in the US, and this restriction technically violates the Four Freedoms of Free Cultural Works); 2) find contradictory jurisprudence from other sources. Since we don't know if your examples are cherry-picked or truly representative of the Spanish legal consensus, it is currently nothing more than your own original research/synthesis of the sources.
- Since you do not seem to be arguing that this work is any different from any other 2D murals in Spain, let's not waste any more time in this DR and resolve the issue at a global level at VPC. Then these images will be kept or deleted based on the global community consensus interpretation of the law. If everyone else backs up your interpretation, then we can codify it in COM:FOP Spain and move on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts No, it is not my interpretation at all, as can be seen from the court cases, quotes and sources mentioned above, which apparently you didn't care to read. Darwin Ahoy! 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have a solid enough understanding of Spanish law to form a personal opinion on the matter. However, it is important to note that what you call "what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists" is nothing more than your personal interpretation of what Spanish legal professionals have written, which does not override the community's interpretation of the same. The community may decide to change their interpretation at VPC if you provide sufficiently compelling arguments, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts Pardon me, but who are you, to have any expectation that your personal opinion would prevail over what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists, and why do you have any expectation that somehow COM:VPC would prevail over these courts? Not only Spanish FOP (article 32.2) do not apply to copyrighted works extracted from it's panorama, due to its obvious interference with the normal exploitation of the work by its author, but there are actually serious doubts that it still exists at all for commercial use after the introduction of article 40bis - "Tras la introducción en nuestro ordenamiento del artículo 40 bis LPI 183, la doctrina que se ha ocupado de esta cuestión se ha pronunciado unánimemente en contra de permitir, al amparo del artículo 35.2 LPI, la utilización de obras ubicadas en la vía pública cuando haya fines lucrativos / After the introduction into our legal system of Article 40 bis of the LPI 183, the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." (source, p. 75) but I'll not go into this last one, at least for now, since it would revoke the entire Spanish FOP. The cases in this DR are similar to others that have a clear court sentence in Spain against the commercialization of such works. See, for instance, the jurisprudence and court cases cited here, page 74 and following ones, notably the cases of "Conjunto Escultorico Los Raqueros" and "Toro de Osborne", among others, which ruled against the commercialization of reproductions of these works by 3rd persons, despite being located in a public space. Darwin Ahoy! 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcapillae I'm not contesting (for now) that the mural inserted in the surrounding scenery is a violation of copyright, though the Spanish jurisprudence seems to point that indeed it is. However, any instance of these works that isolate the work from it's surrounding panorama and use it for commercial purposes are indeed copyright violations in Spain, as has been consistently ruled by Spanish courts (see above). Darwin Ahoy! 13:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- My only interest in this matter is to know if I can continue documenting photographically the murals in Malaga, Spain. I have been doing it for several years. I am photographically documenting the murals, graffiti, memorials, public art and street art in Malaga and wish to continue doing so. But if I am informed that my images are not welcome, I will stop doing it. In that case, it would be convenient to delete many other images that I have been uploading. I leave it to the discretion of the administrators. In my galleries are all the images I have uploaded to Commons. Thanks! Dcapillae (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Dcapillae Look, this is nothing personal against you as a photographer, it's a mistake commonly done and has nothing to do with the quality or pertinence of your work, which I vehemently applaud. While I'm absolutely sure that the commercialization of the work extracted from its panorama is a violation of copyright in Spain, as is in many other jurisdictions like Brazil and Portugal, I still hope that the reproduction of the work inserted in the panorama would be allowed under the current law. However, a number of sources I consulted say the opposite, so I'll be opening a topic about it in COM:VPC, so that we as a community can check if FOP in Spain exists at all and eventually find more sources clarifying its status, or otherwise act accordingly to remove the copyright violations from Commons. Darwin Ahoy! 13:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- My only interest in this matter is to know if I can continue documenting photographically the murals in Malaga, Spain. I have been doing it for several years. I am photographically documenting the murals, graffiti, memorials, public art and street art in Malaga and wish to continue doing so. But if I am informed that my images are not welcome, I will stop doing it. In that case, it would be convenient to delete many other images that I have been uploading. I leave it to the discretion of the administrators. In my galleries are all the images I have uploaded to Commons. Thanks! Dcapillae (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete It seems pretty clear to me after reading through the discussion on the copyright board that Spanish FoP doesn't cover images being used for commercial purposes. To cite something from a source that was provided by DarwIn "the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." Also another source says ""Authorization or permission required not for transforming or photographing the work, but for exploiting the results of the transformation." I'm not really sure how anyone can claim a unanimous decision against images being used for commercial purposes is just DarwIn's "personal interpretation of Spanish law" or whatever. Guidelines are supposed to be based on actual cases, the opinions of legal experts, and the scope of the project scope (which doesn't allow for images that can't be used commercially). All of those things point in the direction of deleting these images. Not to say it's not worth having a wider discussion about, but the images should clearly be deleted regardless. It's not like they can't just be un-deleted if the discussion goes a different way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama section says that "authorization from the copyright holder is required for commercial use of photographs". I understand that you are referring to copyrighted works. How can I know if a street mural is protected by copyright? I have many murals photographed and none (that I know of) are copyrighted. --Dcapillae (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am interested in this matter because if the images of this mural are deleted, I think the administrators should also delete all the other images of street murals that I have uploaded (and many others that are in Commons). I have put a lot of work into this and it would hurt me, but if that is the right decision, I accept it. What I would not understand would be to delete these images and not delete all the others in Commons.--Dcapillae (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the situation and if we know who the artist is or not. Like if a business hires an artist to paint a mural on the side of their shop and said artist puts their signature on the mural then it's reasonable to assume the work is copyrighted. You'd probably be fine if the mural is just random graffiti on a highway underpass and there's no way to prove who created it though. In this case we know who the artist is and I wouldn't call it graffiti. So it's probably worth airing on the side of caution by just deleting the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not graffiti, it's a mural. Almost every mural I have photographed has an author. I usually research each piece to find out the name of the author and the date of creation. That, in addition to taking photographs, is what my contributions to Commons consist of. You can check my gallery of murals and graffiti and you will see that most murals and graffiti incorporate the name of the author, as in this case.
- I initiated this project as part of my contributions to OpenStreetMap. I have been working for years to geolocate public art, street art and memorials in Malaga (Spain), adding their location on the map and uploading at least one image to Commons. I insist that I don't understand why this mural should be deleted and not all the others in Commons. I am saddened by the deletion of my contributions, but I accept the decision if it is correct and reasoned. In this case I don't understand why this mural should be deleted and not all the others in Commons. Dcapillae (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it graffiti. Nor would I. The reason I mentioned it is because there's Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#graffiti, which has this line "Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally. Photographs of graffiti have long been allowed on Commons. As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." That's the only reason I can think of why these images would be allowed, but as you say we know who the original artist is and they can prove authorship without admitting to doing something illegal in the process. It would be hard to argue that they qualify for freedom of panorama since the Spanish courts has ruled against commercial use of works situated in public spaces where the work had been extracted from it's surrounding panorama given that these are zoomed in shots of the artwork that are devoid of the surroundings. So I'm not really sure what other grounds there would be to keep the images. That's just my opinion though.
- I think it depends on the situation and if we know who the artist is or not. Like if a business hires an artist to paint a mural on the side of their shop and said artist puts their signature on the mural then it's reasonable to assume the work is copyrighted. You'd probably be fine if the mural is just random graffiti on a highway underpass and there's no way to prove who created it though. In this case we know who the artist is and I wouldn't call it graffiti. So it's probably worth airing on the side of caution by just deleting the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I initiated as part of my contributions to OpenStreetMap. Might I suggest using Mapillary? I know it's not popular with OpenStreetMap users since they got bought out by Facebook but they don't really care about FoP and I'm pretty sure you can re-upload them to Mappillary using their desktop app if the images have coordinates. I'm pretty sure there's a tag for them in OSM that's supported at least by OsmAnd, if not other apps, to. Really, I'd recommend doing that even if the images are kept since It's always good to images backed up and supported in multiple places just in case anyway. Apparently there's even a tag for images hosted on flickr. Although I don't know what OsmAnd software supports it, but you might also look into to that. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am still interested in knowing why images like this mural cannot be uploaded to Commons when there are many street murals on Commons whose author is known and they are not illegal works. I would be disappointed with the decision of the administrators if they deleted only these images and not all other murals on Commons. The guidelines should be the same for everyone. Dcapillae (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Graffiti can also have a known author and not be illegal. For example, this graffiti by Octavi Serra (Aryz).
- I initiated as part of my contributions to OpenStreetMap. Might I suggest using Mapillary? I know it's not popular with OpenStreetMap users since they got bought out by Facebook but they don't really care about FoP and I'm pretty sure you can re-upload them to Mappillary using their desktop app if the images have coordinates. I'm pretty sure there's a tag for them in OSM that's supported at least by OsmAnd, if not other apps, to. Really, I'd recommend doing that even if the images are kept since It's always good to images backed up and supported in multiple places just in case anyway. Apparently there's even a tag for images hosted on flickr. Although I don't know what OsmAnd software supports it, but you might also look into to that. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. These pictures are bidimensional reproductions of works in permanent display at publicly-accesible places and therefore they are subject to the FoP exception pursuant to article 35.2 of the Spanish Copyright Act. As things stand now, the question of transformation has been the subject to doctrinal debate, but I couldn't find any judgement that holds that it is a copyright infringement to remove the surrounding panorama of a FoP picture. As I've stated elsewhere you can find as much sources and scholars arguing that FoP pictures do not need to be accesory or incidental, and that some acts of transformation are also allowed or even a logic consequence attached to taking the photograph, the video or the drawing (cf. Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano, Martín Salamanca or Rodríguez Tapia, to name some). Who's right? If anything, the question is not settled; precisely because of the absence of case law. I don't think that by simply uploading and hosting these pictures in Commons we are causing the author an "unjustifiable" prejudice to his legitimate interests (the paternity and integrity moral rights are being fully respected) nor that this is against the "normal exploitation" of his work, which in any case must be proven. Both concepts are dynamic and need a case-by-case interpretation because there's no one-size-fit-all answer. About these limits, the Spanish Supreme Court (Judgement no. STS 3942/2012 of April 3, 2012) held that (intellectual) property is not an absolute right and is limited by the Spanish constitution to serve a social function according to the laws, and while copyright exceptions have to be narrowly construed, nor article 40 bis LPI nor the closed system of exceptions can be used abusively nor to foresee absurd hypotheses, nor prevent the ius usus inocui doctrine in copyright law, subject to a case-by-case analysis pursuant to both article 40 bis of the Spanish Copyright Act and article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code. Then there's the attempt of some scholars to extrapolate the Swedish court decision of COM:FOP Sweden to Spain. None of the sources that argue that the Swedish judgement shall apply to Spain can identify any Spanish judgement that has ruled about a similar case, and openly say so. Nonetheless Hernando Collazo (to name one) thinks it may apply because in her opinion a Supreme Court judgement of December 2012 that ruled about a paid online database for ringtones supports her views. That case involved a for-profit company taking parts of copyrighted songs, transforming them into ringtones and then putting them up for sale; nothing like that is being done here, nor songs are a matter of of FoP either. Respectfully, —MarcoAurelio 10:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Seaview Wharf - Autumn 2019 (fuji~a170~DSCF2725JPG) ~256 colour indexed.png[edit]
_~256_colour_indexed.png){kind=link}
_~256_colour_indexed.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Offers no real use? Text mdnp (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hEireann, 1937, government of Ireland.jpg[edit]
Uploader suggests that this file is eligible for "cc-zero". And that the copyright owner (the Government of Ireland) has released this into the public domain waived all of their rights. I can see no evidence of this. And I note that the same file is used on the EN project (en:File:BunreachtHead.JPG) with a Fair Use claim. With a suggestion that this file represents the cover of a work that is copyrighted. Something's wrong somewhere... Johnj1995 (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is a photograph of the top half of the standard edition of the booklet, Constitution of Ireland, released by the Irish government in the 20th century (not sure if still available in this form... the booklet was free and widely distributed and the image will be familiar to may in Ireland of a certain age)
- If you enter into Google the terms
Constitution of Ireland 1937
- you can see lots of similar photos of the booklet.
- There is no mention of copyright inside the booklet and I am faurly sure that the government could not copyright the publication of its Constitution anyway. I see Amazon has one copy on sale for a cool $96.74 ... and I am sure private interests will be very happy to see public goods copyrighted, or give that impression !
- There you have it...
TGcoa (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- TGcoa, none of what you posted suggests that it can be used commercially, as required by COM:Licensing. Merely giving out booklets for free does not mean that they lack any copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yea, but {{PD-IrishGov}} should apply here. According to the description, it was published more than 50 years ago. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Excellent! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yea, but {{PD-IrishGov}} should apply here. According to the description, it was published more than 50 years ago. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- TGcoa, none of what you posted suggests that it can be used commercially, as required by COM:Licensing. Merely giving out booklets for free does not mean that they lack any copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Vittorio Grassi[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the standard copyright term is 70+ years after the death of the artist. In this case the artist, Vittorio Grassi, died in 1958. So these image are copyrighted until at least 2,029, if not longer.
- File:Amaro Felsina Ramazzotti, immagine pubblicitaria, 1925 - san dl SAN IMG-00002973.jpg
- File:Assisi - Vittorio Grassi. LCCN2004675365.jpg
- File:Venise et le Lido travel poster 1920s.jpg
- File:Vittorio Grassi - Vita Nuova, pag. 4, facsimile.jpg
- File:Vittorio grassi, gnomo basculante, 1914 (coll. priv.).jpg
- File:Vittorio grassi, vaso con barche a vela, 1920 ca.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig[edit]
Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2043: Guido Marussig (1885-1972)
Ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig[edit]
Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps are attributed by the uploader to Guido Marussig, (1885–1972) whose works are copyright until 2043.
Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: These look like recreations of previously deleted files by the same uploader. Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig[edit]
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy stamps by this designer, Guido Marussig, are copyright until at least 2,043. So the image should be deleted until then unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0168 mt B002a.jpg
- File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0186 mt B002.jpg
- File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0190 pm B002.jpg
- File:Francobollo di Fiume - 1 lira - 1923 - San Vito il protettore di Fiume.jpg
- File:Francobollo di Fiume - 25 centesimi - 1923 - arco romano.jpg
- File:PoscardFiume1921.jpg
- File:Stamp Fiume 1920 25c Annunzio.jpg
- File:StampFiume(Italy)1924Michel184.jpg
- File:StampFiume1923Michel158.jpg
1924Michel184.jpg){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think these stamps might be consired works of applied arts. If so, {{PD-Croatia}} applies. Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- They are all licensed with PD-Italy. So I assume the proper copyright would be Italy. Or at least both places, but they should be deleted regardless if that's the case. Otherwise the files should have been licensed using a template for Italy. Although even if the copyright is for Croatia the artist of the stamps died in 1972. So PD-Croatia doesn't apply anyway. Unless your going to argue that stamps are applied art, but then I'd point out currency in Croatia is copyrighted and there's zero reason stamps would be PD as applied art if currency isn't. Meaning there's still zero justification to assume these stamps are in the public domain no matter which countries laws you want to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dictador General Tiburcio Carias Andino.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Taichi as no permission (No permission since). 1933 Honduras photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:USAAF B-17, Malang 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no source (No source since). 1942 US photo (possible PD-USGov), should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BPM demolition team, Borneo, 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no permission (No permission since). 1942 photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Aerial Photo Balikpapan Ablaze 1942.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no permission (No permission since). 1942 photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo del Gobierno de la Generalitat 2021-2025.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Wyslijp16 as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo Pixminds.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Jmcgnh as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Hertha Berlin Crest 1892-1923.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Hertha Berlin 1968 - 1974.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Comendador José de Sousa Faria.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Krd as no permission (No permission since). Likely to be public domain, so a proper DR seems in order. I could not access the specified source, but I'm on a wonky connection right now so that could be my connection rather than the link itself. Jmabel ! talk 07:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here's the link:
- Comendador José de Sousa Faria | José de Sousa Faria Fotogra… | Flickr
- This is a 1910's photo, circa 1913, uploaded by Sousa Faria Family archives which is run by Intelectual Editora, a company owned by the Sousa Faria family. The photo was taken by A. Sousa Faria, a member of the family. Steve Rogers Jr (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Portugal-photo applies as well. --RAN (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Krd: do you still have an issue here, or can we consider this resolved? - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- This file was tagged by me and was deleted and then, in the same day, re-uploaded from Flickr. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kacamata: be that as it may, are you saying Steve and Richard are wrong? They seem to have a rather good rationale for keeping this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel No, I'm not saying they are wrong, but I don't think the source and permission are reliable at this point. Re-uploading it through Flickr seems like an away to bypass deletion. However, this picture is likely in public domain, so it seems pointless to delete it, specially because it's being used. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kacamata: be that as it may, are you saying Steve and Richard are wrong? They seem to have a rather good rationale for keeping this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- This file was tagged by me and was deleted and then, in the same day, re-uploaded from Flickr. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Evros Soufli (logo).svg[edit]
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Logo. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Nothing really original here. A rather generic design, some letters, two stars. Elements that are present in hundreds if not thousands of sports logos. 🤷♂️ Again, I'm failing to see any reasonable justification for deletion of this file, especially if a speedy one, as it was originally tagged for. --🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Beijing Municipal Administration & Communication Card[edit]
per COM:CB#Payment_cards, the pattern/design of the card may meet the threshold of originality in COM:TOO China.
- File:China IMG 4075 (29707868516).jpg
- File:China IMG 4076 (29631602482).jpg
- File:China Beijing Transportation Card (44042316380).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Larryasou (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Azi Aslanov wartime.jpg[edit]
PD-RU-exempt is not used for images of military personnel as the images are separately copyrighted by the photographer who took the image. Bookish Worm (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Image is from an official ID document and such images have been traditionally used under PD-RU-exempt. Alternatively, pamyat naroda is a publication of the Russian Ministry of Defense and its images can be licensed under mil.ru. Or, since photographer is unknown PD-Russia would apply. This is the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD-RU-exempt (mug shots), Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alikhan_Bukeikhanov_in_1937.jpg, both kept. Kges1901 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Francesco Netti - Fumatrice al Sofà.jpg[edit]
Si tratta di un falso venduto presso una casa d'aste. L'opera in questione non è di Francesco Netti ma di un pittore spagnolo, Francisco Masriera y Manovens. Il titolo del quadro originale è "Joven descansado" (1894) ed è custodito al Museo del Prado di Madrid https://www.museodelprado.es/coleccion/obra-de-arte/joven-descansando/e39308d2-9c30-4c50-a1e7-ffe0d3ec023e Francesco Netti (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Francesco Netti - Autoritratto.jpg[edit]
Trattasi di un falso proveniente da mercato delle aste. Francesco Netti non ha mai realizzato questo autoritratto. Si dovrebbe modificare il titolo in "Ritratto" Francesco Netti (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Water carriers (unknown date), by Francesco Netti.jpg[edit]
,_by_Francesco_Netti.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Francesco_Netti.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Se ne propone la cancellazione in quanto proveniente dal mercato delle aste e di dubbia paternità. Potrebbe trattarsi di un falso. Il quadro non è mai stato citato dalla critica e non compare nelle monografie e nei cataloghi di studiosi affermati sulla figura di Francesco Netti. Nella stessa asta in cui il quadro fu posto in vendita la prima volta il viso della donna in primo piano aveva una somiglianza sorprendente con un altro quadro nella stessa asta attribuito a Francesco Hayez. In generale sarebbe preferibile presentare l'artista su Wikipedia con opere che lo hanno reso celebre non con quelle presenti su internet e di dubbia provenienza. Francesco Netti (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete Sono d'accordo con lei, se questo quadro è un falso possiamo eliminarlo o in alternativa se la eliminazione non va a buon fine metto nella parte del creator "possbly by" Francesco Netti. Sono anche io alla ricerca e all'eliminzione di possibili falsi (come spesso capita sui siti d'aste), quindi le dò il mio consenso riguardo l'eliminazione.
--Niketto sr. (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In effetti Pananti (e catawiki ancora peggio) mi sono accorto da un po' di tempo che vende tanti falsi come autentici, mi ricordo bene di un quadro di Favretto, non presente nei cataloghi ragionati e che non rispecchiava la qualità del pittore veneziano, quindi un altro punto a favore dell'eliminazione! --Niketto sr. (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Painting almost certainly fake, both in style, and because it does not appear in any catalog or monograph of the artist, and other reasons, for more information wade the deletion debate. Niketto sr. (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
[edit]
Self loaded file not copyright in source country Thincat (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
August 17[edit]
File:梁熙近照.jpg[edit]
Author is TAI KWONG NG, see EXIF, not uploader shizhao (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is the official photo, I think it is appropriate SOURCE: https://www.legco.gov.hk/ Kttkthomas (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cinthean flag.svg[edit]
Obscure sexuality flag, out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Obscure is an opinion and not a fact. This is a widely used flag. --Albin Schmitt (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- [Citation needed] Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Israel BaAliyah.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Logo. Speedy previously rejected by AntiCompositeNumber, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Gay man flag chart.jpg[edit]
Unsourced, unused image, possibly inaccurate Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Chart used to be used on Wikidata. There is a source (WordPress blog post imported from Tumblr). It's useful to illustrate the history of the en:gay men's flags. MikutoH (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- WordPress/Tumblr are not reliable sources and “used to be used” is far from COM:INUSE Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You asked for a source. It can be considered unreliable in enwiki, not in Commons. And it's useful and harmless. This influenced the discourse from cougar flag (many similar infographics were made as you can check in the sources I put there). MikutoH (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I really find it unbelievable that Commons has no reliability standards Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Dronebogus, see Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia: “Files on Wikimedia Commons do not necessarily need to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as neutral point of view and no original research.”
- IMHO, if a file is used elsewhere, it is probably in scope, but I prefer to be
neutral here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC) - Also, if you feel it is inaccurate, feel free to use {{Inaccurate}} and similar templates. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I really find it unbelievable that Commons has no reliability standards Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- You asked for a source. It can be considered unreliable in enwiki, not in Commons. And it's useful and harmless. This influenced the discourse from cougar flag (many similar infographics were made as you can check in the sources I put there). MikutoH (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- WordPress/Tumblr are not reliable sources and “used to be used” is far from COM:INUSE Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The image was created for educational purposes and meets the basic quality standards. Kelly The Angel (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/baohushengwuxue00make/[edit]
Sourced to a 2009 Chinese language publication. This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
- File:Bao hu sheng wu xue (2009.7) (20327625066).jpg
- File:Bao hu sheng wu xue (2009.7) (20345300102).jpg
_(20327625066).jpg){kind=link}
_(20345300102).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Queerhet flag.png[edit]
Unused obscure sexuality flag, OOS Dronebogus (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep if it's an obscure sexuality, why does it have an article on enwiki? MikutoH (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The obscure part meant the flag. As you can see it’s not, and shouldn’t, be there because there’s zero evidence of its use Dronebogus (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:ADOR Ｌｏｇｏ.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/daixiezuxuefangf00xugu/[edit]
Sourced ro a 2008 Chinese(?) language publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
_(20837851451).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/eerduosizhiwuzhi02wuji/[edit]
Sourced to a 2007 publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
- File:Bidens parviflora Willd. Image from page 150 of "e er duo si zhi wu zhi" (2007.7).jpg
- File:Olgaea leucophylhi (2007.7) (20990512470).jpg
- File:Olgaea tangutica photo from page 227 of loc image on Flickr.jpg
- File:Olgaea tangutica from page 227 of loc image on Flickr.jpg
- File:E er duo si zhi wu zhi (2007.7) (20555636764).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_(20990512470).jpg){kind=link}
_(20555636764).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose These files are downloaded from Flickr where they are placed in the public domain. --Mr.Rosewater (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can you show the original is in the public domain? If it's not then the Flickr license is irrelevant. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:HK 南區 Southern District 田灣 Tin Wan 嘉禾街 14-22 Ka Wo Street 嘉禾大廈 Ka Wo Building shop 惠康超市 Wellcome Supermarket March 2022 Px3 ice cream White Rabbit brand.jpg[edit]
COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
User talk:Davidavgi19[edit]
Elemento inapropiado por inexistencia Davidavgi19 (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Bandera-Boiro1.png[edit]
Elemento inapropiado por inexistencia Davidavgi19 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Hungarysportseventyear[edit]
duplicate to Template:Hungarysportseventsyear Superbia23 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Verena Hubertz[edit]
The photos were taken from here, where it says you can download the portrait photos for press publications. I don't see any CC license there, so the files are copyvios and should be deleted.
- File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Annika Krüger).jpg
- File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Benjamin Jenak).jpg
- File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Linda Blatzek).jpg
- File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Niko Roike).jpg
- File:Verena Hubertz 2021.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Rosenzweig τ 11:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The files should be kept. At the time the photos were transferred to Commons, the Website was CC licensed, see the footer here and here. --Fippe 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's a bit thin. There is no declaration or similar that the web site is CC licensed, just the text CC-BY-SA 3.0 Verena Hubertz. I'd hesitate to apply that to photos offered "für Presseveröffentlichungen" (for press publications), implying that they are not offered for any purpose as required by Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Koleje wąskotorowe Zwierzyniec-Biłgoraj (Collection of Andrzej Tajchert) 02.jpg[edit]
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The picture is from the book. It is not even known whether the uploader has access to the publication. The photo was allegedly taken during the First World War. At that time, the battles of the occupiers took place in Poland. It's hard to tell if the author is a Pole. There is no evidence that the photograph was published before 1989 in Poland. The template is invalid. 5.173.118.213 11:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- This looks like a photo by a professional photographer, censored by the military and released (published) by the means of photographic processing to be used as a postcard. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Nuria Marín Font 2023.jpg[edit]
Block Ederim for false own works. 181.203.51.187 11:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:María Patiño 2023.jpg[edit]
Not an own work. Uploader is a serial copyviolator. 181.203.51.187 11:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, what do you mean (Uploader is a serial copyviolator)? Please verify. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- You can see that the IP reported the other uploads from the user as copyvio. I checked a couple and the images can be found on the web. Apart from that you can see the pattern: taken by profesional photographer, low resolution, no EXIF. Günther Frager (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Gustavo González.jpg[edit]
Not an own work like all other uploads by this copyviolator. 181.203.51.187 11:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Wetter, Helosciadium nodiflorum.jpg[edit]
Because it's not sure that I photographed Helosciadium. From the distance it looked like it, but could as well be Berula erecta. Because of this uncertainty it should be deleted. Pete (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Or identified. Why don't you ask for a botany forum to look at it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- You can trust me that in the last few years I became expert in finding the differences between the two very similar plants. (I could offer a small series of photographs that identifies the differences between Berula and Apium.) I did not want to admit at first but in some years' distance I can say (write) that I was wrong then, wanted to find rare Apium at any cost. The plant on the photograph looks like Berula now. In the last years I also learned that Berula erecta more often exists in this area where I live in. It only exists temporarily for a few years in a place and then other plants take over. Apium can stay longer, but it vanishes too (Equisetum hyemale is able to supersede it, as I could find, by visiting old known places where it once lived). Pete (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:HK 沙田 Sha Tin 沙田正街 Shatin Centre Street 希爾頓中心 Hilton Plaza mall shop 大生生活超市 DS Groceries White rabbit milk candy September 2022 Px3.jpg[edit]
COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ankur Naskar.jpg[edit]
Not an own work and user has two personal pictures for very few contributions. 186.174.89.102 14:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That is my own work. Ankurnaskar (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Anisur Rahman Shakil.jpg[edit]
Facebook 186.174.89.102 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Alton Cemetery plan partial.jpg[edit]
Realizing that some of these plots may have been sold but not used, so there's privacy implications. We'll reupload if we get clearance. Region of Peel Archives (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand what your privacy concerns are. Tying the plot to a living individual would require an extraordinary amount of work and yield no personal information. There are no dates of birth or addresses. I have looked at a dozen names and in at least one case, "John Smith", the name has been recycled for three generations by the family. Some of the plots only contain a family name, and some only contain a given name initial. There really are no privacy concerns. The personal information would appear on the sexton file cards, that are arranged alphabetically. They usually have the name of the owner, and contact information. BTW, a beautiful work you have created. I would love to see a schematic of it with links to Findagrave for the individuals interred. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Gado Do Prado 1994 cena 2.gif[edit]
Not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:DawateislamiFlag.jpg[edit]
See EXIF. Free? 186.174.89.102 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Candace Lovely and President George H.W. Bush.jpg[edit]
This image is not properly sourced and its licensing is not supported by any evidence. The supposed author and source is one of the two subjects of the photograph. Given that the photo appears to be from the Oval Office, it's possible that it is a PD-USGov photo but that's just speculation and, even so, it needs actual sourcing. Denniscabrams (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:014041 Ibrahim UrduScript.jpg[edit]
Unused text 186.174.89.102 16:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:ZyGee Profile.jpg[edit]
I like the hair style but is everything else alright? 186.174.89.102 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WechatIMG9.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Red-tailed hawk as Speedy (selfie). This file is not eligible for a COM:F10, as the user has substantial positive contributions on the English Wikipedia. However, the uploader appears to be depicted in the image, and based on contextual clues this doesn't look like a selfie. Rather, it looks like someone else took the photo. This is perfectly ordinary in terms of how social media profile pictures work, but we can't host it on Commons because the relevant rightsholder would be the creator (i.e. the photographer) rather than the uploader (i.e. the image subject). As such, this should be deleted per COM:PRP for lacking evidence of permission from the copyright holder to release the file under a free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Presentaciones de Fanta en Perú.jpg[edit]
COM:PACKAGING is above TOO. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Fanta was founded in 1940. Are you sure this packaging is still copyrighted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The company itself may have been founded in the 1940's, but the design of the modern packaging sure as hell wasn't, so it's probably still under copyright. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take your point that they probably used glass and not plastic for bottles back then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Not only that, but also the design of the label, which is almost certainly under copyright. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 11:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- That depends how old it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I take your point that they probably used glass and not plastic for bottles back then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Artisam.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Zen 38 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not in public domain : the painter died less than 70 years ago
1969 painting by an author who died in 2018. Undelete in 2089. Converting to DR for discussion and easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader name matches the artist's and is claimed as an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:VSG Abend 2023.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: src = https://www.gofundme.com/f/diplomlehrgang-texter
GoFundMe was started after Commons upload, and the Uploader's name is the same as the GoFundMe organizer. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stuart Crow, Toronto Grand Prix.png[edit]
Usage rights on page state image is under copyright. https://digitalarchive.tpl.ca/objects/283772. At time of upload it might have said Public Domain, but since image was taken in 1991, is incredibly unlikely the image has expired. PascalHD (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Carte postale de l'Eglise du Bas de Perrigny.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). 1920 French postcard. I haven't had luck finding "Aris" as far as postcards so far. Public domain in the US, would need more information on postcard creator to determine copyright status in France. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IEEE defends duplicate publication 2015.pdf[edit]
A lengthy email is copyrightable, furthermore most academic journals will ask for some evidence of consent before allowing publication/disclosure of an e-mail between 2 parties. It's not clear if the uploader is one of the mentioned parties in the e-mail. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyright violation. To pre-emptively note some possible objections, I will note that
- Tennessee is not one of the states that put their government documents in the public domain (source)
- Regardless, most of the email is written by an employee of IEEE, a private organization
- Vahurzpu (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The objection is in error. Tennessee does indeed put its government documents in the public domain, as per statute:
- As used in this part and title 8, chapter 4, part 6, "public record or records" or "state record or records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency.
- TN Code § 10-7-503
- The email was "received ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency," namely the University of Tennessee.
- The objection links to a website that is in agreement with the uploading of a state university public record:
- "The Tennessee Public Records Act does not restrict subsequent use of records, or require a requestor to disclose their intended use." Mentionmart (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The email is a public record under state law. It is in the public domain and not subject to copyright. Mentionmart (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Public record, and public domain are not the same thing. A document can be public record and still subject to copyright, especially that produced by a private organisation like the IEEE. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no copyright in government documents in the public domain, as per statute:
- As used in this part and title 8, chapter 4, part 6, "public record or records" or "state record or records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency.
- TN Code § 10-7-503
- The email was "received ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency," namely the University of Tennessee. The sender and recipient have no rights with respect to copies of the document, inasmuch as TN Code § 10-7-503 provides that copies are available upon request, and does not restrict their subsequent use. As a result, copies can be made freely and used freely, including uploads to wikimedia. Mentionmart (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no copyright in government documents in the public domain, as per statute:
- In addition, there are numerous exceptions to the Tennessee Public Records Act. A summary is available at [7]; while I am not qualified to make a definitive statement on the matter, 49-7-120 could potentially be relevant. Omphalographer (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding TN Code 49-7-120, it creates exceptions for such things as patentable materials and trade secrets.
- The university has already released this document in response to a request for records, thereby demonstrating that the document is not subject to the exceptions. Mentionmart (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Public record, and public domain are not the same thing. A document can be public record and still subject to copyright, especially that produced by a private organisation like the IEEE. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- On what basis is the claim made that the text file is not in use? The content represents that it describes publication policies, which are currently in use.
- Is every wikimedia file "in use"? Mentionmart (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- On this basis: File usage on Commons
- There are no pages that use this file.
- If it were in use on any non-Commons Wikimedia pages, those would be indicated afterwards, but there are none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Below the "File history" section are two "file usage" sections, one titled File usage on Commons and another titled File usage on other wikis. These two sections will list all instances on Wikimedia Foundation projects where your file is currently in use.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ
- The objector appears to want to delete content before it can be used elsewhere, on the basis that the content has not yet been used elsewhere. Mentionmart (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here is one of many examples of wikimedia content where "There are no pages that use this file."
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scissors_image.jpg Mentionmart (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That isn't a text file. This is. Omphalographer (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Mentionmart, read Commons:Scope. Text files are out of scope on Commons. We make exceptions for text files that are in use on another Wiki site per COM:INUSE, but they are exceptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The aim of wikimedia commons is to make educational media content available to all.
- The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
- The content of the file is educational. It explains the position of the IEEE IAS Publications Editorial Office regarding duplicate publications due to an:
- important change in IEEE Publication Policy that will take effect in January 2016. Many of you are aware of the debate that has been raging within IEEE over handling of conference papers.
- The document provides knowledge, is instructional and informative. Mentionmart (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're wasting time. Read COM:SCOPE. Files that are purely text are not in scope. And arguing here won't change that. If you want to change Commons policy on scope, try arguing at Commons talk:Project scope, and good luck, because you will fail. Commons is a repository of images, not text. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here are a few of the many examples of educational text documents on wikimedia:
- File:Robertson_panel_report.pdf
- File:20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf
- File:Report_of_the_Puerto_Rico_Experiment_Station_(IA_CAT31294391015).pdf
- It appears there are hundreds of text files merely of reports alone.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=panel+report&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=other&filemime=pdf
- No change is needed to the policy on scope. Such educational documents are demonstrably in scope. Mentionmart (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- File:20210331 - CRED Report - FINAL - Web Accessible.pdf is COM:INUSE. The other two should probably be nominated for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- User:Mentionmart, maybe you won't fail. Here's the relevant policy discussion thread: Commons talk:Project scope#Proposed change in wording. Please feel free to express your opinion there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are numerous "wiki" reports (such as "Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report") at the above link, indicating that the wiki foundation considers such pdf text files to be in scope.
- Rather than launching a purge of existing wikimedia content, the recent upload of a 4-page educational document explaining a publishing policy should be allowed to remain.
- Here is a partial listing of existing pdf text files on wikimedia commons at the above link. They are generally large, multi-page documents. It appears that there are hundreds of such pdf text files at the above link.
- The report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel - September 2012.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (6.79 MB)
- Report DCA22MA193.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (4.25 MB)INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-107shrg88709).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.58 MB)
- Annual report of Wikimedia CZ 2020.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (2.77 MB)
- Policing for a better Britain full report 2013.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (3.09 MB)
- NTP‐CERHR Expert Panel Report on the reproductive and developmental toxicity of fluoxetine.pdf PDF 1,268 × 1,647 (778 KB)
- Report on meeting of panel of consultants (IA CAT11090248001).pdf PDF 1,158 × 1,539 (253 KB)
- Report on meeting of panel of consultants (IA CAT11090248002).pdf PDF 1,170 × 1,533 (245 KB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2019-05.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.06 MB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report, August 2019.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (896 KB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2019-10.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.34 MB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2020-01.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.99 MB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2021-03.pdf PDF 1,241 × 1,754 (233 KB)
- 20210331 - CRED Report - FINAL - Web Accessible.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (18.51 MB)Health Technical Panel report to the 1991 Advisory Council on Social Security (IA healthtechnicalp00unit).pdf PDF 831 × 1,308 (13 MB)
- CAB AcREPORT OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-106shrg66481).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (202 KB)
- Social Security Technical Panel report to the 1991 Advisory Council on Social Security (IA socialsecurityte00unit).pdf PDF 847 × 1,304 (6.32 MB)
- Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 2 (IA reportofpresiden02unit).pdf PDF 1,175 × 1,535 (22.34 MB)
- Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2015-07.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (970 KB)
- Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 1 (IA reportofpresiden01uni).pdf PDF 1,137 × 1,527 (13.17 MB)
- Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2016-04.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (5.37 MB)
- Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 3 (IA reportofpresiden03unit).pdf PDF 852 × 1,158 (12.81 MB)
- Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2015-08.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.29 MB)
- First annual report - Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel (IA firstannualrepor00unse 1).pdf PDF 1,564 × 2,079 (3.46 MB)
- Farm building panels - a research report on developing and evaluating an insulated concrete stressed-skin panel (IA CAT31328177).pdf PDF 1,162 × 1,627 (1.02 MB)
- The Report of the Kerr Haslam Inquiry - July 2005 - V1 - Cm 6640-1.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (2.67 MB)
- Report of the Puerto Rico Experiment Station (IA CAT31294391001).pdf PDF 970 × 1,466 (4.04 MB)
- cident Report, United Airlines Flight 736.pdf PDF 1,127 × 1,516 (1.65 MB)
- Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (9.17 MB)
- The Report of the Kerr Haslam Inquiry - July 2005 - V1 - Cm 6640-1.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (2.67 MB)
- Report of the Puerto Rico Experiment Station (IA CAT31294391001).pdf PDF 970 × 1,466 (4.04 MB)
- Evaluation of fire models for nuclear fire plant applications- cable tray fires - international panel report (IA evaluationoffire6872deym).pdf PDF 1,272 × 1,620 (16.52 MB)
- REPORT OF THE PANEL TO REVIEW THE V-22 PROGRAM (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-107shrg75652).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (13.25 MB)
- MEETING REPORT 2.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (13 KB)
- Special 301 Report 2007.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.65 MB)
- Special 301 Report 2001.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.13 MB)
- Special 301 Report 2002.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.72 MB)
- Special 301 Report 1994.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.06 MB)
- Special 301 Report 2000.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.36 MB)
- Special 301 Report 1999.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.7 MB)
- Special 301 Report 1997.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.3 MB)
- Special 301 Report 1998.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.75 MB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report, July 2022.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (350 KB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2021-11.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (570 KB)
- N604GA NTSB accident report.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (123 KB)
- Meeting report 2 - Team Esté.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (112 KB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report, May 2022.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (360 KB)
- Wiki Education Monthly Report 2018-11.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.54 MB)
- Meeting report 3 - Team Esté.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (113 KB)
- Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India Vol 19.pdf PDF 893 × 1,358 (26.21 MB)
- Project Blue Book report - 1952-10-6383772-PRESSUREISLEAFBMAINE.pdf PDF 3,233 × 4,079 (4.49 MB)
- Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2017-05.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.43 MB)
- Project Blue Book report - 1959-06-8406927-NewGuinea.pdf PDF 2,866 × 3,631 (3.57 MB)Second Report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (IA secondreportofex00usde).pdf PDF 1,310 × 1,735 (5.56 MB)
- WM CZ - Annual report 2016 - print version.pdf PDF 1,327 × 1,839 (11.49 MB)
- ADA199891 CRONUS Interim Technical Report No 5 Volume 3.pdf PDF 1,295 × 1,662 (2.78 MB)
- Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2016-09.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (460 KB)
- SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2001 – 2002.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (157 KB)
- WWH activity report 2022.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,712 (25.3 MB)
- Project Blue Book report - 1950-10-9617263-Lark-Utah.pdf PDF 3,816 × 4,768 (953 KB)
- Project Blue Book report - 1963-07-8678562-Morehead-Kentucky.pdf PDF 3,508 × 5,114 (1.01 MB)
- Project Blue Book report - 1966-03-7093118-Rehoboth-Mass.pdf PDF 4,033 × 5,914 (8.46 MB)
- Desktop improvements, Wikimania 2019 research report.pdf PDF 1,500 × 843 (2.61 MB) Mentionmart (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Why don't you participate in the discussion I linked, which is discussing a proposed new wording that will allow some unused text files to be hosted here, instead of providing a long list in a deletion request thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for the suggestion. 108.238.191.152 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Why don't you participate in the discussion I linked, which is discussing a proposed new wording that will allow some unused text files to be hosted here, instead of providing a long list in a deletion request thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- File:20210331 - CRED Report - FINAL - Web Accessible.pdf is COM:INUSE. The other two should probably be nominated for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're wasting time. Read COM:SCOPE. Files that are purely text are not in scope. And arguing here won't change that. If you want to change Commons policy on scope, try arguing at Commons talk:Project scope, and good luck, because you will fail. Commons is a repository of images, not text. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The aim of wikimedia commons is to make educational media content available to all.
- Mentionmart, read Commons:Scope. Text files are out of scope on Commons. We make exceptions for text files that are in use on another Wiki site per COM:INUSE, but they are exceptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That isn't a text file. This is. Omphalographer (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- If it were in use on any non-Commons Wikimedia pages, those would be indicated afterwards, but there are none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cheat-Codes-Logo.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). Below the ToO? Abzeronow (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The recording was put out by BMG, so presumably, COM:TOO Germany would apply. A fair amount of words can be read at that link, but there's nothing that demonstrates clearly to me whether this kind of logo would fall below or above their TOO. I'm guessing below, but I'll look forward to seeing the ruling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That was the basis under which I was guessing this is below COM:TOO Germany, but the logos have different types of complexity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Chuck Norris y Sergio Otón, alumno y recién licenciado en Traducción e Interpretación (francés) de Murcia fb.jpg[edit]
_de_Murcia_fb.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_de_Murcia_fb.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
My proper name is there and it is violating my right for privacy. 31.222.117.40 11:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
File:Chuck Norris shirt.jpg[edit]
_de_Murcia_fb.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
T-shirt is a derivative work of a photograph of Chuck Norris. Flickr source link is dead. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think it matters that the link is dead, as it passed Flick review. As for the shirt, can photos of shirts not worn as part of costumes by cosplay actors be deleted for being derivative works? I thought that since they were clothing, they couldn't be, but that could depend on a particular country's law. Do you have any expertise in the matter, Abzeronow or anyone else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not expert on how T-shirts interact with copyright law but the art of Chuck Norris likely was made from a photograph or some other image of him, so I'd defer to the experts as far as T-shirts go. This is apparently from Spain, where consent is required to publish photographs of persons. Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see. This seems pretty far from being an exact copy of a photograph, though. I'll be interested to see what the ruling is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am the person under concern about the picture. I am not complaining about the T-shirt itself but about the fact that my name is associated to the file of the picture so when somebody look for me in Google they get that picture. In case companies look for information about me for a job selection process I don't want them to find that picture as it was uploaded without my consent. To avoid problems of this type related to my digital fingerprint, I would like the name of the file to be changed or the picture to be eliminated. I don't care as long as my name is unliked from taht picture. Rincewind89 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see. This seems pretty far from being an exact copy of a photograph, though. I'll be interested to see what the ruling is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I deleted the redirect as courtesy. Yann (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
[edit]
Marcha Real hasn't got official lyrics LKR23 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:FoP-Myanmar[edit]
Per COM:FOP Myanmar, this country is a No-FOP country. As the subjects of these images all look rather modern, they should be deleted, as they cannot be published without permissions of the designers/architects etc. Please note Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Myanmar for some background information. The category itself can also be deleted if emptied.
- File:Ancient buddha images.jpg
- File:Aung Myay Buddha Gaya.jpg
- File:BTM, Kahtaintaw Association. Mandalay.jpg
- File:Buddha and Monk Figures - Kawgun Cave - Near H'pa-an - Myanmar (Burma) (11954909135).jpg
- File:Buddha Figure at Inwa (Ava) - Outside Mandalay - Myanmar (Burma) (11996313583).jpg
- File:Buddha Figures at Shittaung Paya - Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12231653213).jpg
- File:Buddha Sculpture outside Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12232046346).jpg
- File:Buddha Statue with Palms and Moon - Village near H'pa-an - Myanmar - Burma (11955321194).jpg
- File:Clock Towel,Lewe.jpg
- File:FACE OF MYANMAR.jpg
- File:General Aung San Statue,Lewe.jpg
- File:Jade letters at Geological Rock Garden. Department of Geology. University of Mandalay.jpg
- File:Kayan.jpg
_(11954909135).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Outside_Mandalay_-_Myanmar_(Burma)_(11996313583).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Arakan_State_-_Myanmar_(Burma)_(12231653213).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Arakan_State_-_Myanmar_(Burma)_(12232046346).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Ellywa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment some of the photos may show public domain statues and temple buildings but, information for authorship of most Burmese structures is lacking in the Internet (at least the "surface web" level). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator's rationale seems sound. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment at least, File:Buddha Sculpture outside Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12232046346).jpg, File:Buddha Figure at Inwa (Ava) - Outside Mandalay - Myanmar (Burma) (11996313583).jpg, File:Buddha and Monk Figures - Kawgun Cave - Near H'pa-an - Myanmar (Burma) (11954909135).jpg are seem to be old enough more than 50 years. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with@Ninjastrikers. Keep -- Ooligan (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with@Ninjastrikers.
- These are not all "modern." This is mixed subjects combined together. Because some are obviously more than 50 years old, these all should be re-submitted individually. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- File:Aung Myay Buddha Gaya.jpg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwebo temple city dating to 18th century. Keep -- Ooligan (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Edward A. McGurk.png[edit]
Redundant of File:Edward A. McGurk.jpg, which is straightened Ergo Sum 22:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
August 18[edit]
File:Stefano Basalini.jpg[edit]
Own work? No! 186.175.16.32 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Basalini.jpg[edit]
No es own work. 186.175.16.32 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Any reason for this claim? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stefano Basalini (ITA) 2016.jpg[edit]
_2016.jpg){kind=link}
_2016.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Based on a copyvio. 186.175.16.32 00:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Boyasepetim-logo.png[edit]
Out of scope. Дима Г (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Bulletin de Cyclette revue de juillet 1945.jpg[edit]
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Article de presse sur la mort d'Eugénie Guillou.jpg[edit]
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The current license is incorrect, it was published in France in 1933. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Revue littéraire Art et critique.jpg[edit]
Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Question Obviously public domain, but how do we regard a page of writing with reference to ongoing discussions at Commons talk:Project scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Martin Schongauer - Die Gefangennahme Christi (L 20).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution, 2 better file: File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 3250.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 622.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Martin Schongauer - Die Geißelung Christi (L 22).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very bad quality, very low resolution. 2 better file File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 3251.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 624.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Martin Schongauer - Die Dornenkrönung Christi (L 23).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, very low resolution, 3 better files: File:Christ Crowned with Thorns MET DP819958.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 3252.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 625.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Yuuki Okumura 2023-02-26.jpg[edit]
without the person's consent Axmano2000 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:GV - Rive 1934.gif[edit]
This file was initially tagged by 5.173.105.130 as no source (No source since). 1934 photo, possible PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1934 is not quite old enough to use {{PD-old-assumed}}. We at least need the source, better yet the photographer to keep this. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Mevaco Logo.svg[edit]
The file shows an outdated version of the actual logo Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Old logos are preserved for historical reasons. --Leyo 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per Leyo. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Mevaco Logo.svg[edit]
This logo is outdated, but surfaces as logo in rich snippets on google. This is why the company wants it removed. Could it be tagged as former logo so that google understands? Please check also mevaco.com Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Seems reasonably notable, based on a web search, though that's debatable. Justwannauploadalogo, you can edit the file description to reflect the fact that this was the company's logo between (whatever years), you can request a filename change (see Commons:File renaming), and of course you can upload your current logo under a separate filename (including this filename, once the former logo has a new filename). It's possible that the closing admin will decide that your company is not notable and that Commons shouldn't host any of your logos at all, so why don't you make a statement below that demonstrates how your company is notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:2023-04-16 17-42-09 ILCE-7C DSC14125 Kiri DxO - Flickr - miguel.discart.jpg[edit]
(sorry french) photographie d'un catcheur à la notoriété quasi inexistante. N'a pas d'intérêt encyclopédique. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:EMARAT.jpg[edit]
This is photograph taken from a map, no clear indication of the year of pubication or the author. Uploaded by globally-banned user. HeminKurdistan (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978) - Lemiers - 20001661 - RCE.jpg[edit]
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Lemiers_-_20001661_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail - Lemiers - 20001667 - RCE.jpg[edit]
,_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail_-_Lemiers_-_20001667_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail, signatuur (noordmuur) - Lemiers - 20001672 - RCE.jpg[edit]
,_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg){kind=link}
,_detail,_signatuur_(noordmuur)_-_Lemiers_-_20001672_-_RCE.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Heerlen CS-Fenster l.jpg[edit]
Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Tabelklinkerbotsing.PNG[edit]
poor quality (low resolution, one cell is the wrong colour); no longer used (the only use on w:nl:Klinkerbotsing has been converted to a wikitable). bdijkstra (overleg) 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Pestabola Merdeka est 1957.jpg[edit]
Copyrighted logo, no evidence that the uploader is the logo creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ergoldsbach 0.jpg[edit]
Not educationally useful Ilieva666 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:A sad day in Morocco.jpg[edit]
What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dark Day.jpg[edit]
What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no context other than a location. I cannot discern anything educational about this image. Nv8200p (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
File:SMAN 12 WATERMARK.jpg[edit]
File with watermark Ariandi Lie (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cancelled-to-order Mauritius Miniature Sheet of the 'Bicentenary of the Mauritius Turf Club (1812-2012)' issue.jpg[edit]
%27_issue.jpg){kind=link}
%27_issue.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This probably isn't the uploaders own work and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mauritius doesn't have anything about the copyright status of stamps from the country. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Roberto García Toledo (talk · contribs)[edit]
Not own work, taken from non free websites
Triplecaña (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Tramway de Royan - Une petite retient 2 baladeuses dans la rampe Lessore.jpg[edit]
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 5.173.103.35 11:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion, part of an harassment campaign by someone using multiple IP addresses. --RAN (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Teresa Mañé Miravet[edit]
This portrait is licensed as "EU anonymous" but the IISH record attributes the photo to Xavier Pellicer. The copyright/license should be determined from his death date and not as anonymous. I haven't been able to find more info about him but until we do, we should not assume this image to be out of copyright.
czar 12:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per Spanish copyright law, this image is in the public domain in Spain, as it was taken more than 25 years ago. I think this would also bring it under PD-1996, but I'm not 100% on that. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Good catch by Czar for finding the creator. Agree, 25 years for simple photos in Spain. --RAN (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Guy mafuta kabongo.jpg[edit]
Published on several non free websites before date of upload, like this one since November 2019. No exif. Probably not free. "Own work" unlikely considering uploader's copyvio history. Titlutin (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ruguru Pic.jpg[edit]
Copyright? The name of the author and user do not match the metadata. It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Leila Nadir, at Desert Research Station, Center for Land Use Interpretation, Hinkley, California, 2016.jpg[edit]
Photo taken from here, uploaded on October 18, 2018. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Exposition art.jpg[edit]
I think we cannot consider the painting as de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Photograph of Barbara Fernandes.jpg[edit]
out of scope? Trade (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Plan de travail 5@4x-100.jpg[edit]
Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo SRC 2023.jpg[edit]
Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Logo Draveil.pdf[edit]
Logo of a French Municipality. Not necessarily own work as claimed, Mansion graphic at top is above TOO in my opininon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Martin Schongauer - Maria der Verkündigung (L 3).gif[edit]
.gif){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, ver low resolution, 2 better files File:The Annunciation- The Virgin MET DP820834.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Madonna, c. 1490-1491, NGA 42673.jpg Oursana (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ozgurism (talk · contribs)[edit]
Apparently personal project about how to "grasp the magic embedded in this vibrant triangle", uploaded to illustrate a now-deleted enwiki user page that was using enwiki as a web host. Out of COM:SCOPE for Commons.
Belbury (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Martin Schongauer, Christi Geburt (1480) (2).jpg[edit]
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
very low quality, very low resolution 5 better files: File:De geboorte van Christus, RP-P-OB-997.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer - The Life of Christ- The Nativity - 1978.85 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif, File:Martin Schongauer, The Nativity, c. 1480-1490, NGA 30302.jpg, File:The Nativity MET DP819879.jpg, File:The Nativity MET MM7781.jpg Oursana (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BJ Sam maestro.jpg[edit]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BJ Sam music star.jpg[edit]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- The original uploader has expressed the wish on their talk page that this file be deleted 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BJ Sam image 1.jpg[edit]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BJ Sam performance at French institute Bamako, Mali.jpg[edit]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:جائزة ريا للقصة القصيرة.jpg[edit]
Picture available on http://www.full-stop.net/2017/03/15/interviews/dougiefresh/elizabeth-rea/. No information given on the author and license of the photograph. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:جائزة ريا للقصة القصيرة - دينغانون.jpg[edit]
Doubtful that this logo of a foundation was created by the uploader. No indication on source, author and license given. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dudley Gladstone Gordon.png[edit]
1950s British photograph, would enter the U.K. public domain by 2030 and the U.S. public domain by 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Nintendo switch OLED model - 3.jpg[edit]
Violation of COM:De minimis, a copyrighted video game screenshot is taking up a large portion of the image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the screenshot is very low quality as it is and could easily be blurred Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe the image is too high a resolution to be classified as low quality. No one has cared enough to blur the image. Nv8200p (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
File:RitaDeCrescenzo.jpg[edit]
I'm no longer sure if the license is the correct one and if the file can be present on commons. I would therefore like it to be deleted to avoid any copyright infringement Yeagvr (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Escudo de Cabildo.svg[edit]
No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative work - this is clearly autotraced from a bitmap image, and not very well, either. Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Edward Forman.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). This has a license but a dubious one. 1932 photograph from a college yearbook, non-renewal of the yearbook should be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, when I tagged the file for deletion, it was unlicensed. Jonteemil (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow, could you advise on how I can check the non-renewal of the copyright? Note that Pasadena Junior College ceased existing in 1954 when it merged to another high school and was named Pasadena City College. Sabih omar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Check the 1959 and 1960 copyright renewal catalogs for either the name of the yearbook or the names of the college (old and new), copyright terms back then were 28 years, renewable only once. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/index.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Could not find any renewal information.Sabih omar (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Check the 1959 and 1960 copyright renewal catalogs for either the name of the yearbook or the names of the college (old and new), copyright terms back then were 28 years, renewable only once. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/index.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Abzeronow, could you advise on how I can check the non-renewal of the copyright? Note that Pasadena Junior College ceased existing in 1954 when it merged to another high school and was named Pasadena City College. Sabih omar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There was no copyright registration, or renewal for the yearbook. I have never seen a copyright registration for a yearbook prior to 1990. There is no aftermarket for the books or worry about being copied, you presell the the 500 students, it would be hard to justify the expense of a lawyer to renew a registration. I can see the page in the yearbook at Ancestry. --RAN (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Enrique Mac Iver sentado en una banca.jpg[edit]
Pre-1923 Chilean photograph that was published in 1940. It is possible this photograph was created after 1902, so we cannot assume the creator has been dead for 70 years. It is possibly public domain in Chile and the US (since Chile was 50 pma in 1996) but that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Kościół de la Madeleine w Paryżu 2013.jpg[edit]
Too blurry and many better images available Romainbehar (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Doroschenko.jpg[edit]
Random PD rationale (Anonymous work + 70 pma), no evidence of PD. Komarof (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Paris Eglise Madeleine Mariage Marie Joseph - panoramio.jpg[edit]
too blurry, many other better images are available Romainbehar (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Blurry, grainy, bad perspective and resolution is not all that high Nv8200p (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Josh Utter-Leyton.jpg[edit]
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Sonic Prime logo.png[edit]
Above TOO Trade (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete U.S. and Canada, so not a slam-dunk, but I agree with you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:My beauty salon of tehran 13jun2024.jpg[edit]
No es sobre un salón de belleza sino una persona desconocida 186.173.41.26 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Paul Rietzl.png[edit]
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Jon Finkel.jpg[edit]
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Olle rade.jpg[edit]
The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:CoverHongKong97.jpg[edit]
Derivative work Trade (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kingsteven1982 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Hoax images (2 files). Anonymous emblem is a poor-quality duplicate
Юрий Д.К 21:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Darieno-Ermakovsky council.jpg[edit]
Если автор умер до 1953 года, то как он же смог загрузить его в 2022 году? Неясный лецензионный статус. — Redboston 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
August 19[edit]
File:Audacity.jpg[edit]
Superseded by File:Audacity-corrección etiqueta-.jpg Iketsi (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Queen Elizabeth II and Eileen Gray.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cessna 172P over Lago di Guardia in FlightGear.jpg[edit]
A screen of a game that is not freely licenced.
After a bit more research I found that it is a screenshot from the video game en:FlightGear which is licenced under the GPL licence (so this part is no longer an issue). The question that remains is weather a screenshot (of a game licenced under GPL) can be published under CC-BY-SA-4.0. IMHO we should have a template for screenshots of FlightGear since there are more of them in Category:FlightGear.
If unclear: The remaining question of this deletion request is if the used licence is correct (since you can not free licence files for which you do not own the copyright) --D-Kuru (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- More updates:
- This image itself is taken from http://wiki.flightgear.org/ and there is no further link that would give any clue that it was created outisde of this project. However, the Screenshot of the month (SOTM) on the wiki's main page links to https://forum.flightgear.org/. An example would be this image that links to this forum page. The "Participation Rules" say:
- 10. You agree to license your screenshot under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for publication by the FlightGear project.
- 11. You agree that the screenshot may be used to promote the FlightGear project, including publication on the flightsim.com forum with proper attribution according to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.
- If we just look at the forum, it seems that CC-BY-SA-4.0 is the correct licence. However, it is not said at all that the game devs really allowed licencing screenshots of their GPL licenced game under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I went through the page on wikipedia, their wiki and the official website but I couldn't find any note on that. It's possible that I missed something, so feel free to check again.
- If CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not the correct licence we could still use eg. {{Free screenshot|license={{GPL}}}} for the image since the game is without a doubt licenced under the GPL.
- --D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Screenshots from programs are not covered by the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2).
- The first sentence in the second paragraph of section 0 of states that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
- Johan G (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Kazimierz Deyna.png[edit]
No publication date and publicator, it's polish photo, so this licence template doesn't apply. PD-Poland also. On source web site there are not also any information about date. Matlin (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Jest to zdjęcie wykonane do dokumentu tożsamości, nie jest dziełem. Autor nieznany. W2k2 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Sueter Revista Pelo 1995[edit]
Image published in Argentina in 1995. It is in the PD there, but not in the United States (at least 70 years protection). The source uses CC-BY-NC-SA license [8] that is incompatible with Commons.
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Günther Frager (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Monet--Glas-Pijen--w.jpg[edit]
very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ukázka obrazu ze sbírky Noví mistři - Claude Monet.jpg[edit]
very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/Revista Gente[edit]
Images that appear in Gente, an Argentine magazine, after March 1989, when the United States entered Berne Convention. The images are PD in Argentina (25 years after publication) but not in the US (70 years pma).
- File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993.jpg
- File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993 (cropped).jpg
- File:Gente Magazine (Argentina) (26 January 1993).jpg
- File:Maradona casamiento gente 1989.jpg
- File:Maradona drogas 1991.jpg
- File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
_(26_January_1993).jpg){kind=link}
Günther Frager (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg was previously nominated and kept in this DR. Fma12 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- The argument in that DR is wrong. As I stated the files were published after the US entered the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention implies that all works published in a member state (Argentina in this case) are protected automatically in the other member states (the US in this case). It follows that the US did not restore the copyright of any of these images at URAA time for the simple reason they were never in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Rockilib manager.png[edit]
Fichier pixellisé, aucun intéret. Sa seule utilisation est par un utilisateur spam qui l'utilise pour faire sa publicité sur divers projets Wikimédias. CKali (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:javigbureba[edit]
Screenshot of a short video of Metal Magazine. The video was uploaded to Vimeo by Javier Bureba, the editor of the video. This is likely a WFH and the copyright holder is Metal Magazine. Notice that the Vimeo user uploaded also TV advertisement under CC-BY (even less likely to own the copyright).
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 06.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 02.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 03.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 04.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine.jpg
- File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 05.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Christopher Britton.jpg[edit]
Very suspicious. Claims own work, but why is it so low-quality, and why is there a watermark? QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 11:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Monet - fruit-basket-with-apples-and-grapes.jpg[edit]
very bad quality very low resolution better file:Claude Monet - Nature morte au melon d’Espagne.jpg Oursana (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:South Korean YouTuber 이녕(원보라) 오버워치 게임 레고.png[edit]
_오버워치_게임_레고.png){kind=link}
_%EC%98%A4%EB%B2%84%EC%9B%8C%EC%B9%98_%EA%B2%8C%EC%9E%84_%EB%A0%88%EA%B3%A0.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of LEGO Trade (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Overwatch Lego series, a collaborative product between Blizzard and Lego, has been released.
- This is an image of promoting Overwatch Lego products on SNS of game YouTuber 이녕 at the request of Blizzard Korea.
- I would appreciate it if you could let me know what the problem is. 민혁123 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Blizzard and Lego have agreed to let their product packaging be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are many agreements between Blizzard and Lego to launch an Overwatch game collaboration product on the Lego website or in media articles.
- Isn't the collaboration product a licensed brand?
- LEGO homepage - https://www.lego.com/ko-kr/themes/overwatch/about
- a press story - http://gamefocus.co.kr/detail.php?number=89799
- 민혁123 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The license that the collaboration product uses is proprietary which is not compatible with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Trade (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you upload a version of the image where the LEGO box art is blurred i will be willing to withdraw the deletion request Trade (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your kind words.
- But isn't it impossible to upload an image because it's a duplicate upload if you mosaic it?
- Even if I can, I think I'll make a mistake because I don't know how.
- Please delete it
- Thank you for taking care of me even though you are busy.
- Have a nice day!! 민혁123 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I dont counts as a duplicate if you mosaic the box art. Trade (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind reply.
- Do I need to upload a new version of this file through upload?
- Replication upload is not available in this domain. There is a warning.
- I've tried many times, but I can't upload it because I don't know how.
- So I mosaiced the Lego box image and re-uploaded it.
- File:South Korean YouTuber 이녕 OVERWATCH 게임 레고.png 민혁123 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I dont counts as a duplicate if you mosaic the box art. Trade (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that Blizzard and Lego have agreed to let their product packaging be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Statsikon.png[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Monet - flowers-in-a-pot.jpg[edit]
very low quality very low resolution better file File:Fleurs dans un pot (Roses et brouillard) .jpg Oursana (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
File:Monet - still-life-with-apples-and-grapes.jpg[edit]
very bad quality, very bad resolution better file File:Claude Monet - Apples and Grapes - 1933.1152 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg Oursana (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Kystverket RGB liten.jpg[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:MP kompani.jpg[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
OK to delete. Znuddel (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Deltawiki2.JPG[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Beredskapstroppen.png[edit]
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:1976 UT.png[edit]
This file is unused and is replaced with a SVG file 2603:6010:F006:964B:1D11:4BE4:A8A8:E8E6 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Uozu Jomon Period 001.jpg[edit]
copyright infringement derivative work of non-free map in Japan. 61.120.241.1 14:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE motorway symbol.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE road sign F-330.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment No need to delete the PNG files unless the SVGs are more accurate. They are not identical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE road sign F-333.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE road sign P-050.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
File:IE road sign P-080.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE road sign P-052.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:IE road sign RUS-028.png[edit]
Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (logo).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, no colors, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Hämeenlinna Flag.png[edit]
Fictional (and indeed illegal, as per sections 6 and 8 of the Act on the Flag of Finland) flag, completely unsourced yet purported to be real. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Oberth Hermann rocket scientist.jpg[edit]
There is no indication that this photo is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree the website does not release under the cc license, I changed it to more appropriate "PD-Romania". --RAN (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- What is your rationale to use PD-Romania? and not Germany where Oberth also lived? That is, where was this image taken / published? And in case of PD-Romania is right, why wasn't it restored by URAA? Günther Frager (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Salute! I apologize if I uploaded the image incorrectly. Tell me, please, what is the difference between Romanian and German PD? What is the URAA? Richard Arthur Norton, thank you for your support! Qupeed66 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The image is a cropped version of this photo, and the copyright is claimed by the Smithsonian Institution. Notice that the logo on the bottom-left corner is from Universum Film AG, a German film company located in Berlin. According to our Wiki entry Oberth advised Fritz Lang during 1928-1929 for the film Frau im Mond. Maybe the copyright claim is bogus, but unless there is a strong evidence the image is in the public domain in Germany and the US we should follow COM:PCP. Günther Frager (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
File:Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs vol.2 (logo).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. The green color is also incorrect, it is supposed to be blue (possibly an effect of being a highly compressed image from the Norwegian government achives in 2009?) Worldlydev (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Skulptur Annunziata.jpg[edit]
Sculpture by Raimondo Puccinelli (1904-1986) located in the Garden of Castle Gemen, Germany. Freedom of panorama in Germany requires that the picture to be taken from a "public" place, but that notion is quite restrictive, for example photos taken inside train stations, museums or churches are not OK. Günther Frager (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:5T0A3864.CR2.jpg[edit]
pt: Vide diversos casos semelhantes (1, 2, 3, etc.): segundo o levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (Assembleia Legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: according to the survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon 26.125 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Sergei Nikitch Kovalyov.jpg[edit]
There is no indication that the image is free from copyright in the country of origin (USSR/Russia), which is a necessary condition for a file to be placed on Wikimedia Commons, even if the claim to be free from copyright in the US is true. Yellow Horror (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Added license. I struggle to understand why you are so pervasive in attempting to delete Russian and Soviet visual history en mass across the Commons, but so uninterested in identifying whether suitable licenses exist before requesting deletion. – Abovfold (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- The PD-RU-exempt license template you added does not correspond to the nature of the work, which is neither an official document or symbol, nor a work of folk art, nor a message of an exclusively informational nature.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- It came from an official Soviet state biography, which is a state document. - Abovfold (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a "official Soviet state biography". Any biography is a copyrighted creative work, because it isn't a material of legislative, administrative and judicial character. Moreover, even if a photo is a part of an unprotected government document, removing it from the context of the document returns the photo under copyright protection.--Yellow Horror (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- It came from an official Soviet state biography, which is a state document. - Abovfold (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- The PD-RU-exempt license template you added does not correspond to the nature of the work, which is neither an official document or symbol, nor a work of folk art, nor a message of an exclusively informational nature.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Random authorship claim, fake PD rationale, this is not an 'official document of state government agencies' as stated by the uploader. --Komarof (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Komarof very curious how you have so much knowledge of Wikipedia shorthand and admin requests for a month old account whose entire contribution history has been mass deleting Russian history across the platform collaborating together with @Yellow Horror here. What is the agenda here? Is this a derivative account? Why are you concealing your prior wiki experience, and why so aggressive in demanding punishments for other users? - Abovfold (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Pedro Silva Solnino.jpg[edit]
The author was Apolo Ronchi Desquier (1896 - 1963), and it is marked as PD. However, Uruguay has 70 years pma. Notice that in the past it was 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. Günther Frager (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photographs by Apolo Ronchi[edit]
The Uruguayan photographer Apolo Ronchi Desquier died in 1963. The copyright in Uruguay is 70 years pma, thus all these images are not in the public domain in its country of origin. Notice that in the past protection was for 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. I don't know when they can be undeleted because the copyright in the United States was probably restored in 1996.
- File:Antonio Cadenacho.jpg
- File:Atalibio Ribeiro.jpg
- File:Bonifacio Fleitas.jpg
- File:Braulio Manuel Ojeda.jpg
- File:Dionisio Almeida.jpg
- File:Emilio Rivero.jpg
- File:Francisco Giacosa.jpg
- File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con acordeon.jpg
- File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con guitarra.jpg
- File:José Gabriel Carró.jpg
- File:José Ramírez.jpg
- File:Juan A. Feijoo.jpg
- File:Justo Peralta y uno de sus nietos.jpg
- File:Lucas Buschiazzo.jpg
- File:Marcelino Barrientos.jpg
- File:Perico Díaz y Marcelino Barrientos.jpg
- File:Presbiter Moltracio.jpg
Günther Frager (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to the website: https://cdf.montevideo.gub.uy/articulo/el-archivo-historico-disponible-en-alta-resolucion the images are released under Sobre la licencia "CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)" . --RAN (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- That links says the images under CC0 are the ones that the government commissioned and doesn't include the donations. The relevant text is as follows:
El contenido liberado pertenece al archivo fotográfico histórico producido por la Intendencia de Montevideo y custodiado por el CdF. No está incluido material proveniente de donaciones.
- The photos by Apolo Rochi are from the private collection of Lauro Ayestarán and you can find them here. Notice that they are not part of the catalog. If you click on any of the images you can see "© Fotografías del Archivo Lauro Ayestarán / Centro Nacional de Documentación Musical". On the contrary, when you click on any image from the catalog, for example this one, you will see that it clearly states it is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
August 20[edit]
File:Nazara TV logo.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Couldn't this be interpreted as mere simple geometry and text? Bremps... 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Moreno ocampo juicio juntas.jpg[edit]
Image must be PD in both Argentina and the US to be on Commons. It is not (Argentina only). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete A couple of things, the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} cannot be used in file uploaded after 2012 (see template page). The image was uploaded 8 years after that. The discussion @Nard the Bard cites was superseded by this proposal to modify COM:PCP. The proposal was rejected. Also the discussion was about avoiding massive deletion requests of existing files. This file was uploaded way after that and without proper sources. Anyways, this image belong to W:Agence France-Presse [9]. The country of origin is not Argentina but France, where copyright for anonymous works is 70 years afer publication. Thus this is a clear copyvio. Günther Frager (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- Getty has a habit of claiming ownership of photos they don't own. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Strassera y Moreno Ocampo.jpg[edit]
Image must be PD in both Argentina and the US to be on Commons. It is not (Argentina only). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep A mere allegation of URAA should not be a sole reason to delete per Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I was not aware of that page. But I'm also confused by the licensing tag's large-text documentation, "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012." @Nard the Bard: , can you explain this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The link provided was a provisional resolution applied to already uploaded files (not to future ones) that was superseded a few months later (i.e. nearly ten years ago). The requirement to have a free license or be in the PD in both its source country still applies, as the precautionary principle. Günther Frager (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment we should also delete File:MorenoOcampo.jpg as it is a cropped version. Günther Frager (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
File:1976 campaign hat c.JPG[edit]
Duplicate file of File:Gerald Ford delegate hat 2007-1.360.2.jpg. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:2021 postage stamps of Albania[edit]
These images are licensed with PD-Albania-exempt, probably because of the part of it that says means of payment are in the public domain. Most countries don't consider stamps to means of payment though and there's zero evidence at least from what I could that Albania does. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until 2092 per the normal term unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Kristo Frashëri 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
- File:Ramadan Sokoli 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
- File:Sandër Prosi 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
- File:Shaban Demiraj 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
- File:Vexhi Buharaja 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. {{PD-Albania-exempt}} is based on Copyright Law No.35/2016, which says that means of payment (mjetet e pagesës) are not protected by the Albanian copyright. This government regulation on postal stamps, in General Provisions, Article 2 (Neni 2), says "Postal stamp is used to pay for postal services .." ("Pulla postare shërben për pagesën e shërbimeve postare .." ). Materialscientist (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to dispute what you cited, but it should be added to the guideline if that's the case because I asked what them qualifying for PD-Albania-exempt was based on six months ago, no one ever responded, and I couldn't find the document your referring to in the meantime either. Obviously no one can follow a document if it's not even cited in the guideline and guidelines should be based on more then a template that was unilaterally added to the article when it was created without evidence that it was valid. It's good that you found something confirming that Albania considers stamps to be means of payment though. But it would have been cool if that was done sooner. Not that I'm blaming you for the fact that it wasn't. But there's clearly a disconnect between a lot of the guidelines and them being properly sourced. Not just with stamps. Although it does seem pretty pervasive in that area for some reason. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you added a reference to the document in the guideline since there isn't one currently. Thanks. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Marina Kalezić[edit]
This is a follow up to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Famous_personalities_1999_Yugoslavia_stamp.jpg which resulted in delete. Rosenzweig gave a better argument there for why Serbian stamps don't qualify for PD-SerbiaGov then I can, but summarize Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Serbia says nothing about stamps and the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia said in email that only "“official acts, drawings and blueprints of building and cadaster agencies, diplomas, certificates, official reports of government agencies, statistical reports, drafts of Laws and other documents" are covered. Stamps are none of those. So there's zero evidence that the Serbian government considers them to be official materials or in the public domain. Given that, these images should be deleted as COPYVIO per the normal term of 70+ years after the artist died. While I wasn't able to find information on if Marina Kalezić is dead or not, it clearly hasn't been 70+ since their death due to these stamps being published in the 2000s.
- File:23rd Byzantology Congress, 2016 post stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Doctors 2018 stampsheet of Serbia.jpg
- File:Edward Ryan 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Ivan Tabaković 1998 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Lajos Zilahy 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Laza Kostić 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Ludwik Hirszfeld 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Mihajlo-Mika Marković 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Milena Pavlović-Barili 2009 Serbian stamp.jpg
- File:Miloš Crnjanski (post stamp of Serbia, 2018).jpg
- File:Miloš Popović 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Vojislav Subotić 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:Wassily Kandinsky 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:William Hunter 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
- File:William Hunter 2018 stamp of Serbia2.jpg
- File:Živojin Milenković 2013 Serbian stamp.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per #2 in {{PD-SCGGov}}: "materials published by any other person or institution which do public function." We have ticket:2012042310010184 confirming that 2012 Giants of Serbian Literature Stamps are in PD. I see nothing particular in those stamps - Serbian post issues such series, designed by Marina Kalezić, every other year or so (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The main reason behind deletion is COM:PCP. Per ticket:2012042310010184 it is safe to assume that applying PCP is overzealous in this case, and that stamps by Marina Kalezić are not protected. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- It seems weird to me that there would be a multiple point clause in the law laying out specific things that are in the public domain like law acts and judgments if at the end of the day everything created persons or institutions which do public functions are PD regardless. It's not like laws or judgments aren't created by institutions that do public functions. So at least IMO the fact that it specifically lays out specific types of works that are free of copyright kind of insinuates that there are other things that aren't. Otherwise there'd be zero reason for them to cite specific examples. There's also the clarifying email. Plus Like you said yourself, there's ticket:2012042310010184 for other Serbian stamps, which I had nothing to do with BTW. I don't know why we need special permission in one instance to host the images, but not in the other. Either Serbian stamps are copyrighted and we need VRT permission to host them, or they aren't and we don't.
- As a side to that it's also unclear if Post of Serbia is even considered a government agency to begin with since they are owned by a holding company. Although that's less important IMO to the other points I've brought up, mainly that there would be zero reason that the law would name specific types of works that are PD if everything created by the government is de-facto in the public domain. And the clarifying email is particularly strong evidence against stamps being PD in that regard. Although us needing VRT permission to host other Serbian stamps also points to them being copyrighted. Otherwise there's no reason Marina Kalezić would have given us permission to host the images to begin with. If they want to file VRT permission for these stamps to though, cool. But there's no justification to keep the images baring that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ask Logo.svg[edit]
Duplicate of File:Ask.com Logo.svg Kelly The Angel (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- If it's a duplicate, you can delete mine, I arrived late and didn't know about the copy already present in the SVG. Giov.c (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Korshun.jpg[edit]
False license. The source indicates that this is a photograph from the 1920s, therefore it could not be published before November 7, 1917. The statement about the publication before 1928 is also unsubstantiated, as is the statement about the death of the author more than 100 years ago. Yellow Horror (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the photo was actually published before 2015, nor any information about its author.--Yellow Horror (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Banned user socking. --Yann (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Korshun.jpg[edit]
False license. The source indicates that this is a photograph from the 1920s, therefore it could not be published before November 7, 1917. The statement about the publication before 1928 is also unsubstantiated, as is the statement about the death of the author more than 100 years ago. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Previous removal request was not considered on the merits due to the erroneous accusation of me being a sockpuppet.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Russia, I changed from "1920" to "circa 1920". --RAN (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that the PD-Russia license for anonymous works is based on the date the work was made public, not the date it was created. This license does not apply to unpublished and newly released works.--Yellow Horror (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep This photo should have been taken in Ukraine in the 1920s and was probably published for some jubilee of the scientist (he was 60 in 1928, and here he looks younger). As the author is not known we can use PD-US now or with better assurance - in January, 2024, in 4 months.--Brunei (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons' policy requires that creative work be free from copyright restrictions in both the United States and its country of origin. For now, there is no evidence that this photo was made public before 2015, and its author is not known, so it may be copyright-protected in Ukraine until 2086. And in US, as first published after 2002, it may be copyright-protected for 120 years after creation, so until about 2050. The claim that the photo was "probably" made public in connection with the anniversary of Stepan Vasilievich Korshun in the 1920s for now is unfounded.--Yellow Horror (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
File:MBHHC Chairman.jpg[edit]
Permission? 186.175.110.105 12:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Sarkar (32).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No sign of own work 186.175.110.105 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Myint Moe Aung Profile Photo.jpg[edit]
Own work? 186.175.110.105 12:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:BankNujin.jpg[edit]
تصویر غیرکاربردی و بیربط به ویکی Siavosh9 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) وجود این تصویر الزامی است. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirrezaweb (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
File:Mansorabadlogo.jpg[edit]
تصویر بدردنخور Siavosh9 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Filemangeraide.jpg[edit]
اسکرینشات غیرکاربردی Siavosh9 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Copy of IBQ Logo PMS FOR CIRCULATION.jpg[edit]
Needs proof of permission and someone said {{No permission since}} can't be used for old files so starting a DR instead. Jonteemil (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Joseph cornell (121873694).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If it's a work by artist Joseph Cornell, it might be copyright and there's no information to know if FoP applies. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:PJ MORTON.jpg[edit]
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Three recipients of the "For the Defence of Leningrad" medal in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) Russia 1943. (40060751273).jpg[edit]
_Russia_1943._(40060751273).jpg){kind=link}
_Russia_1943._(40060751273).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not free image. Original photo is by Boris Kudoyarov (who died in 1973). Not in PD yet. Kursant504 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can see that user J J has deleted the file on Flickr and that may indicate that something has happened there that concerns licensing. If it is possible that you have a source for your claim, the situation becomes much clearer. Otherwise, I have no objection. Best regards VisbyStar (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Masjid Al Abrar, Beruwela.jpg[edit]
No metadata so the own work claim is probably bogus. The link below the Information table says: © Copyright 2023, All Rights Reserved at the bottom of the page. Permission of the stated license is needed to keep the file. Jonteemil (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Joshua in concert.jpg[edit]
Image search finds this image in wide-spread use and one of them is the likely source. An EXIF would also be expected if uploader took picture with own camera. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yoyohonybro (talk · contribs)[edit]
Seems to be bogus own work claims. If not covered by something like {{PD-Sri Lanka}}, proof of the stated license is needed to keep the files.
- File:Matale Municipal Council.png
- File:Matale Divisional Secretariat.png
- File:Matale Municipal Council Logo.jpg
Jonteemil (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jso111 (talk · contribs)[edit]
This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023120110006677 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 16:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Проф. др Радослав Пауновић.jpg[edit]
Possible copyright volation, from http://www.primagdoo.com/index.html Ђидо (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Andrea Hernández .jpg[edit]
Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Muharram in cities and villages of Iran-342 16 (122).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Union Station Mural by Gregory Ackers Columbus, Ohio 1987.jpg[edit]
There's no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D works of art like this mural installed after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP United States, and formalities such as a copyright notice and registration also seemed to stop being required for such works after 1978. This means that copyright status of the mural itself needs to be assessed and unless it can be clearly shown to be within the public domain, the artist's COM:CONSENT is needed for the file to be considered OK to keep by Commons. The license for the photo is fine, but I don't believe it extends to the mural itself, and the photo is a COM:DW in which both the photo and the photographed mural need to be clearly OK from a copyright standpoint for Commons to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you can "believe" all you want, but you're harming the collective of knowledge here with your conjectures. Why do you want us to cover artworks without being able to adequately show them? ɱ (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content per COM:FAIR; however, some local Wikipedia projects do allow such content to be uploaded and used. Photos of artworks such as this that can't be hosted by Commons can often be upload locally to a Wikipedia project and used there as long as the use complies with that project's relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, usually around 100x100px. Completely useless. Again, why do you want us to cover artworks without being able to adequately show them? Why are you actively choosing to harm the collective of knowledge here with your conjectures? ɱ (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- The restrictions that local Wikipedia projects place on non-free content (e.g. fair use, fair dealing content) aren't relevant to Commons. These restrictions do not make it OK to upload higher resolution images of fair use content to Commons. If you find the restrictions of the local projects to be too restrictive, you can seek a consensus to change them on the local projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, usually around 100x100px. Completely useless. Again, why do you want us to cover artworks without being able to adequately show them? Why are you actively choosing to harm the collective of knowledge here with your conjectures? ɱ (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content per COM:FAIR; however, some local Wikipedia projects do allow such content to be uploaded and used. Photos of artworks such as this that can't be hosted by Commons can often be upload locally to a Wikipedia project and used there as long as the use complies with that project's relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep No copyright registration filed under Gregory Ackers or a Union Station mural for the post-1978 database. Works up to March 1989 needed a copyright notice and if no notice, a copyright registration within five years. {{PD-US-1978-89}} Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that could be a possibility and brought up as much at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#PD-US-1978-89 for murals?. Since some were of the opinion that a notice wasn't required from 1978 onward, I started this discussion. If the consensus is that it does, then the file can relicensed and kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren’t necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was “published”. The definition of “published” also was changed to mean something other than “publicly displayed” from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to this mural. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Murals by Gregory Ackers[edit]
Since there's no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D works of art like these murals installed after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP United States, and formalities such as a copyright notice and registration also seemed to stop being required for such works after 1978, the copyright statuses of these two murals themselves needs to be assessed. Unless it can be clearly shown that they are within the public domain, the artist's COM:CONSENT is needed for these files to be considered OK to keep by Commons. The Flickr license for the "Trains mural" photo is fine, but I don't believe it extends to the mural itself (which is described as being completed in 1989 per en:Trains (mural)), which makes the photo a COM:DW in which both the photo and the photographed work need to be clearly OK from a copyright standpoint for Commons to keep. The {{DLC}} licensing for the "Union Station" mural was created by the file's uploader and doesn't appear to have been vetted for accuracy. It also doesn't seem to be applicable because the mural is described as being finished in 1987 per en:Union Station (mural), which means it's not going to be within the public domain simply because of its age (i.e. copyright has expired) or because of a lack of formalities as stated in items 1 and 2 of that license, and there needs to be some way of verifying items 3 and 4 or that the artist has otherwise given their consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- JSTOR and the Columbus Metropolitan Library licensed these images appropriately. I don't care about your personal opinion reading into the legalities; if the CML believes an image to have no copyright, then it does not. Please stop incessantly trying to remove cultural content from encyclopedic spaces; you ought to be blocked. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think I should be blocked for questioning a licensing template that you created yourself or pointing out that there's no freedom of panorama for these mural under US copyright law, then you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU. However, you'd have a better chance of convincing others to keep these files if you can show how these murals aren't protected by copyright based on US copyright law or how JSTOR or the CML has the authority to act on behalf of the Ackers as his representatives with respect to the copyright status of his works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, you should be blocked for copyright paranoia. Wasting everyone's time. I don't represent JSTOR or the CML, but they are legitimate institutions, not some dumb wiki site where people like you can harass other people over valid content and play "lawyer". ɱ (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- And license templates are all created and used by individuals. If you don't think I'm qualified to create and edit the many incredibly useful templates that I do, perhaps you should have my 'template editor' rights removed. And perhaps if you think I'm somehow debasing the Columbus Metropolitan Library, perhaps you should contact them. I've been working with them to contribute over 335,000 images to Commons. Doing a world of good that you apparently just want to see washed away. Where do you get off? ɱ (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you think I should be blocked for questioning a licensing template that you created yourself or pointing out that there's no freedom of panorama for these mural under US copyright law, then you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU. However, you'd have a better chance of convincing others to keep these files if you can show how these murals aren't protected by copyright based on US copyright law or how JSTOR or the CML has the authority to act on behalf of the Ackers as his representatives with respect to the copyright status of his works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Union Station mural, there is no copyright registration for Gregory Ackers in the database. It's {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Trains may be trickier, if it were published in March 1989 or after, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I thought that could be a possibility and brought up as much at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#PD-US-1978-89 for murals?. Since some were of the opinion that a notice wasn't required from 1978 onward, I added the 1987 file to this discussion. If the consensus is that it does, then the file can relicensed and kept. The 1989 mural is a bit trickier to assess because it's not clear it was completed (i.e. installed) before March 1, 1989, per en:Trains (mural). Given the mural's location, it would seem probable to be completed at some point other that the winter months, but it would be helpful to know the exact date it was completed if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Finally found the answer to your question in this 1989 video. The mural was started in June and completed in the same summer (the dialogue between 5:17 and 5:37 of the video). -- Asclepias (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren't necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was "published". The definition of "published" also was changed to mean something other than "publicly displayed" from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to these murals. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- What form of publication are you looking for, if you imagine up that painting in a public place is not publication? Keeps on moving the goalposts... ɱ (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The goal posts were moved by en:Copyright Act of 1976 which changed (clarified) the meaning for the term "published" with respect to US copyright law as explained here. The US Copyright Office's current definition of "publication" can be found here and Sections 1902 and 1908 state "a public display or public performance does not constitute publication". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's relatively contradictory with itself, where it states "A statutory copyright owned by the artist is created as soon as the work is made." So, the Union Station mural should be copyright 1987. ɱ (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- It also says a notice is required " to keep the work out of the public domain after “publication.”". So if there is no notice or registration or anything for Union Station it is in the Public Domain. ɱ (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- And if we use the Section 1902 definition of publication, it happens on first sale of the work. Which is beneficial for this case, as the work was sold before creation: it was commissioned for the space, and thus transferred from artist to first owner as it was made. ɱ (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to this and this, the commissioning of a work of art doesn't automatically mean there's been a transfer of copyright from the artist to the commissioning party. That could depend upon whether a en:work for hire agreement was in place between the artist and the commissioning body. In addition, formalities seem to have only been required for works "published" between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 (inclusive). A copyright notice wasn't necessarily required but registration within five years of first publication was needed in order for a cclaim of copyright ownership to be considered valid. So, if Ackers retained copyright ownership over the mural, then he would seem to need to have been the one to "publish" it (not the commissioning body). If, for example, he did make tangible copies of the mural available in some form prior to February 28, 1989, then that would seem to constitute publishing and require formal registration. If he never did such a thing or did so sometime on or after March 1, 1989, then his copyright ownership over the work still seem to remain in effect for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris per COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your deep dive into the nuances of this just muddles it further... Can't you search for registration or see if you can find a notice? You're giving a lot of hypotheses without a clear explanation. Abzeronow found no copyright registration, and the source you gave plainly states that these works must have registrations. Can we just leave it at that? You're seemingly fighting tooth-and-claw to provide as many obscure legal loopholes as possible to keep these images off the internet; do you have some sort of conflict of interest with relation to Ackers or this area? ɱ (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- The pages I referenced above state formalities are only required in the case of "publication". They also state that "publication" doesn't equate to "displaying the work in public". Abzernow's last comment in this discussion was I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. That, at least in my opinion, is what still needs to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Your deep dive into the nuances of this just muddles it further... Can't you search for registration or see if you can find a notice? You're giving a lot of hypotheses without a clear explanation. Abzeronow found no copyright registration, and the source you gave plainly states that these works must have registrations. Can we just leave it at that? You're seemingly fighting tooth-and-claw to provide as many obscure legal loopholes as possible to keep these images off the internet; do you have some sort of conflict of interest with relation to Ackers or this area? ɱ (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to this and this, the commissioning of a work of art doesn't automatically mean there's been a transfer of copyright from the artist to the commissioning party. That could depend upon whether a en:work for hire agreement was in place between the artist and the commissioning body. In addition, formalities seem to have only been required for works "published" between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 (inclusive). A copyright notice wasn't necessarily required but registration within five years of first publication was needed in order for a cclaim of copyright ownership to be considered valid. So, if Ackers retained copyright ownership over the mural, then he would seem to need to have been the one to "publish" it (not the commissioning body). If, for example, he did make tangible copies of the mural available in some form prior to February 28, 1989, then that would seem to constitute publishing and require formal registration. If he never did such a thing or did so sometime on or after March 1, 1989, then his copyright ownership over the work still seem to remain in effect for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris per COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- The goal posts were moved by en:Copyright Act of 1976 which changed (clarified) the meaning for the term "published" with respect to US copyright law as explained here. The US Copyright Office's current definition of "publication" can be found here and Sections 1902 and 1908 state "a public display or public performance does not constitute publication". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren't necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was "published". The definition of "published" also was changed to mean something other than "publicly displayed" from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to these murals. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete File:Trains mural.jpg, per Asclepias' research. As it dates to June 1989, it is already 3 months after the {{PD-US-1978-89}} cutoff date. No comment for File:Union Station Mural.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
August 21[edit]
Files uploaded by Thx2005 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Insufficient sourcing information to verify that these items were released under a free license by Towson University. They also lack author and publishing date to determine if they are in the public domain.
- File:TUDocMinnegan.jpg
- File:TUStephConstr.jpg
- File:TUCarroltonSt.Building.jpg
- File:TURedMan'sHall.jpg
- File:TUfisher.jpg
- File:Elijah Barrett Prettyman (1830 - 1907).jpg
- File:TUNewell.jpg
- File:TUhawkins.jpg
- File:TUwiedefeld2.jpg
- File:Sarah Richmond, Towson University.jpg
- File:George Ward, Towson University.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
✗plicit 06:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Agree, I do not see any GFDL license since there is no link, but they all are pre 1964 and to be eligible for a copyright, they would require registration and renewal, and none so far have either. So migrate to PD-US for pre 1928 and "PD-US-not renewed". --RAN (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: According to this source, https://archives.towson.edu/Documents/Detail/president-james-l.-fisher/60409, the TUfisher.jpg is from 1970. Salavat (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Otto Bennewitz und Barbara Valentin 6 Tage-Rennen Berliner Sportpalast 1968.jpg[edit]
The author of this 1968 German photograph is named as Otto Bennewitz. Yet Otto Bennewitz is the guy we see IN the photo, on the bike in the middle. Obviously this is not a selfie, so if he is in the photo, he cannot be the photographer, and something is wrong here. The photo is from 1968, so not old enough to be in the public domain. The file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be actually under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Stripchat-logo.svg[edit]
No info on TOO in Cyprus QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Biometric passport of Mongolia.jpg[edit]
No proof that the design is freely licensed. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
August 22[edit]
File:Bramantyo Suwondo.jpg[edit]
© 2016 Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI Stvbastian (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Federico Moura por Marcelo Zappoli.jpg[edit]
Photo published in Argentina in 1987. It is currently in the public domain there, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, this image is still protected by copyright in the United States. Günther Frager (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Néstor Kirchner.png[edit]
Scan of a photography published in Agentina in July 1997. It entered in the public domain in Argentina this year, but it is still under copyright in the United States. Günther Frager (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:MEROL geeft aftrektips - De Seksmobiel.webm[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Satdeep Gill as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contains copyrighted music. Per video on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amydC6eM3Go%7Chelp=off Hannolans (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I checked the video and there is only music for a few seconds, sounds de minimis to me, so not sure how this should be a speedy deletion. --Hannolans (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannolans Thank you for bringing this up. Can you share any existing practice around de minimis for copyrighted music on Commons? I would like to learn more about this as I am trying to reduce the backlog on Youtube videos for review. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannolans We might still need to delete this file as I couldn't find CC license, even in the [view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20191126030535/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amydC6eM3Go source page]. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes we should delte this video as in the history it is not clear. I'm quite sure that this video was cc-by but Internet Archive doesnt capure the 'more...' part. --Hannolans (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- About de-minimis, I'm also not an expert. I assume it is de-minimis when music is playing in the background when recording for example during an interview, but not sure about short samples used in leaders of television programmes. --Hannolans (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannolans We might still need to delete this file as I couldn't find CC license, even in the [view-source:https://web.archive.org/web/20191126030535/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amydC6eM3Go source page]. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Hannolans Thank you for bringing this up. Can you share any existing practice around de minimis for copyrighted music on Commons? I would like to learn more about this as I am trying to reduce the backlog on Youtube videos for review. - Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Archived[edit]
Redundant to {{Talk archive}} and {{Archive}}. Jonteemil (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Helene Wolf-Witschel.jpg[edit]
Copyvio: The image subject died in 1994; this is certainly not "own work" from 2023. 2003:C0:8F16:2100:E9B3:B3E2:1242:BB8B 11:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- False accusations are punishable in Germany. I am the photographer of the images and therefore own the rights, in addition I have the rights to publish the artist's heir.
- So stop false accusations immediately, correct this in your post because even Wikipedia is not a lawless space. Keheilig (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- in addition, the date you mention is the EXIF data of my camera when I took the picture. So think first then shoot Keheilig (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Zur Info, der ursprüngliche Fotograf war Carl Witschel der erste Fotograf ende des 19. Jahrhunderts und bayerischer königlicher Hoffotograf, seit über 70 Jahren tot. Und ich habe das Foto seiner Tochter der Künstlerin Helene Wolf-Witschel mit meiner Kamera 2023 abfotografiert Keheilig (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Keheilig: Nun mach mal halblang. Dein Ton ist ausgesprochen unangemessen, und Drohungen mit rechtlichen Schritten können zur Sperre führen. Vielleicht liest Du mal den Artikel Schöpfungshöhe, bevor Du hier weiterhin behauptest "I am the photographer of the images".
- Du gibst ja das Offensichtliche nun selber zu, dass Du eben nicht der Fotograf dieses Bildes bist, also von "false accusations" kann überhaupt keine Rede sein. Auch ob Du im Auftrag des "artist's heir" irgendwas machst, ist hier nicht von Belang. Es geht also, wie Achim55 schon sagt, einzig und allein nur darum, wann der Fotograf starb. --2003:C0:8F16:2100:5CF6:97DF:2E3F:5F6F 15:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs would be the license since we do not have a death date on the claimed photographer, but he is a family member of the scanner. I am not sure how the uplaoder is "the photographer of the images", unless they mean they scanned them. --RAN (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we can keep it if we may reasonably assume that the photographer has been dead for more than 70 years, but the uploader is not a family member of the photographer. The scanner has repeatedly insisted that they are not related but only friends with the grandson, so they certainly do not have the Urheberrecht. --2003:C0:8F1F:FF00:180D:DE2:CCB9:7B02 06:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Feldblumen.jpg[edit]
Copyright? Artist died in 1994. 2003:C0:8F16:2100:E9B3:B3E2:1242:BB8B 11:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am the photographer and have the rights to the photo. The rights to the artwork have passed by inheritance to the grandson of the artist and from him I have permission to publish.
- 1. Please sign your edits --~~~~ instead of deleting the signature.
- 2. Photographing someone's artwork does not create a threshold of originality. This is not about your scan or photo, this is about the painting by Ms. Wolf-Witschel. You have been told that repeatedly, and in your most recent posting in the deletion discussion it appeared that you had understood this.
- 3. "Permission to publish" is not the same thing as "permission to publish under a Creative Commons 4.0 license". Please have the grandson read the fine print and send his consent to the VRT support.
- 4. Please declare your paid editing as required. --2003:C0:8F1F:FF00:40AC:AC80:D331:5346 15:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/25largestunfragm01lyse/[edit]
Sourced to a 2001 publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- This was produced by a United Nations agency (UNEP-WCMC and UNEP/GRID-Arendal), but I’m not sure (1) if those agencies are sufficiently connected to the U.N. to be considered like that copyright or (2) whether this report would fall under the U.N. copyright in any case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/conventiononmigr01cmss/[edit]
Sourced to a 2001 publication. This is too recent for copyright expiry. However, the publication seems to be an international convention, does this qualify as an edict?
_(20504557518).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- This image is pure text, and in a hypothetical transcription project of the larger would be replaced with a functioning table. Thus, it should be deleted on that ground, irrespective of the copyright question. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/coastalsensitivi94wcmc/[edit]
1994 publication. This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
- File:Coastal Sensitivity Overview of the Strait of Malacca. Compiled for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1994) (20648744132).jpg
- File:Coastal Sensitivity Overview of the Strait of Malacca. Compiled for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1994) (20037005923).jpg
- File:Coastal Sensitivity Overview of the Strait of Malacca. Compiled for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1994) (20035385554).jpg
- File:Coastal Sensitivity Overview of the Strait of Malacca. Compiled for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1994) (20035392644).jpg
- File:Coastal Sensitivity Overview of the Strait of Malacca. Compiled for International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1994) (20035381974).jpg
_(1994)_(20648744132).jpg){kind=link}
_(1994)_(20037005923).jpg){kind=link}
_(1994)_(20035385554).jpg){kind=link}
_(1994)_(20035392644).jpg){kind=link}
_(1994)_(20035381974).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_59/[edit]
Sourced to a 1994 publication of a Canadian provincial government. If crown copyright , it would have to have been publidhed prior to 1972 for copyright to have expired.
- File:Agri-news (1994- Jan-Dec) (17947797265).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1994- Jan-Dec) (17947873055).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1994- Jan-Dec) (17761554489).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1994- Jan-Dec) (17327312133).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1994- Jan-Dec) (17947843045).jpg
_(17947797265).jpg){kind=link}
_(17947873055).jpg){kind=link}
_(17761554489).jpg){kind=link}
_(17327312133).jpg){kind=link}
_(17947843045).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/catalogueoffamil00bridg/[edit]
Sourced to a 1994 publication with clear (C) notice.
File:Image from page 914 of "Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group names of the Odonata of the world" (1994) (20554545676).jpg- File:Image from page 951 of "Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group and species-group names of the Odonata of the world" (1994) (19960130783).jpg
_(20554545676).jpg){kind=link}
_(19960130783).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- These images are actually both reprints. The second is from Determiner of Dragonflies. The first is from a 1909 article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Struck first. Can you give a cite for the 1909 article? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not from an article, but from the series Collections Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys Longchamps. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/criticaltrendsas00i/[edit]
1994 Publication, by an agency of a US state, Not Federal govt.
- File:Critical trends assessment - the Illinois environment, past, present and future (1994) (20685990126).jpg
- File:Critical trends assessment - the Illinois environment, past, present and future (1994) (20719055561).jpg
- File:Critical trends assessment - the Illinois environment, past, present and future (1994) (20685987326).jpg
_(20685990126).jpg){kind=link}
_(20719055561).jpg){kind=link}
_(20685987326).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_48/[edit]
Sourced to a 1993 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government, If crown copyright, it would have to have been published prior to 1973 to be out of copyright.
- File:Agri-news (1993) (17921366436).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1993) (17759963488).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1993) (17761609019).jpg
- File:Agri-news (1993) (17948553711).jpg
_(17921366436).jpg){kind=link}
_(17759963488).jpg){kind=link}
_(17761609019).jpg){kind=link}
_(17948553711).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Check out the examples here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:PD_map Chamaemelum (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/asiaticherpetolo05asia/[edit]
Sourced to a 1993 published journal, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
_(20343125585).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Web-site for the journal and publisher (here) gives no statement as to copyright, nor do either the journal or article at issue. BHL gives CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agriculturalusee19923vanr/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 Publication by a Canadian govt agency. If crown copyright, it would have to have been published prior to 1973 for the copyright to have expired.
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17759835539).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17758222378).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17946743331).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17323508764).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17758486180).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17325580113).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17325576833).jpg
- File:Agricultural use and extent of British Columbia wetlands. (1992) (17946097185).jpg
_(17759835539).jpg){kind=link}
_(17758222378).jpg){kind=link}
_(17946743331).jpg){kind=link}
_(17323508764).jpg){kind=link}
_(17758486180).jpg){kind=link}
_(17325580113).jpg){kind=link}
_(17325576833).jpg){kind=link}
_(17946097185).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/albertadairy1993/[edit]
1993 publication of an agency of a Canadian provincial government. If crown copyright it would have had to be published prior to 1972 for that copyright to have expired.
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1992-1993) (17760823070).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1992-1993) (17760830070).jpg
_(17760823070).jpg){kind=link}
_(17760830070).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/asiaticherpetolo04asia/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 journal, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
_(19720537834).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is this creative enough for it to be copyrightable? Chamaemelum (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The open triangles are data points, but the “solid line[s]” are “arbitrary,” which I think is sufficient. As for the jounral, the Web-site for the journal and publisher (here) gives no statement as to copyright, nor do either the journal or article at issue. BHL gives CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_47/[edit]
1992 publication of an agency of a Canadian provincial government, If crown copyright applied, the document would have had to been published prior to 1973.
_(17948501821).jpg){kind=link}
_(17947816385).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/albertadairy1992/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 publication of an agency of a Canadian provincial government, If crown copyright applied, the document would have had to have been published prior to 1973 for that copyright to have expired.
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17327901573).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17762158099).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17762166269).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17327899633).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17760815320).jpg
- File:Annual report of the Alberta Dairy Control Board for the fiscal year ending March 31 (1991-1992) (17762150349).jpg
_(17327901573).jpg){kind=link}
_(17762158099).jpg){kind=link}
_(17762166269).jpg){kind=link}
_(17327899633).jpg){kind=link}
_(17760815320).jpg){kind=link}
_(17762150349).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/conservationatla91coll/[edit]
Sourced to a 1991 publication, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20656108616).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20494245418).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20689051301).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20494441720).jpg
- File:Image from page 90 of "The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific" (1991).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20495688349).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20494493470).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20495557549).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20494442118).jpg
- File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20059668734).jpg
_(20656108616).jpg){kind=link}
_(20494245418).jpg){kind=link}
_(20689051301).jpg){kind=link}
_(20494441720).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(20495688349).jpg){kind=link}
_(20494493470).jpg){kind=link}
_(20495557549).jpg){kind=link}
_(20494442118).jpg){kind=link}
_(20059668734).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I support deleting the images (copyrightable creative works), but I am unsure about the maps (due to PD-map). Chamaemelum (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the only map which is arguably simple enough to satisfy
PD-mapis File:The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests- Asia and the Pacific (1991) (20494245418).jpg. The other maps all show the selection and arrangement of various disparate elements; this map shows only the locations of several pre-defined areas, with no special creativity shown in the arrangement of map features or of colors etc. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_45/[edit]
1991 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government, would have to have been published prior to 1973 for crown copyright to have expired.
_(17324886324).jpg){kind=link}
_(17944363572).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_42/[edit]
1990 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government, would have to have been published prior to 1973 for crown copyright to have expired.
_(17759598638).jpg){kind=link}
_(17759852460).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the 3D nature of the second image disqualifies it from PD-map? Chamaemelum (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agricsocnews94/[edit]
Sourced to 1990-1994 publications of Canadian origin. This is too recent for copyrights to have xpired.
- File:Agricultural societies newsletter (1990-1994) (17918412006).jpg
- File:Agricultural societies newsletter (1990-1994) (17944609065).jpg
- File:Agricultural societies newsletter (1990-1994) (17918471426).jpg
- File:Agricultural societies newsletter (1990-1994) (17918272326).jpg
- File:Agricultural societies newsletter (1990-1994) (17757018730).jpg
_(17918412006).jpg){kind=link}
_(17944609065).jpg){kind=link}
_(17918471426).jpg){kind=link}
_(17918272326).jpg){kind=link}
_(17757018730).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/directoryofwetla90wcmc/[edit]
Sourced to 1990 publication with copyright statement in the front of document. This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
_(20934691186).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I weak support this because it is low-quality, but I would assume copyright may not apply here (PD-map). Chamaemelum (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the map is simple enough to be
PD-map, so copyright shouldn’t be an issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Template:Cpey/Licensing[edit]
Per previous discussions 1, 2 and 3, such "nofacebook" tags are neither nessary anymore nor compatible with CC 4.0 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to case Commons:Deletion requests/User:Shakibul Alam Risvy/credits, still can keep.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm considering to re-nominate it since the CC 4.0 era now. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to case Commons:Deletion requests/User:Shakibul Alam Risvy/credits, still can keep.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Not compatible with CC licenses, Commons:Licensing, or the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which states that "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." The argument that these templates are just "strongly worded requests" is not convincing. "It is not permitted" is not a request. Nosferattus (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep A strongly worded request, not a condition of the Creative Commons license. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Nosferattus. Calling this a "strongly worded request" is madness. If it said "I don't want you to upload this to Facebook", that'd be a request. The way it currently looks is closer to threatening legal action than to someone asking a favour. Renerpho (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment There is overlap with the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/User:HeinrichStuerzl/Licence (which is a deletion request I started today). Renerpho (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Nosferattus. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Wpcpey/Licensing[edit]
Per previous discussions 1, 2 and 3, such "nofacebook" tags are neither nessary anymore nor compatible with CC 4.0 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- According to case Commons:Deletion requests/User:Shakibul Alam Risvy/credits, still can keep.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Not compatible with CC licenses, Commons:Licensing, or the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which states that "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." The argument that these templates are just "strongly worded requests" is not convincing. "It is not permitted" is not a request. Nosferattus (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
| “ | Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material. --CC BY-SA 4.0 legalcode section 2.a.4. | ” |
Your restrictions specifically violated this part of CC legalcode and hence, you're probably using CC BY-NC/ND which isn't what Commons allowed. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bulletinsofameri335pale/[edit]
1991 journal publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.
- File:Bulletins of American paleontology (IA bulletinsofameri335pale).pdf
- File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1990) (20476270356).jpg
_(20476270356).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Back issues of the Bulletins are released via BHL under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_43/[edit]
Sourced to 1990 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial govenrment, for crown copyright to have expired it would have to been published prior to 1973.
_(17947448015).jpg){kind=link}
_(17761212249).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/annualstatistics1988ontauoft/[edit]
Sourced to a 1990 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government, for crown copyright to have expired it would have to have been published prior to 1973.
_(19372325221).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/batsofportugalzo00palm/[edit]
Sourced to a 1990 publication of an American museum - This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20166311690).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Per BHL, it is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_41/[edit]
sourced to a 1990 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government. For crown copyright to have expired, it would have to have been published prior to 1973.
_(17921074816).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_40/[edit]
sourced to a 1990 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial government. For crown copyright to have expired, it would have to have been published prior to 1973.
_(17326940923).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bulletin44peab/[edit]
Sourced to an 1991 publication by an American museum, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(19800871403).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Bulletin is not freely licensed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/conservationatla92saye/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 publication. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20494740538).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is a very clear “Copyright © IUCN 1992” notice in the work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/brimleyana19nort_7/[edit]
Sourced to a 1991 publication, this is too recent for copyrights to have expired, IA metadata unreliable .
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (20389193676).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (20227409778).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (19792762474).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (20415411425).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (19792784394).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (19792767614).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1991) (20228764929).jpg
_(20389193676).jpg){kind=link}
_(20227409778).jpg){kind=link}
_(19792762474).jpg){kind=link}
_(20415411425).jpg){kind=link}
_(19792784394).jpg){kind=link}
_(19792767614).jpg){kind=link}
_(20228764929).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Brimleyana is released via BHL as CC0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/britishjournal4121991brit/[edit]
Sourced to a 1991 journal of British origin: This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1991) (20231427859).jpg
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1991) (20424272741).jpg
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1991) (20391853516).jpg
_(20231427859).jpg){kind=link}
_(20424272741).jpg){kind=link}
_(20391853516).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Web-site does not mention free licensing; BHL gives the standard CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ring 1st American Edition.jpg[edit]
This is not necessarily own work, It's cover art for a novel and would thus be the work of the publishers or artist concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/annalsofsouthafr10119sout/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 journal of a South African museum. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Mesothuria parva.jpg
- File:Annals of the South African Museum = Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (1991) (18395490086).jpg
_(18395490086).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:O Evangelho Segundo Jesus Cristo.jpg[edit]
I am dipsuting the ineligbility of the stylized cross, as the perspective and color are artistic choices. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/britishjournalof1992brit/[edit]
Sourced to a 1992 journal of British origins. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1992) (19795565984).jpg
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1992) (19797319903).jpg
_(19795565984).jpg){kind=link}
_(19797319903).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Web-site does not mention free licensing; BHL gives the standard CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/annualannounce199293harv/[edit]
1992 publication of American origin. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Annual announcement of the Dental School of Harvard University (IA annualannounce199293harv).pdf
- File:Annual announcement of the Dental School of Harvard University (1992) (14580211228).jpg
_(14580211228).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/ui1993univ/[edit]
Sourced to a 1993 publication of American origins, This is too recent for copyrights too have expired.
_(14581851579).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_49/[edit]
Sourced to a 1995 publication by an agency of a Canadian provincial govenrment, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(17759833128).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/aquila10001199394magy/[edit]
1993 Publication of Hungarian origin, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(19127508923).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/britishjournalof199394brit/[edit]
Sourced to a 1993 journal of British origin. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20424457621).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Web-site does not mention free licensing; BHL gives the standard CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Magaly Solier, Amador.jpg[edit]
The Flickr account is a Mexican film festival, who probably doesn't the right over the image, therefore the license is invalid. Yann (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/ conservationatla96harc/[edit]
Sourced to a 1996 publication, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Image from page 41 of "The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests the Americas" (1996) (20494654270).jpg
- File:Image from page 116 of "The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests the Americas" (1996) (20682699725).jpg
- File:Image from page 243 of "The Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests the Americas" (1996) (20494864910).jpg
_(20494654270).jpg){kind=link}
_(20682699725).jpg){kind=link}
_(20494864910).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The third image has already been deleted per this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
_(20494864910).jpg){kind=link}
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/britishjournalof724brit/[edit]
Sourced to a 1994 journal of British origin. This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20409504762).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Web-site does not mention free licensing; BHL gives the standard CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
File:ICA San Francisco, December 2022.png[edit]
Non-free content, derivative work, no FoP. Image contains copyrighted artworks by Jeffrey Gibson (THE TREES ARE WITNESSES and SPEAKING TO THE SKY AND KISSING THE GROUND, both 2022), photographed in the United States (no Freedom of Panorama). 19h00s (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
ːThis is an image of the front door of the art center, and has a sign for Gibson's work inside. It was not a painted sign, this was a giant sticker. Is a sign for an art show is now copyright? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. The large digital prints on the front of the museum are copyrighted artworks by Jeffrey Gibson - they aren't really signs at all. That they are "stickers" really means nothing. If you navigate to the linked exhibition page, the caption for the image of the front of the museum clearly identifies the two works -- THE TREES ARE WITNESSES and SPEAKING TO THE SKY AND KISSING THE GROUND (both 2022) -- as being published on ICASF's website "courtesy of the artist." These are digital illustrations/designs that clearly pass the creativity threshold for copyrightable works, and the artist clearly views them as copyrighted works of art. 19h00s (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
To clarify THE TREES ARE WITNESSES and SPEAKING TO THE SKY AND KISSING THE GROUND (both 2022) are two installation works, displayed indoors. They do not resemble the sign. This image is not from the website. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are not correct. Go to the linked website, click the first photograph in the image gallery. The caption for the image clearly labels the two graphic artworks on the outside of the ICA SF building as THE TREES ARE WITNESSES and SPEAKING TO THE SKY AND KISSING THE GROUND (both 2022). They are not "signs," they are copyrighted artworks that have been installed on the outside of the museum. I am not saying you took this image from the website - I am saying we cannot keep this image on Commons because it contains copyrighted art. 19h00s (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC).
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/britishjournalof199596brit/[edit]
Sourced to a 1995 journal of British origin, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1995) (19797518263).jpg
- File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1995) (20230565048).jpg
_(19797518263).jpg){kind=link}
_(20230565048).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment File:British journal of entomology and natural history (1995) (19797518263).jpg is a painting from 1946 or 1947 attributed Ted Watson. No info found about when Watson died (or if he's still alive). {{PD-Art}} probably would not apply. —Tcr25 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/brimleyana19nort_11/[edit]
Sourced to a 1995 journal, This is too recent for copyrights too have expired.
_(20228772089).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Brimleyana is released via BHL as CC0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/minutesofannuals9600brun/[edit]
1996 publication of Canadian origin, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Minutes of the annual session of the Brunswick Baptist Association (1996) (14786029203).jpg
- File:Minutes of the annual session of the Brunswick Baptist Association (1996) (14579463550).jpg
- File:Minutes of the annual session of the Brunswick Baptist Association (1996) (14579470180).jpg
_(14786029203).jpg){kind=link}
_(14579463550).jpg){kind=link}
_(14579470180).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_53/[edit]
Sourced from a 1999 publication of an agency of a Canadian provincial government, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(17947536065).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/brimleyana19nort_12/[edit]
Sourced to a 1997 journal of an American museum. This is too recent for copyrights too have expired.
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20228814079).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20415465655).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20406850562).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20228796769).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20415459925).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20389247546).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20389219166).jpg
- File:Brimleyana (1997) (20415471035).jpg
_(20228814079).jpg){kind=link}
_(20415465655).jpg){kind=link}
_(20406850562).jpg){kind=link}
_(20228796769).jpg){kind=link}
_(20415459925).jpg){kind=link}
_(20389247546).jpg){kind=link}
_(20389219166).jpg){kind=link}
_(20415471035).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think PD-map might apply to one or two of these? Chamaemelum (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Brimleyana is released via BHL as CC0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/brimleyana19nort_13/[edit]
Sourced to a 1998 journal, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20227533898).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Brimleyana is released via BHL as CC0. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bulletin8110sout/[edit]
Sourced to a 1999 journal, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Bulletin (1999) (20234815120).jpg
- File:Bulletin (1999) (20422821075).jpg
- File:Bulletin (1999) (20234844958).jpg
- File:Bulletin (1999) (20414208252).jpg
_(20234815120).jpg){kind=link}
_(20422821075).jpg){kind=link}
_(20234844958).jpg){kind=link}
_(20414208252).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- The work is listed as Open Access. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/agrinews00albe_56/[edit]
2002 Publication of an agency of a Canadian provincial government, this is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(17760248850).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Does this meet
PD-map? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bonnerzoo495019992002zool/[edit]
Sourced to a 1999 journal of a German museum, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
_(20206798559).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Per [10], the Bonn zoological Bulletin (BzB), formerly "Bonner zoologische Beiträge", uses a {{CC-BY-4.0}} license. That very same web site also has the journal's archive going back to 1950 (on the left, click Articles). So this might be under an acceptable free license. --Rosenzweig τ 06:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you can get a VTRS confirmation out of them, and a GLAM partnership even better :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/columbiauniversi1999colu/[edit]
Sourced to a 1999 Publication of Columbia University
_(14768615361).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bulletin8321sout/[edit]
Sourced to a 2001 American journal, This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20396862666).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20423086215).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20414468942).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20429401731).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20423093335).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20414536832).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20423101935).jpg
- File:Bulletin (2001) (20396978376).jpg
_(20396862666).jpg){kind=link}
_(20423086215).jpg){kind=link}
_(20414468942).jpg){kind=link}
_(20429401731).jpg){kind=link}
_(20423093335).jpg){kind=link}
_(20414536832).jpg){kind=link}
_(20423101935).jpg){kind=link}
_(20396978376).jpg){kind=link}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- This image is a depiction of data so isn't copyrightable. However, it is low quality, so it might be deleted anyway. I would double check with PD-map on some of those map images. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KDSells (talk · contribs)[edit]
These files appear to have been taken from a real estate listing.
- File:Side of Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:Close Front Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:Overhead Aerial View Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:Aerial View Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:Sitting Room- SPH Butternut Walnut Trim.jpg
- File:Dining Room- SPH Butternut Walnut Trim.jpg
- File:Dining Room Music Alcove.jpg
- File:Music Alcove- SPH Butternut Walnut Trim.jpg
- File:Dining Room w Music Alcove.jpg
- File:Dining Room- SPH.jpg
- File:Living Room SPH.jpg
- File:Living Room- SPH.jpg
- File:Butternut Walnut Trim.jpg
- File:Foyer3- SPH.jpg
- File:Foyer2- SPH.jpg
- File:Foyer- SPH.jpg
- File:SE corner Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:East side Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:NE Corner Samuel N Patterson House.jpg
- File:SE exterior corner.jpg
Eureka Lott 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Eureka,
- all of the pics I see noted are my pictures. I’m a realtor and have the home listed for sale. Mike and Cathy, the owners/sellers appreciate they are well represented here for all to see. The home is a treasure that should be shared. Kirk kdsells 24.210.115.147 21:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Cardiff Combination Football League Logo.png[edit]
designed by myself on behalf of the League of which I am a committee member. It's possible the league owns the copyright anyway, we would need permission. Jonteemil (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- It appears the designer and committee member released it, which may be sufficient. It would be good to have proof of the user's claims in some way. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete Image with Copyright (sport badge) --Goldorak (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
File:April Kae in Chicago playing at Bass Bash in 2022.jpg[edit]
Speedily deleted by Didym, appealed by the uploader at COM:UNDEL. Converting to DR since I see no obvious evidence of license laundering. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- 0 views on Flickr, uploaded on the same day, multiple Google images hits. --Didym (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete As it stands its extremely suspicious - 0 followers, new account etc. Not withstanding the high res its too much like flickrwashing for me Gbawden (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- My friend Taylor took this photo last year. They created a Flickr account to allow me use of the shot, but still have them listed explicitly as the author of it. I couldn't figure out how to credit them if I uploaded directly in the wiki photo uploader. (New to wikicommons) AssistantMim (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:AGF on the uploader's statement. The other photos from the Flickr account were clearly taken by the same photographer as the current one, and they do not appear anywhere else on the Internet. A new Flickr account is no more suspicious than a new Commons account, and I think these are the kind of photos we would accept with a good-faith explanation since there is not much more the claimed author can do to prove their authorship. If this were the only image and smaller copies of it appeared previously on the Internet, I might ask to see the film negatives for evidence, but the existence of other photos from the same series that have not appeared online previously is sufficient for me in this case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Australian rules football logos[edit]
Probably above COM:TOO Australia which is extremely low, even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough to be copyrightable…
Jonteemil (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Australian rules football logos[edit]
Possibly above COM:TOO Australia which is extremely low, even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough to be copyrightable…
Jonteemil (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Australian rules football logos[edit]
If country of origin is deemed to be Australia, these are likely above COM:TOO Australia which is extremely low, even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough to be copyrightable…
Jonteemil (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Wollongong saints icon.png[edit]
Probably above COM:TOO Australia which is extremely low, even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough to be copyrightable… Jonteemil (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep this is not a logo or symbol, just an icon created by me. Therefore it is a real "own" work, so why should this be deleted? Fma12 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment interestingly, this seems to actually not be the Wollongong saints icon, but a similar, inspired work. I am not sure what rules apply. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment They only elements from they club were the blue and pink colors, which I used to create a personal design, inspired by some elements from a Saints shirt worn at that time. Fma12 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Should a personal design really be used on w:AFL Sydney and have a description page that would make it seem as it's an official icon of the club? Maybe it should be written out that it's not an official design and that it is your own personal design. Additionaly, would a personal design be in scope? Jonteemil (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
August 23[edit]
File:Herb barwice.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Sicherlich talk 04:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Weils so witzig ist habe ich den SLA mal umgewandelt. Das Bild ist gemeinfrei nach polnischem Recht. So stehts auch in der Lizenz. Ansonsten ist die Quelle schlicht die Gemeindesatzung bzw. deren Website. Das kann man leicht rausfinden wenn man auch nur eine Sekunde darüber nachdenkt. ...Sicherlich talk 04:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sicherlich: . Did you create the JPG file? If yes, in my opinion, you should just add
{{Own}}in the source parameter to solve the problem. BrightRaven (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)- No, I didn't. See file description. Doesn't matter anyways as it is PD by law. ...Sicherlich talk 10:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sicherlich: . Did you create the JPG file? If yes, in my opinion, you should just add
File:Die Gartenlaube (1891) k 13.jpg[edit]
_k_13.jpg){kind=link}
_k_13.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File name is needed for renaming another wrongly numbered file name Jenne1504 (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo Jenne,
- das File kenne ich nicht, ist auch nicht von mir eingestellt worden.
- Es entspricht auch nicht den Namenskonventionen für die Gartenlaube, es müsste ein b_Seite lauten. Siehe doch mal hier https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Die_Gartenlaube_(1891)#Bilder . Es scheinen hier alle Bilder des Bandes vorhanden zu sein.
- Kannst du mir etwas zur Verwendung der beiden Bilder mit _k sagen?
- Hallo @Joergens.mi: – Es handelt sich um die Kunstbeilagen, die aber um eine Nummer falsch nummeriert hochgeladen wurden. Daher müssten die teilweise eben umbenannt werden und die Ursprungsdatei gelöscht werden, damit das jeweils nächste Bild wieder neu benannt werden kann. --Jenne1504 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Danke für die Info, sag mir alle Namen dann verschieb ich die auf den Richtigen. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hallo @Joergens.mi: – Es handelt sich um die Kunstbeilagen, die aber um eine Nummer falsch nummeriert hochgeladen wurden. Daher müssten die teilweise eben umbenannt werden und die Ursprungsdatei gelöscht werden, damit das jeweils nächste Bild wieder neu benannt werden kann. --Jenne1504 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep this file at the moment, when clarification about the usage of this and the other file is given, i will take action --Jörgens.Mi Talk 15:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Imagem Aérea de Limeira SP.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Chronus as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Chronus (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. Túrelio (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Image might be a retouched copy of this image, published 2021 at https://www.acillimeira.com.br/noticias:limeira-e-destaque-em-ranking-nacional-de-cidades-empreendedoras-. --Túrelio (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Chronus and Túrelio: It is more likely reduced from from https://noticiadelimeira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Cidade-de-Limeira.jpg , as displayed by https://noticiadelimeira.com.br/2017/04/29/limeira-fica-em-8a-no-ranking-de-100-melhores-cidades-do-brasil-para-se-viver-segundo-pesquisa/ , which states "Por: Cauê Pixitelli | Publicado em 29 de abril de 2017", published 29 April 2017, or a later post elsewhere. Delete. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, this file is under my ownership. I have forgotten my account password and do not intend to create a new one. However, I want to emphasize that I am the original creator of the mentioned file. Personally, I do not see any issues with maintaining my file here. Nevertheless, I will not interfere with the site administrators' discretion regarding whether the aforementioned file should remain on this platform. This image was initially provided in 2015 for this content: "https://www.limeira.sp.gov.br/sitenovo/downloads/6e9c2857f564c84a24fe4cfeb83c5def.pdf." Furthermore, I personally uploaded it to the following URL: "https://www.ferias.tur.br/fotogr/60954/fotoaereadirecaoaocentrolimeirasppormoacirmagusteiro/limeira/." Given that it is an older file, I do not foresee any issues with its continued presence here. However, as previously mentioned, I leave the final decision to the discretion of the site administrators. Warm regards, Moacir Magusteiro. 2804:1E68:C60B:BBBA:7C2D:9E2E:E188:AF0A 00:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- As I noticed from "https://noticiadelimeira.com.br/2017/04/29/limeira-fica-em-8a-no-ranking-de-100-melhores-cidades-do-brasil-para-se-viver-segundo-pesquisa/", Cauê Pixitelli is actually just the writer of the news and he is only using my work. 2804:1E68:C60B:BBBA:7C2D:9E2E:E188:AF0A 00:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Chronus and Túrelio: It is more likely reduced from from https://noticiadelimeira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Cidade-de-Limeira.jpg , as displayed by https://noticiadelimeira.com.br/2017/04/29/limeira-fica-em-8a-no-ranking-de-100-melhores-cidades-do-brasil-para-se-viver-segundo-pesquisa/ , which states "Por: Cauê Pixitelli | Publicado em 29 de abril de 2017", published 29 April 2017, or a later post elsewhere.
.jpg){kind=link}
File:מאיר רוזלינד רומם ביל קלינטון.jpg[edit]
superior, cropped version exists (File:מאיר קלינטון.jpg) Poliocretes (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ajita Wilson and Federico Fellini.jpg[edit]
Il file va rimosso perchè viola il copyright 87.19.208.111 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC) la foto fa parte di un archivio tutelato dai beni culturali e rientra nelle «opere dell'ingegno di carattere creativo», sul sito Formiche dove è stata pubblicata è ben visibile la dicitura "Umberto Pizzi - riproduzione riservata"
File:Ebrahim Golestan 134746 509.jpg[edit]
The source (which is not available anymore) does not contain any information about the author, data or place of publication. PD-Iran questionable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Tineye find no author attributed, Iran is a 30 year jurisdiction. --RAN (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- RAN. We know that it was created more than 30 years ago, but do we have a proof that this photograph was published more than 30 years ago? Iranian law requires publication. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Case law has sided with images being made public when they leave the custody of the photographer. I could see if this image remained as a negative in an archive it would not have been "made public", but it appears to have been found in the wild. --RAN (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- What if this picture was made available to the public, say for example, in 2005? We don't know the date of publication to determine the period which it will be protected. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Photo of Mukul Chowdhury.jpg[edit]
Commons:Derivative works, Polarlys (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The person in this picture is deceased and I also have permission to use this image as my own work. This image is not available on the internet if not through Wikimedia Commons.--Abyan Malek (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Abyan Malek: If there is a permission by the author or rights holder of this photograph, it needs to be documented and approved per the COM:VRT procedure. --Rosenzweig τ 07:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I do understand but that’s the thing. The file has not been uploaded anywhere on the internet. The person in the picture is deceased, the copyright holder of this image was his family member and they granted me permission to use this image through social media. How do I prove that? Abyan Malek (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WikiHevea (talk · contribs)[edit]
These are photos from original photos, i.e. derived works where we have no copyright status of the original photos.
AFBorchert (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment They're all either stills or promotional photos from German silent films released in 1927, Halloh – Caesar! and Üb' immer Treu und Redlichkeit. Both were directed by Reinhold Schünzel who died in 1954, but I'm not sure if it's the release date or Schünzel's (or someone else's) death date that matters here. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Tcr25: Thanks for the links. According to § 65 UrhG Abs. 2 the copyright of a film rests with the director, the authors of the script and the dialogs, and the composer of the music, if any. However, in case of a still we can focus on the director which is Reinhold Schünzel. Hence, this will be in the public domain in 2025. The file descriptions should be fixed accordingly. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep If it is a publicity photo and not a frame from the movie, then the photographer=Anonymous. --RAN (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, then the photographer would be unknown. {{PD-EU-anonymous}} requires research and this research needs to be documented. However, according to the captions by the uploader in the associated Wikipedia article, these images appear to be stills. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- It was not a screen capture of the film, we can see an embossed icon on the print. I am not-sure the uploader can distinguish that it is a still, rather than a publicity shot. Studios had photographers to capture publicity images, created during filming, to distribute to newspapers. They used photographers so that the original camera negatives were not disturbed. You said: "requires research and this research needs to be documented". I searched through 16 billion images with Tineye. --RAN (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Using Tineye does not replace real research. Firstly, for {{PD-EU-anonymous}} you need to provide proof of a publicstion more than 70 years ago, i.e. a bibliographic reference that can be verified. Secondly, you would have to check in these original publications whether the photographer was named or not. Then we can discuss {{PD-EU-anonymous}}. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:André Vingt-Trois.png[edit]
Sind kirchliche Wappen in Frankreich frei verwendbar oder greift hier das Urheberrecht? (Own Work? Copyvio?) GerritR (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Maison d’Enfants du Capreau à Wasquehal(1).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ancienne poste de Wasquehal(1).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans JuliusMassius (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- You recently changed the date tp 1958, where did the date come from? --RAN (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ferme de Grimbry à Wasquehal(5).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Doublon. JuliusMassius (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Desi Slava.jpg[edit]
Is this indeed own work? A much higher resolution can be seen at the start of this video. Copyright? With TinEye you can find this image, which is an uncropped version. Wouter (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:1527395412 سالن-اجلاس-اصفهان-1.jpg[edit]
COM:FOP Iran HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:1527395434 سالن-اجلاس-اصفهان-2.jpg[edit]
COM:FOP Iran HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Lobbes - St-Ursmer MCL.jpg[edit]
Il y a un doublon. 2A02:A03F:C714:A300:74F2:4462:392E:3E85 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Queen Soraya and Princess Shahnaz.jpg[edit]
Photograph taken from Pinterest, critical information including author and date of publication unknown HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- PD-Iran and PD-USA, Iran only gives 30 years protection from when it was first made public. --RAN (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) The uploader has been reckless enough to assume every single old photograph from Iran in the public domain. For example, I have found out that in several instances these files were created by Western sources (like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shah and Shahbanu plahying volleyball.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohammad Reza Shah official coornoration photo.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shah in an official ceremony.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pahlavi royal family at Ramsar.jpg). Do we have an evidence that this file, taken from Pinterest, is not owned by a non-Iranian photographer and was published in Iran more than 30 years ago? I would withdraw my nomination immediately if that is proven. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot prove a negative, you can just perform due diligence, like using Tineye and comparing to 16 billion images, to see if someone has made a copyright claim for that image. We tend to use Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, until proven otherwise. Prior to exif data storing the date and the gps, and the photographer's name, we relied on contextual clues in image to get a date and location. The LOC is crowdsourcing such a project at Flickr Commons: See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/52768575793 --RAN (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think your argument is not in line with the precautionary principle. This file is sourced from Pinterest, has watermark of a Facebook page, literally a case of "it can be found all over the internet". 'SAKO' watermark seems to belong to the original photograph and it is apparently taken in France. [11] HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- "from the personal collection of Princess Soraya, acquired by the consignor from the Succession de Son Altesse Impériale la Princesse Soraya Esfandiary Bakhtiary auction at Beaussant Lefévre in May 2002". [12] HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think your argument is not in line with the precautionary principle. This file is sourced from Pinterest, has watermark of a Facebook page, literally a case of "it can be found all over the internet". 'SAKO' watermark seems to belong to the original photograph and it is apparently taken in France. [11] HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:None is greater than bread!.jpg[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Headlock0225 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No Freedom of Panorama in Bulgaria Yann (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Blu Basket 1971 logo.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: fair-use material is not allowed on Commons PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream[edit]
These files have not been uploaded to FlickR by the copyright owner (see EXIF), nor with a CC0 license. The conditions for {{PDMark-owner}} to apply are not met. Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49865390848).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49865390973).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49865926261).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49865926326).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49866239027).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49866239082).jpg){kind=link}
,_dedicată_aniversării_a_75-a_a_Zilei_Victoriei_(49866239132).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._(50007709563).jpg){kind=link}
._(50007709913).jpg){kind=link}
._(50008242336).jpg){kind=link}
._(50008242731).jpg){kind=link}
._(50008504047).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Gikü (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Fereydoon Hoveyda.jpg[edit]
critical information including author and date of publication unknown, no proof that this is PD-Iran. We know that this person lived in the U.S. after 1979 and he ssems old enough in this picture to assume it was taken outside Iran. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Up until 1989 in the USA you still had to register for a copyright and display a copyright symbol. No images of Fereydoon Hoveyda appear in the copyright registration database. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) What if this image was published after 1989? In 1990, the person depicted (born 1924) was 55 years old, enough to doubt that this picture is in the public domain in the US. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Dark Religion.webp[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Abzeronow as no license (No license since) Derivative work of public domain image. Yann (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Specifically of File:Head Odysseus MAR Sperlonga.jpg which I did not know when it was tagged but it still would require a license from the uploader. Abzeronow (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi at IIAF1978 02.jpg[edit]
This photograph was taken in October 1979 in Texas by an unknown photographer [13], available at the Austin History Center, Austin Public Library. Not sure of the copyright status, or if it was ever published. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/ Farrokh Fakhreddini[edit]
Farrokh Fakhreddini (the photographer) is still alive. I found no clue whether these portraits were published or not. If so, they will be in the public domain 30 years after publication, but this is unknown.
- File:Ahmad Ebadi portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Javad Shahrestani portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Hooshang Seyhoun portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Rashid Behbudov portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Ebrahim Bouzari portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Gholamreza Takhti portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Faramarz Payvar portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Ataollah Khorram portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Ezzat Roubakhsh portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Hossein Dehlavi portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Khosrow Khosrawani portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
- File:Mostafa Kamal Pourtorab portrait by Farrokh Fakhreddini.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Generally we assume images found in the wild have left the custody of the photographer and have been "made public". If the photographer donated his unpublished negatives to an archive, where they remained unseen by the public, I would agree that they are unpublished until proven so. We have several cases of that in the USA. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- What if these photographs were first published on the internet in recent years, lets say 2010? Then they will be protected until 2040. I think Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle does not let us simply assume that they are in the public domain. HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt, the doubt you are applying is just fear, uncertainty and doubt, that can be cast on any image we house at Commons. We need something specific, perhaps a link to an archive that states that the images were never circulated in the wild, and have been stored as negatives since creation at the archive. We have that, for instance, with the Bain Collection. It was donated as glass negatives by the creator to an archive. --RAN (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) By referring to en:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, Are you suggesting that I am using a "manipulative propaganda tactic" (as it is described in the Wikipedia article)? The source for these files (http://farrokhfakhreddini.ir/) was accessible on the internet between 2018 and 2022. Reverse image search shows results for only two of them [14] [15] in 2014 and on the earliest time in 2012 (no results for the rest). This is the evidence of publication we have and that is not being circulated "in the wild" in my opinion. Photographs are not animals left stranded in the wild, the author/copyright owner is the one who decides to publish them or not. Iranian law recognizes publication date as the beginning for the 30-year copyright protection term of photographs. This is simple math, not using a propaganda tactic. If there is any evidence that these photographs were published more than 30 years ago (for example, in some book or media) I will be thrilled to know about it and immediately remove that file from the list above. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Crossnet.png[edit]
This file was initially tagged by Wikishovel as Copyvio (copyright) and the most recent rationale was: non-free image copied from https://www.reviews.io/company-reviews/store/crossnet Yann (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oddly, the image has been removed from that page, but the source in any case appears to be https://www.crossnetgame.com/. Wikishovel (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is American, right? If so, it's below COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader has commented at File talk:Crossnet.png FYI. Jonteemil (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have permission from the Founders of the company to use Logo BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @BeFriendlyGoodSir: Then please ask them to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have permission from the Founders of the company to use Logo BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Uploader has commented at File talk:Crossnet.png FYI. Jonteemil (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Kimberly Walker Tijerina of Laredo, TX IMG 0711.JPG[edit]
old picture Marahmdz (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- And? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:École élémentaire publique Pierre Lefebvre à Wasquehal(1).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Décès auteur moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WTA Chicago.png[edit]
Claimed license not supported by source site. Looks to be over TOO. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Under COM:TOO US? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think not, which is why I nominated it (along with the source site not stating free license). There are multiple artistic elements that are neither simple text nor geometric designs - the racquet and ball might arguably be borderline, but figure of the woman swinging a tennis racquet with her other arm outstretched looks to be clearly copyrightable art to me. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
File:Port du Dragon à Wasquehal(6).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur de la photo décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WTA Stanford.jpg[edit]
Claimed license not supported by source website, which states "© 2023 by Mighty Tennis Co" Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Probably OK per COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WTA Palerme.jpg[edit]
Dubious license claim; looks over TOO Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Probably OK per COM:TOO Italy and COM:TOO US. The only think that makes me a bit unsure is the texture of the inner ring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WTA Gaiba.png[edit]
False license, looks over TOO Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I'm unsure whether this is over COM:TOO Italy and COM:TOO US or not. I'd lean toward deletion as a precaution, but I could be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Ferme de Grimbry à Wasquehal(3).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:WTA Merida.jpg[edit]
Dubious license claim; relevant TOO uncertain Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Should be OK for COM:TOO Mexico, considering the examples given there, and I believe it's below COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Rue Jean Macé à Wasquehal(2).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur et photo moins de 70 ans JuliusMassius (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JuliusMassius: This is a CIM postcard, where did you get the attribution of "Jean-Marie Combier (1891-1968)", please add a link to your source. --RAN (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Jasmin Open Monastir.jpg[edit]
Dubious license claim; TOO for Tunisia unclear Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Église Saint-Nicolas à Wasquehal(8).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Salle Gérard Philippe à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Place Maurice Schumann à Wasquehal(5).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Monument aux morts de Wasquehal(3).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Mairie annexe du Capreau à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Port du Dragon à Wasquehal(17).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Exposition Florale de Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Établissements Lequesne à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Établissements Willot à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Monument aux morts de Wasquehal(2).png[edit]
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Parc Gernez-Rieux à Wasquehal.png[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Église Saint-Nicolas de Wasquehal(2).png[edit]
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Place Maurice Schumann à Wasquehal(4).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Port du Dragon à Wasquehal(4).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Résidence Quiétude à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Place Maurice Schumann à Wasquehal(1).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Pont du Dragon à Wasquehal(2).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Place de la République à Wasquehal(1).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Place Maurice Schumann à Wasquehal(2).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Avenue de Flandre à Wasquehal.jpg[edit]
Photo moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Grass and fields, Islamic university kushtia - 7.jpg[edit]
Not a clear pic. Unnecessary Photo! DeloarAkram (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Église Saint-Clément de Wasquehal(5).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- If the uploader figured out the author died less than 70 years ago, can RAN explain why he is so sure the name of the photographer was not disclosed when the postcard was published and also not in the 70 years following the publication? Because those are conditions that have to be met before you can use the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} template! - Robotje (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- TinEye searched over 61.9 billion images. In the time that it took you to write, you could have run the same search. It is impossible to prove a negative, so we rely on due diligence. Instead of just presenting FUD, why don't you look for examples of the French publisher "Édition Petit" actually naming their photographers. That would convince me. We have at Commons over 10,000 postcards from the 1900s to 1940s, almost exclusively the publisher is named, if even that. --RAN (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just used TinEye and at the search result page I could read there "0 matches TinEye searched over 61.9 billion images but didn't find any matches for your search image. That's probably because we have yet to crawl any pages where this image appears. ..." Then I looked here at page 11 and there it is. The same postcard that TinEye couldn't find because they still have to crawl there. The uploader stated at the file description "Archives personnelles - Achat." This person indicates to have bought that postcard and than you can easily check both sides of that postcard. Why do you think your guess is better the the research of the uploader? - Robotje (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- If only Tineye searched 61,900,000,001 billion images, that last image might have had the information we were looking for. Still no evidence presented that French postcards from the French publisher "Édition Petit" named their photographers. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not generalized hypotheticals. Édition Petit was run by Pierre Lanith Petit (1831-1909) and Auguste Petit (1849-1912), both were dead more than 70 years ago, if we assume they took all their own images they published as postcards. --RAN (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, "61,900,000,001 billion images", more than 61 quintillion images, that would be impressive. OK, but now seriously. About the 10,000 plus postcards on Commons from 1900-1949, those include postcards like this one from 1937 where you can see the front and backside without a name of the author. Sure the {{PD-US-expired}} looks correct. Or take this 1938 postcard from Italy, there the {{PD-Italy}} template looks correct too because for photos of a streetview with many buildings the copyright there expires usually 20 years after creation. Or take this postcard from 1910 of a street in Tehran. There the {{PD-IRAN}} template seems to be correctly applied. In Iran copyright of photos sometimes expire after 30 years. Or take this postcard from France. The {{PD-old-assumed}} looks correctly applied for it is more than 120 years old. Or take these two files of the same postcard. The photographer is known and died in 1939. In that case the {{PD-old-70}} looks convincing. So yes, there are many reasons postcards from 1900-1949 can be uploaded on Commons. Of course those should stay. No doubt there are also amongst those 10,000+ that should not have been uploaded because the copyright did not expire yet. For example in case the copyright would end 70 years p.m.a. and the author is mentioned on the postcard but died only 32 years ago. Mentioning 10,000+ postcards on Commons from that period as an excuse to change the burden of proof to the person who nominates a specific file of a postcard doesn't seem correct to me. Just handle a nomination for deletion based on that specific situation without claiming many other similar files are not nominated for deletion. If I get a speeding ticket from the police, I could say that most likely at the same time tens of thousands of drivers are also speeding and by far most none of them get a ticket. That won't convince the officer to not give me that speeding ticket. If you claim as a fact the name of the author was not disclosed in a specific case, please try hard to prove that. Quite often you make such a claim when a file is nominated for deletion. Here you did that even for a whole bunch of postcards (... All are "PD-EU-no author disclosure", ...) event hough for most of them the publisher was not even clear. Especially in those cases such a claim seems to me to be a false claim. - Robotje (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
File:André Lips et l'orchestre Eureka.jpg[edit]
Auteur décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
File:André Lips(2).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @JuliusMassius: The photo credit in the left corner reads Marclery?, or something similar, who do you think the author is? --RAN (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I think so, I hadn't paid attention. I had settled on Maugein Frères as the author. JuliusMassius (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- The photo dates from 1950, I think the photographer is very lucky to have died after 1952. JuliusMassius (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
File:Map of Rattanakosin Kingdom in 1805.jpg[edit]
Fake world History 202.56.3.135 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- this map is depicting 1805, with research being done by Tim Piltron extensively. To claim that this is a fake history map, I would think that you would be mistaken. Nicolaus Alden Ashvashchandr (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
File:École élémentaire publique Pierre Lefebvre à Wasquehal(3).jpg[edit]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Auteur décédé moins de 70 ans. JuliusMassius (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Where did you get the attribution from, you have made attributions easily proven false in your other nominations. You need to present your evidence. --RAN (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - The logo on that postcard was, according to this source, in use from 1935 to 1968 by that publisher. At the footnote & references section of fr:Jean Combier you can find more sources about Jean Combier; a French photographer and publisher who was living from 1891 to 1968. So on January 1st 2039 the copyright on his photos will expire. Looks like until then the postcard should not be visible on Commons. - Robotje (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep That is not how copyright law works! The copyrights for images belong to the photographer, and not the publisher, unless we have a contract where a photographer has assigned their rights to the publisher. All images published by his company are marked with the publisher's logo and not the logo of an individual attributable photographer. While Combier was a photographer, as well as a publisher, he was not a sole-practitioner. He had photographers on staff, and bought out other publishers and republished their catalogues. Wikipedia states: "Jean-Marie Combier bought the following photographic collections during his career: CLB (C. Lardier in Besançon) in the 1920s, René Prouho, photographer in Hussein-Dey (Algeria) in 1930". So we cannot attribute any single image to him, unless a reliable third party makes the attribution. They are, by the legal definition, "anonymous". We have the same with the Bain Collection we host, Bain was a photographer and ran a photographic news agency that employed other photographers, none of the images can be attributed directly to Bain himself. The decision to house CIM Images at Commons on that premise was made long ago: Category:Postcards published by CIM, all marked "anonymous" and none attributed directly to him, 246 images in total. I am not sure why you are arguing that this particular one is under an active copyright, while the 245 others, are in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/24 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/25 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/26 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/31