Commons:Deletion requests/2024/02/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 February 2024
3 February 2024
Deletion requests on 2 February 2024

February 2[edit]

File:Jason Ritter y Kristen Schaal.jpg[edit]

features copyrighted characters from gravity falls SDudley (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Royal Air Philippines A320 200.jpg[edit]

The image has been altered, specifically the tail of the plane, which does not reflect the present livery of Royal Air Philippines. There is no indication in the media page that this is fictional. Moreover, the user may have created a fake account impersonating that of the airline's CEO. 49.149.73.218 02:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:北科附工學生聯會自治會架構圖.png[edit]

Author is tyaistdc, see EXIF, not uploader shizhao (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Retrato Mercedes Calles.jpg[edit]

The artist died in 1987. Unless permission from his heirs is provided, this file may be deleted and restored here only after 70 years from the artist death in 2058. 83.61.247.43 02:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete per nom. Unless the Foundation that uploaded the file can prove it was a work for hire, that way they'd be the copyright holders and have total control over the uploading here of the photo. --Bedivere (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Universiteti Metropolitan Tirana.jpg[edit]

Neither the CC license or the pd-algorithm license are correct, and there is nothing on threshold of originality at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Albania. Does PD-textlogo apply? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R80329, Josef Stalin.jpg[edit]

This photo is a copyright violation because German State archives are not a copyright owner. The copyright owner is the Russian government since the photo was first published in the Soviet Union and the photographer is Fyodor Kislov (1899-?) which is proven in the author credit to him when the photo was published in Journal "Smena" №, 1939 (available at https://smena-online.ru/sites/default/files/01_-_1939.pdf on page 5). The date of death of author is still unknown. Kursant504 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is the "Russian government" the copyright holder or Fyodor Kislov (1899-?)? You are giving contradictory information. If we have no death date for Fyodor Kislov, how do we know he died less than 70 years ago? 27 million Soviet people were lost in WWII with no death certificates. --RAN (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "27 million Soviet people" usually (as my grand-grandfather) have year (some time month) of the death which was established by the relevant services during or after the war, even if the person was actually missing. Here we know nothing. Someone says that he died at 1985, but it was privat opinion. Kursant504 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We know for certain that he was alive in 1951 because of this photo by him (https://www.tassphoto.com/ru/asset/fullTextSearch/search/4972378/page/1) taken in 1951. So his works cannot be free yet since photos by people who worked or participated in the Great Patriotic War get 74 years of copyright instead of the usual 70. Also, the USSR letting the GDR reprint photos of Stalin and keep them in their state archives does give them the right to release the photo under a CC license, anyone can buy usage rights for a photo on Getty Images or another stock photo website but that doesn't give them the rights to release said photo under a Creative Commons license. 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Kursant504 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The German federal archive is most likely not the copyright owner, but they probably have usage rights as the successor of East German news agency ADN (they took over ADN's images along with the rights, and this is apparently one of these ADN images). So them releasing this photo under a CC license may be correct. --Rosenzweig τ 08:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment What bothers me about the photo published on Smena-Online.ru is that it’s not the original photo, but a cropped and retouched one (the background has disappeared, the pipe also seems different). So, we have on the German federal archive site an untouched photo signed by the photographer o.Ang., and on the Russian pdf a cropped and retouched photo signed under the photo ? Kislova (the initial of the first name is illegible because it’s scribbled) (Кисловa). The final "a" is clearly legible, so it could be a woman photographer or a retoucher
Christian28TMA (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment o.Ang. means "ohne Angabe", "not specified", for those who don't speak German. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author label is very clear if you just zoom in, and you clearly don't understand the Russian language at all and shouldn't be commenting on Russian language matters. If the photographer was a woman it would be written as Фото Ф. Кисловой (F. Kislovoy)! The photographer is absolutely Fyodor Kislov here. Sure the photo in the Smena magazine was retouched, as was often the case in Soviet magazines and newspapers, but that does not mean that the original photo is property of Germany. This photo was first published in a Central publication of the USSR and Kislov was not an employee of a German Photographic Agency. The modifications to the photo with blurring the background do not mean that the original unedited photo is not considered published in the Soviet Union first. This is a Russian photo under Russian copyright laws, which are 74 years after death of a photographer who worked during the Great Patriotic War, and we know for certain that Kislov has not been dead for the required 74 years. So it is copyrighted under the law of the source country, and even if we accepted your logic and pretended that some imaginary Feodora Kislova woman was the author and assumed that Smena misspelled the label to make her author credit masculine, that still doesn't mean the photo belongs to Germany!
Although, by your unorthodox copyright logic, slapping a Ukranian military patch watermark could solve the problem and magically make this photo PD. Kursant504 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: I didn’t say that applying a regiment’s insignia to a random photo makes it a public domain photo, but that the presence of the regiment's badge on a photo taken by the regiment and published on the official organ of the regiment is proof that this photo belongs to the regiment. Generally, the signature affixed to a photo is indeed proof that this photo belongs to the signatory.
As for Fyodor Kislov, I went to the link you provided, and I don’t read Фото Ф. Кисловой but indeed Фото which means photo, the initial is completely indecipherable because it is scribbled and it’s just your opinion that it is Ф. (it’s absolutely not evident on the pdf you provided the link to) as for the name, contrary to what you say, it is indeed Кисловa and not as you assert Кисловой
In Russian, surnames can change form depending on gender and grammatical case. The name Кислова is generally used for a woman in the nominative case, while Кисловой is the genitive form of the same name, used to indicate possession.
There is no need to be familiar with Russian to visually see that Кисловa and Кисловой are not written the same, contrary to your assertion. and this at the highest zoom level that the pdf you provided the link to allows.
“Федор Кислов” would normally be abbreviated to “Ф. Кислов” in Russian, not “Ф Кислова”. “Кислова” is the feminine form of the surname, while “Кислов” is the masculine form. Therefore, it is unlikely that “Ф Кислова” refers to “Fyodor Kislov” in Russian.
As for the retouched photo, it was indeed the rule on printed newspapers for simple reprography problems. But, whatever you think, the retouched and cropped photo is not the original of the photo: the retouched and cropped photo is derived from the original photo, and not the other way around as you assert
You question the legal reliability of the German governmental organization that would publish, according to your words, a photo not belonging to it, a statistic on the reliability of this organization would be needed, a statistic that I do not have. A statistic on the reliability of the Smena-Online.ru site would also be needed, a statistic that I do not possess either. This is why I made a comment, and why I did not take a stand either for or against the removal of the media from Wikipedia
Christian28TMA (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Therefore, it is unlikely that “Ф Кислова” refers to “Fyodor Kislov” in Russian." WRONG! As i see you don't understand Russian grammar. F. Kislov = masculine name, F. Kislova = feminine name, BUT Foto F. KislovA = Photo BY F. Kislov. Photo by F. Kislova = Foto F. Kislovoy. Try to learn Russian grammar. The .pdf is evidence that Kislov is the original photographer, PLUS the caption on the original photo warheroes.ru, AND the entry of the (original) photo in the TASS database. The German State archives specifically have a disclaimer that the photo captions are not always accurate. The photo is obviously originally property of Russian archives! It was common in the Soviet Union for photographers to modify their photos slightly for publication (a famous example of this is the Raising a Flag over the Reichstag photo by Yevgeny Khaldei, or according to your imaginary rules of Russian grammar, Yevgeny Khaldeya - where the version of the photo first published in Ogonyok magazine in 1945 was modified to hide a second wristwatch on one of the soldiers, but the original of the photo was published later, but is still not property of Germany. There is no evidence that any version of this photo was first published in Germany (highly unlikely considering the political status of Germany in the 1930s) AND first publishing a modified version of a photo does not mean that the copyright on the original belongs to someone else. Lots of countries archives, from Germany to America, and even Russia too, have copies of photos from other countries, but that does not mean anything about the copyright status of the photo! If you know anything about Russian photography history and Russian grammar you would understand without a doubt that the photo was taken by the famous Fyodor Kislov and modified (almost certainly by him) for publication in Soviet periodicals. Your point one “The original media existed in 1939.” and "A derivated version of this original media was published in the Soviet magazine Smena in 1939.” is also true BUT "This derivated version is the work of a female individual whose last name is Кисловa.” is completely wrong! There is NO doubt that the original photo was taken by the famous Fyodor Ivanovich Kislov (1899 - no earlier than 1951) who took many other photos of Stalin as confirmed by so many Russian sources. If you don’t understand that he is not a woman go read the label on the photo in the TASS database that exactly confirms that it was him. Read the label on the photo in warheroes.ru. And most of all, please DON'T LECTURE ME ON HOW RUSSIAN GRAMMAR WORKS. I am a native Russian speaker, you are not even a level-0 Russian speaker! Do you think every single Soviet photographer with a name ending in -ov is a woman? Because if you knew anything about Russian language and Russian sources you would know who Russian clauses are conjugated. “Photo by Sergey Strunnikov” in Russian is translated as “Фото Сергея Струнникова”, NOT “Фото Сергей Струнников”. (Example in the very article about Sergey Strunnikov! [1]. We know that this photo was taken by a prominent Russian Kremlin photographer who took many photos of Stalin. German state archives admit that labels on their photos are not perfect, and the German archives consider the photographer unknown while many Russian sources, not just the Smena magazine confirm that it is by FYODOR IVANOVICH KISLOV. So it is 3-1 in favor of Fyodor Ivanovich Kislov authorship, and logic dictates that a foreign archive that admits it mislabels photos is less likely to be correct than the original sources of a photo. Just type “Photo by F. Kislov” into google translate, it translates to “Фото Ф. Кислова” NOT “Фото Ф. Кислов” because the -a at the end functions as the word “of/by” from English.Kursant504 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
after research:
In Russian, the name “Кислова” (Kislova) is the feminine form of the surname “Кислов” (Kislov). Therefore, if a photo is mentioned as “фото Ф Кислова” in Russian, it suggests that the photo was taken by a woman named Kislova. The word “photo” in Russian, which is “фото”, ends with “o”, indicating that it is neutral and does not affect the gender of the photographer. (assuming that the illegible scribbled initial is a “ф” and not an “о” or a “с”, only the first half of this letter being visible before the scribbling).
A recent copy of the original on the TASS agency site provides no precision regarding copyright, but attributes the original to Fyodor Kislov.
You stated: « Lots of countries archives, from Germany to America, and even Russia too, have copies of photos from other countries, but that does not mean anything about the copyright status of the photo! ». This is precisely my argument: a derivative of a media is a copy, and the proven fact that the copy of the original photo is in Russia does not prove that the original photo is Russian: provide the Russian source of the original Russian photo, and I will believe you.
However, whether I believe you or not will not influence my vote: This photo is currently part of the German heritage, and is therefore subject to German law. You have every right to challenge the German rights on this photo, but you must do so within the rules, that is to say challenge, before a German federal legal institution, the legality of the rights of this photo of the German federal heritage. A German federal court will rule on the legality of this request, will ask you to provide proof that the original photo (and not the retouched and reframed derivative) indeed belongs to a private individual or a Russian public entity. Then the German federal court will definitively rule on the ownership of this photo. In doing so, if the German federal court decides that this photo does not belong to the German federal heritage, it will have it removed from the German federal archives. At that moment, and only at that moment, you can request the withdrawal from Commons.
Wikipedia Commons is not a German federal court, and Wikipedia Commons does not have the right to rule in place of a German federal court on a good of the German federal heritage, only a German federal court has this right.
You present yourself as a protector of copyright, start by respecting the law in general.
Christian28TMA (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but it is YOU that needs to respect copyright. I have established beyond any shadow of a doubt that this photo was an original Soviet work taken by a famous Russian government photographer, an original copy of it held in Russian State Archives, and the first publication of the photo was a derivative work credited to the original photographer matching the TASS archives. I sent you a link showing you that the original, unedited photo was in Russian archives, with a detailed caption, instead of the German archive that doesn’t even know who the photographer is. You twist words and change the laws of Russian grammar to suit your agenda of infesting Commons with a cancer of copyright violations, but at the end of a day, this is a photo by a Russian State photographer (Fyodor Kislev) not a German State photographer, which means it is Russian property. Germany having a copy in their archives doesn’t make it belong to them and it doesn’t need a German Court ruling to declare that the German State Archives mislabeled a photo without proper author credit and forgot to include a disclaimer that it was by a Russian State photographer. German Courts do not have the right unilaterally declare Russian intellectual property of a photo taken in Russia by a Russian State photographer and held originally in a Russian archive to be German property. Now should go and learn how Russian grammar works and please don't lecture me again about the russian language. I am a native speaker born and raised, you are a guy who sees the letter a at the end of a work and thinks “feminine” instead of knowing that it is a suffix denoting ownership. If you keep beligerently bludgeoning this disucssion defending the license laundering of Russian photos I will take this to the admins noticeboard and have other native Russian speakers explain to you how Russian suffixes work and continue to inform you that photos by Fyodor Kislov belong to Russia by Russian copyright law protected by international treaties - not Germany, not America, not Ukraine, not France, and not anyone else. We have established that this photo is NOT go German heritage and Germany has NO right to claim it and relicense it. German courts and the german state have no right to claim ownership of and license a russian photo by Fyodor Kislov, only russia has that right.Kursant504 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: Is this a TASS photograph? If so, shouldn't it be in the public domain in Russia per {{PD-Russia-1996}} as “an information report (including photo report), which was created by an employee of TASS, ROSTA, or KarelfinTAG as part of that person’s official duties between July 10, 1925 and January 1, 1946, provided that it was first released in the stated period or was not released until August 3, 1993”? --Rosenzweig τ 13:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose after research: according to the PDF document provided by user User:Kursant504 to justify the removal of the media, it is established that:

  • The original media existed in 1939.
  • A derivated version of this original media was published in the Soviet magazine Smena in 1939.
  • This derivated version is the work of a female individual whose last name is Кисловa.

However, the PDF document on Smena-online.ru provides no further evidence. There is no information about the author of the original photo, no information about the date the photo was taken, and no information about the location where the photo was taken. Regarding the derivative media, we do not even know the initial of the first name of this woman named Кисловa, we do not know her date of birth or her date of death, we can only presume that she was Russian-speaking.
The German federal archives, as well as the German people, are known for their respect for laws. Therefore, before deleting this media claiming that the German federal archives do not respect copyright, it will be necessary to prove, unequivocally, that the rights pertaining to the original of this media belong to the Russian state. For example, by presenting a media that broadcast the original of this photo (uncropped and unretouched) or by unequivocally proving that this photo (the original) was indeed taken by a specific photographer.
In German law, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact. In the context of copyright, the party claiming that a work is (still) protected by copyright has the burden of proof. This means that the burden of proof lies with the person who disputes another person’s copyright on a work.
This photo is currently part of the German heritage, so German law applies.
Christian28TMA (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Devavarman Maurya Empire.jpg[edit]

No source, exaggerated borders ,imaginary map 𝓐𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓲𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷Talk 04:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dasrath Maurya Empire.jpg[edit]

No source, exaggerated borders ,imaginary map 𝓐𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓲𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷Talk 04:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Minneapolis neighborhood Audubon Park (52062145177).jpg[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Princess Peach taking photos with fans at USJ Osaka (51564864394).jpg[edit]

Costume of a copyrighted character A1Cafel (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:TashaunSP1.jpg[edit]

This is out of scope. The picture is little more than some random person misidentified as the American football player Tashaun Gipson - he looks nothing like the real Gipson (see this image by comparison). Therefore this photo falls under "Not educationally useful" in the deletion policy. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Shah Ismail I (White Crescent).svg[edit]

Completely Made-up and useless flag. Frq ltc (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Breck2011 (5389354907).jpg[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Nintendo (New York, New York) (32473982768).jpg[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Mohamed juma kiluke awards including a certificate and medal from the president of the united republic of tanzania hon dr samia suluhu hassan.jpg[edit]

Out of scope Clarinetguy097 (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Antanas Kandrotas - Celofanas crop.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Armadillowidget.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pbrks as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file was originally uploaded to the English Wikipedia 18 years ago, and the user who did it is no longer allowed to participate in the project. The company also no longer exist. The user claims it had an email authorisation from John Carmack to use the logo (long before VTRS existed), and in 18 years there wasn't a single copyright complain about it. What's the point of deleting it?.--BugWarp (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fail Alsynov.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Giedrimas Jeglinskas 2023 crop.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Press photo of William Holden and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (back).jpg[edit]

blank image, apparently uploaded automatically 68.7.227.103 06:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:八大山人紀念館.png[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: no metadata, cropped from [2], originally attributed to and sourced as Bada Shanren Memorial Hall. 0x0a (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SUGEA.jpg[edit]

unlikely to be own work. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4jhh5f/are_we_still_doing_posts_of_beautifully_colorful/?rdt=40213, https://www.facebook.com/1430228763858075/photos/a.1430259687188316/1482559108625040/?type=3, etc .... ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Suge hegalaria.jpg[edit]

copyvio. Photo credit: Jake Socha. https://www.fox7austin.com/news/mystery-of-how-flying-snakes-move-is-solved-by-scientists ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sugeen pozoina.jpg[edit]

copyvio. DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY / Stringer https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/the-hand-of-indian-snake-master-dipak-mitra-is-shown-as-he-news-photo/2790262 ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sts attack.png[edit]

web video screenshot https://www.fmkorea.com/1902209665 ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:STS attack.jpg[edit]

copyvio. source: https://www.aboluowang.com/2019/0615/1302749.html ZimskoSonce (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gone with the Wind N64 video game screenshot.webp[edit]

Out of scope: "screenshot" of a non-existant game. Unused and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep There are no other images in the "Fictional Video Games" category. There are very few free files dedicated to fictional works in general 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is another image now, and one which actually relates to a notable topic (w:Polybius (urban legend)). Omphalographer (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per first sentence above and also it seems to be the first potential illustration for AI art in retro video game style and for the concepts as well as maybe for things like AI tools for computer games (textures, 3D objects, video game fan art, etc). It was also popular on a subreddit, meaning it's additionally somewhat useful in regards to what the AI art community values. Oppose second sentence above, more files for fictional works would not be a good thing and aren't in itself aren't useful. However, since this is not a real game, the title should be changed. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Mohamad Alamin.png[edit]

The website (https://www.kln.gov.my/) states "© 2023 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia. All right reserved". 0x0a (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Geulat Yisrael.png[edit]

this file has wrong licensing: it is licend under CC 3.0 But The File did not blong to the uploder, sines it is a logo of a defunct political party thet oprateed between 1990 and 1992 (see page about the Party in He Wiki). on the over hand, it may fall onder Template:PD-textlogo. איש עיטי (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Alvandiran (talk · contribs)[edit]

Likely copyvios: Uploader has had multiple other uploads deleted as copyvios. These have a variety of exifs/lack of exifs, resolutions, etc.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lunar Crater Radio Telescope.webp[edit]

Image is credited to "Vladimir Vustyansky", who is a CG artist, not a NASA/JPL employee. 0x0a (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone have his email and see if he will release it in to the Creative Commons? --Wikideas1 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I have reached out to the author to request permission. 0x0a (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Moravské regiony.svg[edit]

Na žádost zakladatele stránky, který omylem vytvořil duplikát, místo přidání nové verze GeftGames (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sérum Ancon bottle.png[edit]

© Kratochvilovci spol. s.r.o. ZimskoSonce (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait neu!.jpg[edit]

Description states the photographer (Nela Konig), but uploader (Annabelle Mandeng) claims "own work". KlausHeide (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Без названия509 20240117125008.png[edit]

Map of a fake state (mystification), which never existed. The article about this state has been deleted from the Russian Wikipedia, and such articles have never existed in other Wikipedias Leokand (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Карта виртуального государства, карта не выдаётся за историческую и реальную. Vf111 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Stained-glass windows of Stadtkirche (Bad Hersfeld)[edit]

copyvio, Artist died in 2010; no fop (see https://www.hersfelder-zeitung.de/bad-hersfeld/verkauft-zerstoert-dann-erneuert-2833664.html)

Martin Sg. (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of town church (Bad Hersfeld)[edit]

copyvio, artist died in 2010; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jannik Hofmann 1 FCN Portrait.jpg[edit]

Own work! 186.173.121.227 10:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Автограф Ж.Л.Готье.jpg[edit]

Own work. My signature 186.173.121.227 10:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Headphones 019.jpg[edit]

Not educationally useful Crazyheart1 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Monitor 019.jpg[edit]

Not educationally useful Crazyheart1 (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Cergun62 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Tagged as Non-free on en.wp. See w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 January 19. Hand-drawn logos that probably are above Saudi Arabia's TOO. Uploading on commons is not a way to circumvent possible copyright issues.

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Cergun62 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Bogus license. Unsure if this is below TOO

--Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Cergun62 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Incorrect license. CC-licensed files are not CC and PD-textlogo files are above TOO.

--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anfrage.jpg[edit]

Photo of unidentified subject which even the uploader cannot identify. Do we need more unidentified objects? Out of scope. Malcolma (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ammiraglio di Divisione Giacinto Sciandra.jpg[edit]

not own work, see metadata Bradipo Lento (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Actrice-belge-Veronique-Vandeven-.jpg[edit]

I think this is a copyrighted image [4] [5] In links date is not specified. Kindly check the dates before the deletion. Sriveenkat (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by N-Ashrafi (talk · contribs)[edit]

Images pre-date their upload here, File:Dsdsss.jpg is at https://web.archive.org/web/20060622004246/http://www.psm-sensors.co.uk/images/densit1.jpg, TinEye dates File:Density2.jpg to at least 2010, the two others are just scaled down bad-JPGs of File:Capillary Attraction Repulsion (PSF) (bjl).svg from 2010.

Belbury (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mars Aerial and Ground Global Intelligent Explorer (MAGGIE).webp[edit]

It's not a NASA work but from Ge-Cheng Zha Coflow Jet, LLC! Ras67 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Naturistenpaar.jpg[edit]

Unknown nude people, not in scope, simply an unused personal file (F10) 186.173.101.110 13:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploader should maybe be reminded that this is not a nudies album, although we keep nude images in scope. 186.173.101.110 13:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should keep this one, as its quality is rather good. IIRC we don't have that many images of nude couples. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep nude elderly couples are not overly common on WMC Dronebogus (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep: We don't have much images of elderly people posing that way. One should tidy out the overcat. --Achim55 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:MJK 13214 Katja von Garnier (Berlinale 2018).jpg[edit]

Katja von Garnier wants the picture to be removed, she did not consent to the publication. AbThLi (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This photo was shot at a public reception with invited film-makers and press. I was accredited there as a photographer and took this photo in the official press area (like other commerially available photos). So the photo was taken and published legally.
Anyhow - if Ms. von Garnier doesn't feel comfortable with this picture, we can delete it for all I care. // Martin K. (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Roth bei Prüm (Eifel); katholische Filialkirche St. Leonhard r.jpg[edit]

copyvio; contemp. artwork, no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UgurİbrahimAltay.jpg[edit]

Not own work. (https://www.konya.bel.tr/s/baskan-ozgecmis) MarinaMann (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{ subst : delete2 |image=Dosya:UgurİbrahimAltay.jpg|reason=Kendi eserim değil. ( https://www.konya.bel.tr/s/baskan-ozgecmis)}}  ~~~~ Astromedya (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yanlış Yükleme Astromedya (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) {{ subst : delete2 |image=File:UgurİbrahimAltay.jpg|reason=Yanlış Yükleme}} Astromedya (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:广德市笄山的调频发射机.jpg[edit]

it is useless 深鸣 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Secretary Pompeo Visits Portraits Cardinal Mindszenty and Carl Lutz - 46338884624.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:St. Laurentius (Erdorf)[edit]

copyvio, artist hans lohbeck died in 1974; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Perezida image 2019-10-23 at 14.01.48 1 -5aee3.jpg[edit]

Historical photo, I don't think this was created in 2023, a proper source and license is needed A1Cafel (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mammut Americanum SIM jeh.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama for artistic models in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not an artistic model; it's a taxidermy job, the stuffed and mounted skin of a natural animal. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mastodons went extinct thousands of years ago and we have no preserved skin or fur, in fact we don't even know if they had fur. This is most definitely an artistic model, a paleoartistic recreation of a prehistoric animal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The end of the world (37403937155).jpg[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Keep The design of this pupet is very common and also really old, somewhere in the 1930s, see File:American blue-eyed dolls LauraMargaret.JPG. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Laurence Ndong.jpg[edit]

There's a watermark "© Nj2" on this picture. Is this a photo agency? Something else? An authorization seems to be needed.

Furthermore, the lack of metedata (exif) on this file is suspicious. Is uploader truly the photographer ? Titlutin (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tatovør Gian Maurizio Fercioni Milano tweedjakke-768x576.jpg[edit]

copyvio. Foto di Angelo Ferrillo @pherrillo https://www.corriere.it/tecnologia/19_febbraio_06/milano-tatoo-convention-volti-tatuatori-immortalati-l-iphone-d62694da-2966-11e9-950e-d545297d98ec-bc_2.shtml ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:L4KQXONAQZFKNKT2R24NC2W5T4.jpg[edit]

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A321XLR - DESKTOP - 04.jpg[edit]

This is a promotional image available for download from https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft/a320/a321xlr - it is unlikely that the uploader is its author. In any case, the copyright almost certainly belongs to Airbus, and not the author (whoever they are), and there is no indication that the uploader is affiliated with Airbus. Delta 51 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Congresul Uniunii Salvați Basarabia.jpg[edit]

No proof that the author or copyright holder (BOICU ION, respectively Alexandru Bostan) have agreed to the terms of this license. Gikü (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bătălia juridică pentru limba română în Basarabia.jpg[edit]

No proof that the author / copyright holder (Mogildea Nicolae / mognick.mognick@yahoo.com per EXIF) has agreed to the terms of this license. Gikü (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Acetato de etilo.jpg[edit]

Low-quality 3D model of ethyl acetate with disruptive background and pixelated atoms. Replaced by File:Ethyl-acetate-from-xtal-3D-bs-17.png as high-quality 3D model based on cited X-ray crystallography measurements. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Merilin Mälk.png[edit]

VRT-permission from author Konstantin Sednev is needed. No evidence, that uploader Represent2000 is the same person. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tabla acetato de etilo.jpg[edit]

Unused image of a table, replaced by wiki table on the respective wikipedia page. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete, low quality (JPG). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rolling Stone issue 915 3 February 2003 reimagined 1.jpg[edit]

Derivative of a copyrighted work (a Rolling Stone cover), where most of the content has been blurred except a small bit of text (which seems akin to a fair use image). Additionally, I think that the separation of the text and the rest of the cover (especially in more distorted images of the cover uploaded by the same user) misrepresents the headline. Xeroctic (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I made the image. Yes, it is a derivative of a copyrighted magazine cover. There is a line where a derivative work becomes its own work, and I feel that the distortion passes that standard. I asked for comments on that at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#Reimagining_into_the_public_domain. I would appreciate further comments here.
I feel that the file is in Commons:Project scope even if it misrepresents the headline. I made the image, and I do not feel that it misrepresents the headline, but if anyone wants to discuss then I think the place for that is at en:Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+, not here, unless there is something to say about the image being outside of Commons' scope.
I appreciate this discussion because I recognize the weirdness of editing a copyrighted work to preserve uncopyrightable elements while cutting out copyrighted elements.
Bluerasberry (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:=3 곰바우.gif[edit]

Unused private image, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Monpazier, Lot-et-Garonne, France, Sept. 2008 (2944141501).jpg[edit]

erreur de département dans le nom du fichier : Monpazier est en Dordogne Père Igor (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tectonic-plates-subduction-zone-17280738.jpg[edit]

copyvio. © Daulon | Dreamstime.com https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-tectonic-plates-subduction-zone-image17280738 ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:দ্য ব্লাডলাইন.png[edit]

Possible copyvio: Logo of a wrestling stable CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Brandonman1990 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: Credits for Jacob Kristof found in the metadata

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Estilo del cid.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The band is marked as author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gefangenenlager Quickborn.png[edit]

Wrong license, if the unknown author survived the war the picture could easily still be copyrighted. XenonX3 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Sebastianguitarra (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: Different cameras used for the photos, Federico Asan en directo.jpg is from Facebook

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zəhra Məmmədli.jpg[edit]

Gereksiz bilgi . Eksik metin Zehrafilm (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gereksiz bilgi eksik metin Zehrafilm (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gereksiz bilgi .eksik metin Zehrafilm (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F10? 186.173.92.239 19:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review as of 4 April 2009[edit]

No FOP for buildings in Sri Lanka COM:FOP Sri Lanka

TheImaCow (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep These buildings are old enough to be in the public domain already. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Denny's State Champion Wrestling Team (1976).jpg[edit]

Dennis Hastert was first elected in 1986. This photo was taken when he was employed as a school coach. Also, he is not the photographer. Ooligan (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

| class="wikitable"
|1929 through 1977
|Published without a copyright notice
|None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities
|{{PD-US-no notice}}
|
This private photo (purported to be 1976) was apparently first "published" in the year 2000, on Dennis Hastert's House.gov website. So, PD-US-no notice would not apply in this situation. (@A1Cafel/@RandomUserGuy1738), Where was it "published" in 1976, or any other time before September 2000? -- Ooligan (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kept: per discussion; problems seem resolved. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Denny's State Champion Wrestling Team (1976).jpg[edit]

Relisting, I seemed to have closed this too soon. As @Ooligan: notes, if this image was not published until 2000, the tag {{PD-US-no notice}} would not apply. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Infrogmation- Thanks for the relisting.
Here is the first provable "publication" of this photograph in the year 2000. [6] -- Ooligan (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that in 1976 (under the old U.S. copyright law) simple distribution to the people in the photo would have constituted publication. @User:Clindberg, is that correct? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If copies of the photo were handed out, that should be general publication. If Dennis Hastert was not the photographer, how did he get a copy without it being published? While different circuit courts may have different tests, the Copyright Compendium section 1905.1 states: Generally, a limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication. See White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952) (explaining that a publication is limited if it “communicates the contents of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale ... [and is] restricted both as to persons and purpose.”). One of the examples they give there says Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication of that work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you go to the website [7], it shows the image was produced in 1976 as the description is Denny's State Champion Wrestling Team (1976). Just because it was posted to his Congressional website in 2000, it does not mean it was published or produced that same year. Furthermore, given that this picture was produced during Dennis Hastert's time as a teacher at Yorkville High School, there is a good chance this image might have been published in the 1976 yearbook. If that is confirmed, then that would be further reasoning for the PD US no notice to stand. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Thomas Huber[edit]

copyright violation; works by living artist; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Martin,
Four of the flagged images were uploaded in 2014 by a user named "Büro Huber". In 2015, those images were added to the article on Thomas Huber by a user named Skopia-Geneva. Skopia is the art gallery that represents the artist, according to his official website.
It's therefore likely that those image were added by the copyright holder himself. If this was a copyright violation, the gallery would have acted to get the images removed. Or do you see any indication that somebody created fake accounts in order to impersonate the artist ? 1904.CC (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I contacted the art gallery to clarify the issue. I assume they wrote to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) to approve the publication. 1904.CC (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Dienthoaiquangcao12 (talk · contribs)[edit]

All of these images are of questionable license and created in violation of a block. All of these images here may be de minimis but almost certainly are not. The Windows operating system is copyrighted; as I learned with one of my first images on Commons, taking a picture of a computer displaying copyrighted software does not make the image free to use on Commons.

Aasim (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. The amount of Microsoft content visible in these photos is minimal; in most cases, only the taskbar is visible, and not even in any great detail. The screen images in "Microsoft Surface Pro 6" and "Surface Studio" are freely licensed Wikimedia content. "Microsoft Surface Pro 4" is possibly questionable given the desktop background, but it's almost entirely washed out. Omphalographer (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nicki Minaj Realize NBA Awards 2017.png[edit]

Image appears to be scraped from a non-free video on Vimeo, owned by "LightSpace Studios". This makes the image non-free. The claimed license is incorrect. LK (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: Hi, I am the original uploader of this file. If you click on "more" on the Vimeo video page, you can see that the video was uploaded under a "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" license. The video that the image was taken from was released under a free license. Thank you. RogueShanghai (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted, I withdraw deletion request. LK (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closed request withdrawn. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nicki Minaj Realize NBA Awards 2017.png[edit]

Upon further inspection, the uploader seems to be the filming location studio and not the videographer, therefore not making them actual copyright holder. 119.111.251.114 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smurf Logo in Belorussian (Смурфики).svg[edit]

Logo mistakenly labelled as Belarusian, but is actually in Russian. Russian logo is already uploaded so this is a duplicate, and there is no Belarusian logo to replace it with. Therefore this file is useless and can be deleted. ~ nicolas (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Memories of Midtown num 3,!991, 21 x 27 inch collection of PAFA.jpg[edit]

NFC, copyrighted artwork by a recently deceased artist (Alvin D. Loving) 19h00s (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the artist Alvin Loving's widow and I hold his copyright. This appys to all images of work by Alvin Loving, unless otherwise stated. Mara Kearney (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: Uploader is claiming to be the rightsholder, through inheritance. If this is true, it's their right to upload this work here. Will probably require VRT certification. @Mara Kearney: If you would like to keep this image on Commons (or upload other images of Loving's copyrighted art), you can follow the steps laid out at Commons:Volunteer Response Team to send Commons volunteers documentation that you are the rightsholder and are publishing the images free of copyright. I would recommend reading through thoroughly to be sure you understand what rights you may be giving up by publishing the images - after they are published with confirmation that you are the rightsholder, you are generally unable to revoke the decision after a short window, and the images/pictured works would be freely licensed in perpetuity. 19h00s (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:GjinIIIMuzaka.jpg[edit]

There is no evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Johnj1995 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Soundgarden-Flower guitar tab.JPG[edit]

The song in question isn't in the public domain, so sheet music of it probably isn't either. Leafy46 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Artmusicale (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ken Thompson (sitting) and Dennis Ritchie at PDP-11 (2876612463).jpg[edit]

Based on information at the Village pump discussion, I would believe that this image is not freely licensed. I encourage a read through there first. The Flickr user Peter Hamer is unlikely to be the photographer or rights holder. We have evidence that the most likely copyright holder would be Lucent Technologies or Bell Laboratories. The tag was recently changed to {{PD-US-no notice}} "based on discussion", but we have no evidence of such. All examples of publication we have are from the 1990s and onward, in the Scientific American and online - which are all credited to Lucent/Bell. Just because it was taken in the 1970s does not automatically make it public domain. We need to see a publicity/press photo scan or a magazine without any form of notice for the template to be valid. If someone could locate earlier examples of publication it would help with a more definitive answer. It is very possible Peter Hamer was the original photographer, but there isn't a strong case to support this. As of now, I would be inclined to delete this under COM:PRP. PascalHD (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was pretty widespread on the net when it was uploaded to Flickr. Tineye has loads of hits from 2008 (from before upload to Flickr let alone here) which is as far back as their archives go I think. Unless Peter Hamer was a Bell Labs employee I would seriously doubt that was the real source. Lucent definitely had it on their website at one point; I did find a 1999 archive.org link to a copy on their website (which is not stored by archive.org). There is a similar photo at the Computer History Museum; that was a print donated by Gwen Bell (wife of Gordon Bell), so they likely had copies of prints from a long time ago. The couple had founded a computer museum in Boston, which gave much of its archives to the Computer History Museum in 2000, though the date on that link is 2015. It's a different photo, but clearly from the same session. A more likely source, as mentioned on the image page, is this Dennis Ritchie page. That is the exact same image as the original upload here (and Flickr). I imagine that page existed at a different location before 2015. Ah yes, earliest version I could find is March 2000, archived here. Someone has since straightened our image which cropped out a bit around the edges. That page says it's a "publicity photo" from 1972, though I doubt there would have been much publicity on Unix from then -- it was a few years later when it started to spread. But, it would certainly seem that copies of photos from that session made their way around. PD-US-no_notice is the only hope for it, and there is some decent circumstantial evidence, but as of yet no direct proof. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure we have any real evidence of PD-US-no notice. As I said, it's plausible that it was PD-US-no notice, but that doesn't mean we have any evidence. The CHM print, which gives the label on the back, has no notice, but this only matters if copies without a valid notice were indeed distributed. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gordon Bell worked for DEC so if he got a copy, it was distributed. Although if it says "Lucent", that would have been after 1989 so may not be a help. That is also not the same photo as ours. I agree we don't have any solid evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well... if he worked at Bell Labs, and received a copy during the course of his employment, that might or might not constitute publication. It is more complicated that that. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gordon Bell worked for Digital Equipment Corporation, and was a primary designer of the PDP-11 computer (among others), one of which is in the photo (it was a computer that Thompson and Ritchie worked on while creating Unix and C). He was most definitely not a Bell Labs employee. Given that it says Lucent on the back though, that distribution would have happened 1996 or later, so in the end that doesn't really help us here. If anything, it may point to these photos only getting around in the late 90s.Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reached out to Nokia Bell Labs for permission and then they replied that

Dear Sir

Due to restrictions on this image we are unable to provide the rights for this image.

Best Regards

Robert

based on this, I have to support its deletion. 0x0a (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Huellas Invisibles (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The band is marked as the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/02/02&oldid=850324039"