per ticket:2023090210005361 this is a 1880 photograph of an unknown photographer, which has been retouched several times by unknown persons at unknown times. Has the retouching added additional value to the image so that new copyright was created? Krd11:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think it is a drawing. No evidence presented that it is under an active copright, we do not delete on speculation. It is still the work of an unknown artist and no evidence has been presented that it was created less than 70 years ago. Generalized FUD can be used to disparage any image, we require actionable evidence. --RAN (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ticket claims that the original photo is pd-old (to which I agree) and the retouching has not added additional value, so the image is still pd-old. If that is true, it can be kept. I think that the heavy retouching has added reasonable value and therefore the image could have to be deleted. Krd11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The creator(s) of the retouchitng are also unknown ("from family archive") and we don't have the original photo to compare it against. But, this image more looks like a painting than a photo, which make me think the modifications could be copyrighted. --Krd12:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presentation is replete with copyrighted material, including two comic book covers on slide 10. There is so much copyrighted material there that I don't think it can be rescued by removing it. DarwinAhoy!12:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias In the case of that one, if someone wants to keep the file here, it's easier. These 2 comic book covers are just a curiosity about the use of Mirandese in general, and not related to Wikimedia, so they can be removed without affecting the value of the presentation. DarwinAhoy!23:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it not be surprising that Beria would have included non free images in her free licensed work? Why remove the images if they're public domain or free? Or how did you conclude that she used non free images? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias More than 13 years ago? No, it's not surprising, and she uploaded much worst stuff replete with copyrighted material back then. At that time many users just didn't care much about copyright, specially when it came to presentations. In any case, you can find these kind of stock images all over the internet, apparently they were popular in the 2000s to decorate websites and presentations, as can be seen here and here, without any care for their copyright as was usual at the time. DarwinAhoy!23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shootings in the Turkish Grand National Assembly are carried out by the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation (TRT). For this reason, I think the images are copyrighted and should be deleted. Zafer (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure if this one is made by the TRT, at least it doesn't say. Could also be recorded by a member of the HDP. The image is from a video published under a Creative Commons license by his parties YouTube channel. There are several similar DRs some opened by me, others by other editors. One here another one here (that one was uploaded by me, but to me it seems likely that the video from which the image was taken was recorded by the TRT) In my opinion it would be good to clarify the rules. According to Turkish law, the speeches are allowed to be published for means of information, but they are not under public domain. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow The municipal flags are created by municipal decree by the municipal gazette, which according to article 54 of the Copyright Law, these may be freely displayed where any individual desires, the same provision that Korea has, as happens in here.
The emblems, flags, etc. are the product of a decree therefore they are free of copyright as stated by law. Just as the coat of arms of Honduras would be in public domain, even if it were not more than 75 years old (after the death of the author). COAmaker17 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Rob1bureau as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: That photograph is copyrighted "SIPA/Press Picture" in Eric Micheletti's book Special Forces in Afghanistan, not DoD so it's not in public domain. See my talk page. Yann (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can u give more information what is writen in that book? I couldn't find the file at SIPA webpage. But eventually if you tell us who is the photographer or what caption was writen in the book. Btw I found already official US-Gov pics offered on photo agencies.--Sanandros (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow The municipal flags are created by municipal decree by the municipal gazette, which according to article 54 of the Copyright Law, these may be freely displayed where any individual desires, the same provision that Korea has, as happens in here.
The emblems, flags, etc. are the product of a decree therefore they are free of copyright as stated by law. Just as the coat of arms of Honduras would be in public domain, even if it were not more than 75 years old (after the death of the author). COAmaker17 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow The municipal flags are created by municipal decree by the municipal gazette, which according to article 54 of the Copyright Law, these may be freely displayed where any individual desires, the same provision that Korea has, as happens in here.
The emblems, flags, etc. are the product of a decree therefore they are free of copyright as stated by law. Just as the coat of arms of Honduras would be in public domain, even if it were not more than 75 years old (after the death of the author). COAmaker17 (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@COAmaker17: Are you sure? The law says "respetando su texto oficial completo" -- it refers to text only -- and then follows up with "por su naturaleza u objeto convenga citarlos, comentarlos, criticarlos o copiarlos textualmente", which does not allow for modifications. The Korean flag you linked to says it was done per specifications in the given document. Is that what you did here? —holly {chat}22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The claimed license of {{PD-US-no notice}} is not valid for these files. No information about actual publication is provided, making it impossible to know whether they were published in the correct time period and without a copyright notice.
Keep Those up to 1964 as PD-not renewed. I am looking through the renewal database for anything related to "Lehigh Valley Railroad" or "Lehigh Valley RR" and not finding any books or individual photographs. The uploaded has said they have been scanning material from the Allentown Library photo archive. They are all anonymous. I have asked the uploader to put me in touch with the library but they never write back. I want to suggest the library upload them to Flickr Commons as "no known restrictions". --RAN (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There's zero evidence these photographs were published anywhere before being uploaded to Commons. A few actually appear to be of slides that were purchased by the uploader, which clearly haven't been published according to the common understanding of the term. Nor would the uploader own the copyright to the slides simply because they purchased them from someone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2023 (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.
The claimed license of {{PD-US-no notice}} is not valid for these files. No information about actual publication is provided, making it impossible to know whether they were published in the correct time period and without a copyright notice (in the publication, not just on the photo itself).
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.
The claimed license of {{PD-US-no notice}} is not valid for these files. No information about actual publication is provided, making it impossible to know whether they were published in the correct time period and without a copyright notice.
Comment All of these look like professional photos that were almost certainly published shortly after creation. If someone can work out where they were published, the odds are strong that it was a newspaper and that copyright was not renewed after 28 years, so any of these up to and including 1963 are potentially {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but we'd need evidence. Also, if these are deleted, we should definitely add the appropriate categories to this page to make sure they get undeleted when their respective copyrights are presumably expired, renewal or not, after 95 years. - Jmabel ! talk02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. There's zero evidence these images were published anywhere prior to being uploaded to Commons. I'm not really sure where the claim of them being "professional" photographs comes from either. Certainly the file descriptions don't anything about it and at least the first photograph looks like it came from a slide. So it was more then likely taken by an amateur. Just as a side to that, it seems like the uploader went out of their way to any prior publication when they uploaded other files and there's no reason they wouldn't have done the same here if the images had been printed anywhere else before. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suspected Vandalism. The audio file poorly reflects the pronunciation of the Latin word "niger" using a rhotic vowel at the end instead of an alveolar trill or tap despite the uploader showing that they are capable of accurately pronouncing the word in Ecclesiastic Latin in their other audio file SalamanderPotato (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The architect of the library is Otto Senn who died in 1993, interior spaces are not included in FoP-Switzerland. And Switzerland has a standard of life plus 70 years. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Switzerland. I suggest to undelete in 2064. Some interior views I did not nominate for deletion as I did not really see something architectonical special in it, but if someone does, I suggest for them to do an additional DR.
Do yo mean the ones of the Freihandarchiv? That could be, but not the interior view of dome and stairway. Here is an article from 1968 about the building after its inauguration in an architectonic journal with a pretty detailed map that includes the dome and the several learning halls. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of my answer concern also the Freihandarchiv because I took a bit longer in my answer. I believe it's good we discuss the files. Here, here and here some DRs where files were deleted with similar rationale that FOP Switzerland is not valid for the interior of buildings. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The YouTube channel belongs to Lotte Entertainment, which is a major player in South Korea's film industry. The question is, who owns the copyrights in an audiovisual work? Is it the individual creators themselves (cinematographer or director in the case of a screenshot; we're not concerned about the screenplay or score here), or the production company (as would be the case in the US)? If the latter, then Lotte certainly has the right to license the video how they want. —holly {chat}19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not seem to be the author/copyright holder of this photo. The EXIF data gives the copyright holder as Don Couture (a professional photographer). There is no evidence provided that he assigned his copyright to the Commonwealth. B (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: What would make you think it was a work for hire? A work for hire is only if you are an employee. There is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that Don Couture was an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you are an independent contractor, if you just showed up and said "hey can I snap a couple of photos" and Massachusetts DOT said "yeah, can I get a copy", or if the relationship was anything other than a W2 employee, then it is not a work for hire. I tried googling his name to find a website, linkedin profile, etc, to confirm or deny that he was an employee, but there are too many people by this name (including a retired firefighter / amateur photographer in Washington (state) that I think is someone different). So unless there is some evidence that he was an employee, he is claiming copyright on the photos and I think we need to respect that. --B (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"if the relationship was anything other than a W2 employee, then it is not a work for hire" - This is absolutely not true. You can very easily make work for hire part of a gig work contract. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the permission arives after the deletion of the file, the admin will restore it. Thus I think @Paradise Chronicle is using the bad procedure. He could tag it OTRS request template or ask for direct deletion. There is nothing to discuss if it viloates copyright rules in Switzerland. Juandev (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointless gallery as it just recreates the main category without adding anything different. Plus the persons works are copyrighted anyway. So there's almost zero chance of this being useful any time soon. Adamant1 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"...[I]f the work has aesthetic elements that express thoughts and feelings through the selection of letters, the shape and size of the letters, the shading of the ink, the stroke of the brush, and the composition of the letters in combination with each other, it may be eligible for copyright protection as a work of art that shows the writer's individual expression. If the work has aesthetic elements that express ideas and feelings through the size of the ink, the shading of the ink, the movement or strokes of the brush, the composition of the letters in combination with each other, etc., it is considered to be a work of art in which the author's unique expression is expressed and can be protected by copyright."
"A signature must have aesthetic properties capable of artistic appreciation, not just beauty in terms of practical functionality, to be copyrightable." Quoted from COM:SIG Japan. This signature ONLY has "... practical functionality ..." and is NOT copyrightable. --Ooligan (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Graffiti where there is no FoP and of art that is a non-free subject. I know COM:GRAFFITI is often kept, so despite COM:FOP Hong Kong giving protection for 2D graphic works. What puts it over the line for me is that it seems to be in intrinsically COM:DW (not de minimis) of en:Pepe the Frog, and images of that are often deleted on commons as nonfree (and likewise tagged nonfree on enwiki). DMacks (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the attempt to use the "non-free graffiti" claim, does not apply.
"Non-free graffiti This work prominently depicts a work of illegal graffiti which might not be in the public domain and has not been released under a free license. Occasionally graffiti will be kept, using the claim that an author might be rejected any copyright relief based on an illegal act; however, there is no evidence of this legal theory being tested. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Graffiti. Official Commons policy is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which declines claims such as "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." or "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is". Complex understanding of the law may be required to determine whether the graffiti in this work would actually be eligible for copyright enforcement." (Bold added)
Personally, I disagree with that. Copyright does not mean a right not to be referenced. I think that my original blur left it sufficiently different that it would not be a copyright issue, but at User:Ooligan's request I've now uploaded a version that is even more blurred, and that I hope will satisfy any reasonable person. (More precisely, he requested that it be totally grayed out, which I am not interested in doing, but which someone else is welcome to do if that is the consensus.)
Do note, however, that with the image so blurred that it can no longer be seen even to reference Pepe the Frog, it becomes useless for nearly every place where it is currently used in the various Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk19:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Jmabel for your good work. Fyi, I wrote on your talk page, "Please, blur to obscure all features of the creature or use full grey/ black, if that is easier." (emphasis added) I change to Keep. The remaining English text is below COM:TOO.
COM:TOO South Korea - While simple typefaces are not copyrightable, this appears to be more than just a simple typeface, thus it may be PD ineligible USonly and not allowed on Commons. Aasim (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It appears as though this would be considered boarder line as the "B" and "M" are distinguishable? It states: "[...] that typefaces are not copyrighted" at COM:TOO#South Korea, not specifically inclining it had to be entirely simple. Regardless, these seem like similar cases (1) (2); whether these also need to be nominated for deletion can also be done if you feel the need. Rain Forest (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The archive seems like a pretty legitimate historical site when it comes to Soviet war history. I don't see any reason to not assume good faith here. 50 years post creation also gives considerable leeway if the date estimate is a bit off. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note in the back the Romanian coat of arms on the wall. That was used in the 1920s through mid-1940s. After the Communists took over, they replaced the coat of arms with a Soviet-style symbol. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:40, 2 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.
Deleted and undeleted via request, the poor rationale for undeletion has been countered here [1]. The logo is spreading misinformation across Bollywood, literature, news, etc. The rationale for deletion is same as proposed in 2015, it is a fake logo. User4edits (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Holly Chengw:WP:TOI, nonetheless, as I have said, the logo from Wikipedia it has snowballed into other media as well, there is no logo on any government document or website till date. It is a secret org - much like United Kingdom's SAS/w:MI6 in early decades. Even in documents, there is rarely any mention of "R&AW" or "Research & Analysis Wing", they use "Cabinet Secretariat (S)". Thnaks, User4edits (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, here's the main problem: the image is COM:INUSE, which means we can only delete it on copyright grounds. If the logo is fake, you have convince editors on the respective projects to remove it from where it's being used. I see that you brought it up on en-WP, and as that edit hasn't been reverted, it looks like you have consensus there. However, since this is an Indian government agency, I would like to see it removed from the Hindi article and have it stick (your en user page indicates you are India so I trust you can read/write Hindi). I can move this DR to later in the backlog so we come back to it in a few months. Sound good? —holly {chat}17:38, 1 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.
Keep:Obviously, the so -called copyright issue of the image has been discussed before. No controversial. According to previous discussions, the image meets the reserved regulations.XRAY96 (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot agree with you that the above conclusion is uncontroversial. Because a user has already expressed confusion about the discussion above on the File talk:APEC CHINA 2014 Logo.svg page. Voting is not a substitute for discussion. Please give persuasive reasons for your Keep. 0x0a (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The photograph was initially protected for 30 years, extendable for another 30 under Act No. 3134, the prevailing copyright law at that time. If it was registered in 1939 and not renewed, it likely became public domain by 1969. In 1972, Presidential Decree No. 49 replaced the law, offering 30 years of protection post-publication. The 1997 Intellectual Property Code extended this to 50 years still post-publication and not after the author's death. Without proof of renewal, it's reasonable to think the photograph entered the public domain within the original 30-year period. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Holly Cheng Unforunately, no. Even registrations are hard to search but they are mostly available online, you just have to look at the last few pages of the Official Gazette published monthly to find works registered at the Copyright Office for that particular month, and sometimes the only available versions online are in Spanish. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My only concern is that the Flickr stream says "All rights reserved" and the Internet Archive book is tagged with CC-BY-NC. In either case, the source is the Presidential Museum, and one would expect them to know if it was really PD or not. —holly {chat}01:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circa 1950s photograph from the Philippines. It would be public domain if it was taken by a member of Philippines government. It would possibly be public domain as an anonymous photograph published before 1973 but this would not have been public domain in 1996 if it was not a government work. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that General Calixto Duque was (as pictured) a 3-star general 1951-3 we’ll be safely on the side 60 years after creation applicable for the Philippines. --Zenwort (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Sadko as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: I and people close to me are visible in the image and would like to protect my privacy. I'm also the author of the image. In use. Yann (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed; I've given my reasons and hopefully, they will not be taken lightly. I don't think that this is a controversial deletion. 11:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep nobody recognisable people only shown from behind, thus no reason for courtesy deletion. Since you uploaded under a CC license please remember that these are irrevocable. --Zenwort (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created this work by myself and it is completely fictional. It has no ties to the South African Reserve Bank, it is merely a banknote design that I made for the preposed state "Cape Republic". M J Hurter (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Image not found at given source URL (nor at that the version of that URL in the Wayback Machine that was stored prior to the upload date), so cannot verify provenance. —holly {chat}22:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should not start to create such disclaimers for ever law in non democratic countries. Then we would end up with nearly every file having a bunch of disclaimers stating that some laws in some countries restrict the usage. GPSLeo (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment On second thought, I don't know why we need to create legal disclaimer templates for legal restrictions imposed solely by authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and Russia. --Minoa (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concern is that if we create legal disclaimer templates for every legal restriction imposed solely by authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and Russia, it would create a slippery slope where there could be legal disclaimer templates for files that are perfectly harmless (for example, Russia under Putin doesn't tolerate anything that resembles the flag of Ukraine): therefore we need to be far more selective in such situations. It appears that {{Zionist symbol}} and {{Chinese sensitive content}} seem to refer to restrictions imposed solely by authoritarian regimes. I know about the heated controversy about the limits of free speech in free democratic countries, but that is irrelevant and different to countries that have a far worse reputation on freedom of expression and human rights. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I hope to see a refresh in the criteria for the creation of legal disclaimer templates. --Minoa (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment At first, I looked at this template and thought it was right to delete it because it was like creating a {{South Korean Symbol}} for North Korean users. However, unlike North Korea, where access to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is blocked, I think that access to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is not blocked in the countries mentioned in this template. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, the text is too vague and may be misleading. Also delete the corresponding Category:Zionist symbols. No evidence has been presented to support the claimed illegality, and it is unclear which symbols are covered. A close parallel is {{Nazi symbol}}, but that cites the criminal codes of some of the countries concerned. No bans are mentioned in w:en:Flag of Israel. I found a recent news report on bans on Israeli and Palestinian symbols which does not mention these bans.[3]
I would like to report a relevant problem that {{Chinese sensitive content}} is being misused. I am from (mainland) China and I am somewhat familiar with which being sensitive in my country. I am sure that the portrait of Tsai Ing-wen (president of ROC, Taiwan) is not sensitive or forbidden, much less the flag of the Singaporean president. That means some users who added the template to pages are not even familiar with Chinese politics. And what about those other edits they've made (example)? If we are to keep those legal disclaimers, we have to make some people patrolling those templates, otherwise they would be a bunch of trash indicating something may be sensitive or as sensitive as a Singaporean flag in China. --魔琴 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. But since the template is nominated for deletion I guess this issue could be put into consideration in this request. I'll wait for the result and if it is keep, I'll go to the village pump then. --魔琴 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This tag is being added to images of Stars of David that are not the same color as the Israeli flag, and are a representation of Judaism rather than of Israel or Zionism (example). I don't know what the laws of Iraq etc. say, but it's not a good look for every Star of David on Commons to be tagged with a badge of shame. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As 35 of May wrote, the general disclaimer says enough: "Please note that the information found here may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. Wikimedia Commons does not encourage the violation of any laws," but acts under a "broad a protection of free speech". Thus, this template is redundant. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This template is based on a baseless assumption that the Star of David is a uniquely zionist symbol. Even if it was, this template and its' design are abhorrent. Oyoyoy (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. pre num. This template is not providing any assistance in matters related to copyright issues. And its opens a window for more nonsensical templates. It's not in Commons scope. Marking Jews with the Star of David reminds me the Yellow badge. Star of David is not a Zionist symbol. -- Geagea (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the website have a general disclaimer, we don't need a special one for each country/ies. and if we decide to keep it, the name need to change because the symbol are not only Zionist or remove the template from Jewish symbol. Yona B. (t) 10:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The template isn't even correct. The Star of David isn't a "Zionist symbol", as it has been used centuries before the Zionism movement emerged, and continues to be used all over the world by parties with no relation to Zionism, for example to signify a building is used as a Jewish synagogue. Moreover, this is a blatant anti-Semitic template, and there is no point in warning users that an image might be illegal in a certain countries "depending on context". Just like presenting the w:Shahada might be illegal in certain contexts (for example when displayed on a black background as part of the ISIS flag), but obviously we don't want to attach a template to every image of the Shahada warning users that it might be illegal "depending on context". מיכאל.צבאן (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add that all similar templates put Commons in the very silly and subjective position of interpreting often obscure laws about semantics and symbols with no editorial process. There's graphics of bagels with Jewish stars marked as potentially illegal Zionist symbols. What are we talking about here? Let the law against bagel pictures spread its own word. This is absurd. Zanahary (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shalom,
Based on the current state of this template, it is purly anti-Semitic. A Jewish Star of David (✡) appears in it, and not the flag of Israel or the IDF symbol. What an unfortunate Freudian slip...
The anti-Semitism of the template remains the same even if later actions are taken or arguments are presented that try to cover up or justify the need for it. I can already think of some fictitious statements to try to cover this. So please know in advance, it is highly recommended that you spare us the rebuttable twists.
This indicates that this contemptible template teaches more about its own creation, than about any legal situation, and therefore it is better to already designate it only for the user namespace, so we will know to beware and who hold this views.
The template does not at all contain exact references to the relevant provisions of the law. The reliability, matter-of-factness and seriousness levels are low and debatable. Even if referrals are presented, they must be considered subject to prior legal review by WMF legal teem. The WMF projects servers are not stored in (or subject to) anti-democratic or authoritarian countries and territories, while in the countries relevant to the servers (see also: COM:CENSOR), a template such as this is considered anti-Semitic, likely to spreading hate speech, and might rise to the point of and illegal content.
Whataboutism arguments about (so-called) similar cases are not valid here. They only lead us down the slippery slope of eroding the COM:SCOPE and "warning"s spam, as demonstrated by those who use this template with their great eagerness...
This is an embarrassing, controversial, irrelevant and anti-Semitic hatred template, and a stain we must not allow to cling to the Commons. Delete, · מקף Hyphen ෴ · 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work is from family archive, the photo was made in 1945, so it could not be of my own, as I've got it as legacy. But it belongs to the family of G.D.Barsukov and he is on the photo. If you are a specialist (I'm not) and know how to put the photo in the Wiki file, devoted to G.D.Barsukov, I would appreciate any your help. GeorgyBarsukov (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The archive, the legacy and who is on the photo don't matter. The only thing that matters is who made the photo. The copyright belongs to him. Vcohen (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploader told that the image is not own work, but a print was found in his own archive. Uploader can not release the image under a free license. Photographer is still unknown. 87.212.27.7217:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both. The picture is not very relevant for the article, and there are doubts about the license. There are better and more relevant pictures for this article without the license problems. Thieu1972 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Ph. J. van Veen was one of the founders of the Rotterdamse Vrijwillige Brigade in 1925 and this picture is also from around that time. Some 45 years later all but two of the founders were deceased, see here. Van Veen must have been in his 20s in 1925 and his looks about that age on that picture. -- Mdd (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likely similar to the dolls the uploader photographed and later tagged as possible derivative work issue. The creator of the doll is unlikely to have died for more than 70 years for the dolls to be in public domain. See COM:TOYS.
Keep The dolls looks like they are from the 1920s or 1930s, do we have a named copyright holder? Copyrights lapse without registration and renewal up until 1989. --RAN (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Map designs (colors and interactivity, the latter being an important part of the original app) are copyrightable though.
On another hand, the maps are both just bad: using the choropleth method (color gradients) to display absolute values; using seemingly arbitrary values (lower left) that are also not easily readable (really: why is the first class "countries that imported any goods, 0 up to 33.759.471 USD (thousand)", why not make this a round "0-33 billion USD"); and then it places a few country names randomly on the map; the map displays 2022 data in 2011 borders. From a cartographer's point of view, this map is just garbage. --Enyavar (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well sure, the data is available, given how the sources are online. It's easy enough indeed: all you need is take the numbers, settle on a design, check the min/max values, then find out which would be the optimal diagram size and type for the whole map (round or square? area diagrams or volume diagrams?), create a SVG diagram for each of the ~200 countries in the world (twice), and then place the diagrams in the right spots atop the countries (twice); and maybe also choose and create a fitting choropleth map to fill the territories. If I had to do it, I would set aside ~6 hours for the first map, with some practice the time is likely to go down to about 3-2 hours. --Enyavar (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah OK, I guess it depends on how the map was drawn. I was thinking each country would be a single object and then you could just apply fills, but if the borders are paths then it would be a lot more difficult. —holly {chat}17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Japanese copyright law, the copyright of works of unknown authors before 1967 has expired, so I think it's okay. Please check it. 西狸 (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to state that the member is engaged in harassment. On Russian Wikipedia, he is being investigated as possibly having previously been deprived of the authority of Administrator Sealle Воскресенский Петр (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not news that people draw using Photoshop. And it is absolutely clear that drawings made from the same object will be similar. But upon closer examination it is clear that these are different hands. And your motive is persecution.--Воскресенский Петр (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These aren't diffrent images. The user redrew the copyrighted drawing. It's visible to the naked eye. If I'm not mistaken it's derivative work. The user hasn't said that he asked for permission from the author. According Commons guideline such images cannot be uploaded onto Commons. Двадцать четыре (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep@Whpq: It is not a company, but rather a protest movement. I tagged the image with said license precisely because the logo is only an encircled hand print in black and white. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello John Wiesenthal, I was wondering if the frog thing is just the problem, would that part be cut out and could the image be kept? I wait your answer Sebano1999 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JohnCWiesenthal: It's been almost a month since this discussion was opened and the main problem has already been solved, so it wouldn't be good to end this since those on the edge are facing a serious problem. I await your response. Sebano1999 (talk) 18.54 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Holly Cheng: I have removed the fungus and the edges, do you think that would be valid in Commons. Although you have to delete previous versions, something you can do, since I can't do it. I wait your answer Sebano1999 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are the biggest problems: none of the letters are the same, which means it's not a font. Obviously you have the frog footprint in the first A but the serifs don't match on either of the As as well as the Is. That indicates it's a hand-drawn (or designed) logo, which means it's too complex to be below the TOO, even in the US where the level is already pretty high. Not only that, but you've made modifications to the original logo, making this a derivative work. I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can keep this. —holly {chat}01:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The YouTube channel claimes a license, but D66 has not made the video. And the House of Representatives does not make the video available under suitable license. So it is likely D66 uses the video without proper rights Dajasj (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a work of the Indian government, this photo will only enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which it was first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year per the the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, as amended up to Act No. 27 of 2012 HapHaxion(talk / contribs)18:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Файл: Esp USSR 1964 tepl.jpg. Авторские права принадлежат мне, так как он создан лично мною. При его создании использовалась моя методика, которая отражена в еженедельнике “Футбол”, за 2012 год, в трансляциях Российского телевидения на чемпионате России, Европы, Мира по футболу, Олимпиаде в Сочи и оформлена юридическим договором N 443 – Д с АНО “Спортивное вещание”. Указанная ссылка это интервью которое у меня брали журналисты в 2012 году никакого отношения к авторскому праву она не имеет. Полагаю этого достаточно для размещения файла в статье.
File:Esp USSR 1964 tepl.jpg. The copyright belongs to me, as it was created by me personally. When creating it, my methodology was used, which is reflected in the weekly magazine "Football", for 2012, in the broadcasts of Russian television at the championship of Russia, Europe, World Football Championship, the Olympics in Sochi and is formalised by a legal contract N 443 - D with ANO "Sports Broadcasting". I believe this is enough to place the file in the article. Craftsoft (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Защита авторских прав существует только для творческих работ. Представленный график - фиксированный, это не творческое изображение, поэтому на него не распространяется авторское право. Аналогичным образом, методы, используемые для демонстрации данных, таких как диаграммы, таблицы, графики и некоторые типы представлений, не защищены авторским правом. Это как раз тот случай.
Файл: Esp USSR 1958 tepl.jpg. Авторские права принадлежат мне, так как он создан лично мною. При его создании использовалась моя методика, которая отражена в еженедельнике “Футбол”, за 2012 год, в трансляциях Российского телевидения на чемпионате России, Европы, Мира по футболу, Олимпиаде в Сочи и оформлена юридическим договором N 443 – Д с АНО “Спортивное вещание”. Указанная ссылка это интервью которое у меня брали журналисты в 2012 году никакого отношения к авторскому праву она не имеет. Полагаю этого достаточно для размещения файла в статье.
File:Esp USSR 1958 tepl.jpg. The copyright belongs to me, as it was created by me personally. When creating it, my methodology was used, which is reflected in the weekly magazine "Football", for 2012, in the broadcasts of Russian television at the championship of Russia, Europe, World Football Championship, the Olympics in Sochi and is formalised by a legal contract N 443 - D with ANO "Sports Broadcasting". I believe this is enough to place the file in the article. Craftsoft (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Защита авторских прав существует только для творческих работ. Представленный график - фиксированный, это не творческое изображение, поэтому на него не распространяется авторское право. Аналогичным образом, методы, используемые для демонстрации данных, таких как диаграммы, таблицы, графики и некоторые типы представлений, не защищены авторским правом. Это как раз тот случай. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftsoft (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Este logotipo es el escudo de una cofradía católica de Alcalá de Henares.[1] En ella aparece un texto con letras sencillas, que rodea al símbolo de la Orden Franciscana. Este dibujo aparece en numerosas imágenes de Wikimedia Commons (Category:Coats of arms of the Franciscan Order). Es, por tanto, un dibujo con varios siglos de antigüedad y sin derechos de autor. Además, es muy habitual encontrarlo en los escudos de cofradías españolas, como en Jeréz, en Valladolid, etc. Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 than 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 🇺🇦 09:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's in use, so it's automatically in scope. If the uploader is in the photo, we cannot rule out of the possibility that he used the camera's timer to take the photo, which would indeed make him the copyright holder, so Keep but only if we know that the uploader is Blade himself. VRT may be required to establish identity. —holly {chat}00:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image lacks COM:EVIDENCE of being public domain/freely licensed in both the U.S. and the country of origin (New Zealand) as required by COM:Licensing. Immediate source is apparently a Norwegian government publication (dead link), but the mugshot was not taken in Norway, and the claimed license of {{PD-NorwayGov}} is therefore irrelevant. Original copyright is almost certainly held by the New Zealand police. Claimed rationalization that mugshot does not meet COM:TOO New Zealand is doubtful; there seems to be no evidence that New Zealand police mugshots are automatically released into the public domain[4]. Muzilon (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A claim under TOO isn't really doubtful when you consider these different factors:
Mugshots are factual by nature rather than artistic, and such factual reports are not protected
Other mugshots from Christchurch police station have the same exact format in framing, lighting, background, etc...
NZ Police, as a member of Interpol, has to abide to ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 which has a specified mugshot standard per SAP Level 30 (10.013)
New Zealand, as a former British colony, had adopted the "skill, labour, and judgement" test; these 2 previous conditions make any artistic or original expression impossible which makes mugshots fail this axiom
Be that as it may, the photo still needs to be freely licensed in the USA (where Commons is hosted) per COM:Licensing. I've also emailed the NZ Police to see whether they do claim copyright over their mug shots, as this question has cropped up before on Commons. Muzilon (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although FanDuel releases videos on YouTube with a Creative Commons license, it uses third-party footage and still images that are copyrighted. So studio footage and other self-created content are free. Game images and post-game interview clips belong to broadcasters and photo agencies. For example, the Aaron Gordon image belongs to USA Today Sports Images.
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.
Photograph by Adriana Lestido published in a La Voz newspaper in Argentina in 1982. The image is currently in the public domain (25 years after publication), but is was not in 1996 at URAA time. Therefore, it is still protected by copyright in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the previous DR was closed with a wrong resolution argument. The documentation of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} clearly states that it should not be applied to images uploaded after March 1, 2012. This image was uploaded 5 years afterwards in 2017. The documentation also says that images upploaded afterwards should be treated as violations of the licensing policy. The policy says that URAA restored works should be deleted following the precautionary principle (the argument of the original DR). The policy also states that mere allegations cannot be used, but I believe this is not the case as I provided the author, the publisher and the year of publication. I will expand on it in case it is not considered enough.
This image was taken by Argentine photographer Adriana Lestido in Avellaneda (Buenos Aires) on November 25, 1982. And it was published the next day on November 26, 1982, in the Argentine newspaper La Voz. The date provided in the summary is wrong. A scan of it can be found here . La Voz was a newspaper published between 1982 and 1985 [5] and it should not be confused with La Voz del Interior., a bigger and still in print Argentine newspaper The photo later appeared on the cover of the book Con vida los llevaron[6] published in 1984 that documents some of the atrocities committed by the military government and gained wide recognition in Argentina and the World. The image is often displayed in Lestido's exhibitions[7][8][9]. More details on the history of this image can be found here and here. The image in some articles even use the copyright symbol when crediting Lestido, for example here and here.
This file was initially tagged by Nataev as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Good day! I uploaded this photo myself over ten years ago. The thing is I did not personally take the photo, but received it directly from Prof. Rhode, whom I met through a late professor of mine. At the time I had difficulty explaining to him how he could upload the photo himself and ended up uploading it as my own work, which I later realized was problematic. I could try to reach out to him asking him to contact the Commons OTRS team, but I'm not sure if he'll respond. I might have some photos of Prof. Rhode that I actually took myself. I'll try to upload them when I get a chance. Interestingly, the photo seems to have been taken by a US government official or for the US government: the meta data of the file contains the emails of both Prof. Rhode and a Demaris Lawhorn, who seems to work for the DoD.Polarlys (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nataev: Why don't you try emailing both of them? It's worth a shot. It's already been over two months since this nomination so we can hold off longer to wait for a reply. —holly {chat}18:59, 5 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.
All of these images seem to be from unknown photographers and are licensed as PD-US-pre1978, which requires the work be "published" in the United States between 1928 and 1977. There's zero evidence any of these photographs were "published" prior to being uploaded to Commons though. Probably they weren't. As they look to be taken by amateurs and lack sources. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
They appear to have been scanned from a book, so they apparently were published, but we would need to know when. If only the uploader had given a reference to the source of the scans. PaterMcFly (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which files say they are scanned from a book? From what I remember looking through them, most or all of the files say they were "Self Scanned" but that could mean anything. I don't remember any of them saying their were scanned from a book. Not to say it isn't possible I accidently included a few that are. They can just be removed the DR if that's the case though. So can you link to the ones that come from books? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. I interpreted "self scanned" as "scanned from a book", because these images are very likely much older than the uploader is. Of course, it's also possible that they where scanned from a family archive. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of these images seem to be from unknown photographers and are licensed as PD-US-pre1978, which requires the work be "published" in the United States between 1928 and 1977. There's zero evidence any of these photographs were "published" prior to being uploaded to Commons though. Probably they weren't. As they look to be taken by amateurs and lack sources. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
Keep The images only have to be "made public" not appear in a newspaper or magazine. United States copyright case law has sided with, when an image leaves the custody of a photographer, it has been made available to the public. Searches with Tineye and Google Image Search has not found a named photographer, nor has it found anyone making an active copyright claim. And as the license states to be eligible for a copyright up to 1964 you had to have the year and copyright symbol on the image, and then renew the copyright. I can not find any registrations or renewals for any images marked "Allentown" or "Allentown, Pennsylvania" or "Allentown, PA". Up until 1989, you had 5 years to register for a copyright, and again no registrations for "Allentown". I cannot find any known copyright registrations or known copyright restrictions. Even The Morning Call (Q3910677), the Allentown newspaper never filed for copyrights or renewals. And as with the previous set of deletions, the newspaper didn't even have a copyright notice on the masthead until the 1980s. --RAN (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No offense, but I'm not sure how your whole thing about copyright would be relevant since like I said, the images probably weren't published prior to being uploaded to Commons. So there wouldn't be a copyright too register or renew in the first place. That doesn't mean the images are PD though. Regardless, publication doesn't relate to "when an image leaves the custody of a photographer." It has to do with wider distribution to the public. Although even if it did, we don't know exactly when these photographs left the custody of the photographer to begin with. For all we know they were donated to the project right before being uploaded. If that's the case then they would still be copyrighted and regardless of there being a copyright symbol on the image or not. Since it doesn't matter at this point. What does Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States say "Published from March 2, 1989 to 2002: pre-1978 creation. If author is unknown or corporate authorship, the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation." How do you know these images weren't published (by your standards) between 1989 to 2002? Really, we know absolutely nothing about the photographs except that Atwngirl uploaded them in 2018. That's literally it though and in no way is that enough to say they aren't copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are narrowly defining publication as appearing in a newspaper or a magazine. "Made public" is when an image leaves the custody of the creator. If the creator had an intent to copyright, they were required to include the copyright symbol on all "perceptible copies", and if created prior to 1989, register with the copyright office. You could also mail a copy to the copyright office and they would register the image with the name of the creator and a short description of the image. All those requirements were dropped after 1989. Your argument was also rejected at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Newspaper advertising in Allentown, Pennsylvania. --RAN (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. I never said publication can only be in a newspaper or magazine. I can't find it right now, but there was a DR recently having to do with so called "found photographs" and at least from that it sounded like publication had to involve distributing multiple copies beyond the persons imediate family. For instance if a photographer simply gets their image developed at a local pharmacy that's not "publication" even though the photograph left the photographers custody. Per the definition by the United States Copyright Office "Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." So does that have to be a newspaper or a magazine? No, but you still need evidence that copies of the photograph were sold, transferred, or otherwise distributed to the public before Atwngirl uploaded them to internet. Or are you going to tell me the United States Copyright Office and people in the previous DR don't know what they are talking about? I'm not really sure why you'd bring up the DR about newspaper clipping like that's an argument when these are photographs either. Newspapers are published, obviously, but that has nothing to do with this deletion request. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original creative work is the photographic negative in these cases, unless using an instant/digital camera that does not create a negative. When the photographer makes a print/proof sheet from that negative they have made a "perceivable copy" and that copy must contain a copyright symbol and the name of the copyright holder, and then the image must be registered and then have that registration renewed prior to 1964 to be eligible for a United States copyright. See for instance Category:Bain copyright notice where the copyright notice is right on the glass negative, and appears on every perceivable copy/print. In the past we have declared images unpublished when we have a provenance from creation to deposition in an archive like those at Alamy and Getty Images. --RAN (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original creative work is the photographic negative in these cases Yeah, but "creative work" is different from the "published work" and what matters here is the later, not the former. Nowhere have I said the images should be deleted because they aren't "creative works" or whatever. That's not what the DR is about. And no, the photographic negative doesn't have to contain a copyright symbol, the published product containing the photograph does. Negatives don't usually contain copyright symbols anyway. Let alone the name of the copyright holder, Why would though when they are just copies of the image taken by the camera (which doesn't put either one on the negative to begin with)? It's not like if some random person takes photographs of their family vacation to their local camera shop to be developed that they put that information on them either, because it's not "publication." But in this case we don't even know if these photographs come from negatives or where published somewhere else before. So your whole rant about it is totally pointless anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: As discussed here and here, COM:SIG UK misstates the relevant law and the cited sources, and the user who wrote it no longer stands by it. A1Cafel appears to have nominated a handful of signatures for deletion on this incorrect basis. He has been pinged several times about this issue. In light of the above, it would seem appropriate for him to weigh in as to whether he believes the nominations are still appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A1Cafel, as discussed here, COM:SIG UK severely misconstrues the cited sources, and misstates the law. Importantly, the person who wrote that passage no longer stands by it. In any event, one of the cited sources says (in a section omitted from COM:SIG UK) that "It should be remembered that copyright only subsists in works which are the product of skill, judgment and labour. An everyday signature of a rudimentary nature is unlikely to satisfy these requirements. Similarly, if the name were written in a simple form, say, in block capitals, the reproduction would not infringe copyright. The more elaborate the signature, the more likely that it will be protected by copyright." Here, I don't think there is any danger of someone mistaking Hawthorne's signature for a work of art; it is quite simple, with every single letter clearly legible. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It occurs to me, too, that COM:SIG UK is inappropriate, given that the signature in question is from a dissertation published by the University of Chicago. Thus, even leaving aside the fact that COM:SIG UK misstates the law, COM:SIG US states that it is "OK for a typical signature" to be uploaded. A1Cafel, given these considerations, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to withdraw your deletion request. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is above treshold of originality: these are not simple shapes nor letters, but a complex concept with a paint-brush like stylization and sophisticated background. Also the typeface used seems not be a standard one, but a custom made. Masur (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think it is a drawing. No evidence presented that it is under an active copright, we do not delete on speculation. It is still the work of an unknown artist and no evidence has been presented that it was created less than 70 years ago. Generalized FUD can be used to disparage any image, we require actionable evidence. --RAN (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Question @Krd: Is the ticket asking us to delete this due to copyright concerns? —holly {chat} 17:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment This photo is available at https://www.awg.army.mil/AWG-Contributions/AWG-Recruiting/Article-View/Article/1809184/the-most-elite-special-operations-forces-in-the-us/ with no credit. —holly {chat} 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete Possible copyvio. Image can be found in a 2016 article at https://wiadomosci.onet.pl/swiat/w-belgradzie-powstaje-balkanski-mini-dubaj/sglz9t2. It's watermarked with "Creative Commons" but there's no indication of which CC license is applicable, nor who the author is. Uploader's other contribution is File:BWResidences.jpg, where they claim to be "Milos Jokic", but on this photo it's "Uros Jokic", so something seems fishy here. I will say that the other upload is a full-res one with EXIF. —holly {chat} 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
, and not the flag of Israel or the IDF symbol.
Info I opened a proposal on this topic to get a general guideline how to handle such templates: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Require community consensus for new non-copyright restriction templates GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
,_September_2020.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_September_2020.jpg){kind=link}
,_September_2020.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_September_2020.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_logo.gif){kind=link}
_logo.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_logo.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
