Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

December[edit]

December 2[edit]

File:Alexander Lukashenko voice.ogg[edit]

Media from the President of Belarus was not marked under PD, see VP discussion and this DR, with no mention on freedom of modification and commercial use A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CBL - Mariner logo.png[edit]

Unused, superseded by File:CBL - Mariner Logo.svg. Attribution not need as this is not an own work. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Interforce Sound 4.png[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sgt Crucial Solomon203 (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Interforce Sound 1.png[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sgt Crucial Solomon203 (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HK 九龍城 Kln City 城南道 South Wall Road food shop January 2021 SSG 104.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PVV-meeuw.svg[edit]

This is extracted from a file that was deleted because the bird isn't a simple geometric shape. And the license can't be correct either as this isn't a text logo, so PD-Text can't apply Mbch331 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Korean Delegation.jpg[edit]

https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1O6TQB6J?FR_=1&W=1536&H=715 (info): Korean Delegation to the United Nations Conference on International Organization, 1945 - Rights © 2000 University of Southern California University Libraries; May not be copied without permission of the Korean Heritage Library, University of Southern California. ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever © the Uni of California imagines for it’s online archive is not relevant. Question is who photographed it? As it’s an official delegation, snapped for the inviting US government? (Korea at that time under US administration) Certainly not the “contibutor“ DeYoung, Lee obviously the librarian or donor. This may well be {{PD-UN-doc}}: “Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities” --Zenwort (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep You cannot copyright a 1945 image in 2000. This is rote boilerplate and even appears on their newspaper clippings, in which they are clearly not the copyright holder. US copyright case law has ruled that an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer, and here we have an anonymous photographer's images at the Korean Heritage Library along with newspaper clippings. Up until 1964 you had to register for a copyright, then renew that copyright, and no image under this description is in either the copyright registration database or the renewal database. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сообщение ТАСС о высылке Солженицына.jpg[edit]

Simple work is copyrightable in Russia. The free replacement (in text form) is exist - "Указ Президиума Верховного Совета СССР о лишении гражданства СССР и выдворении за пределы СССР Солженицына А. И. от 12 февраля 1974 г." in itself (here, for example - https://history.wikireading.ru/h3ZVgyk2DH) Alex Spade (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[...] Судам при разрешении вопроса об отнесении конкретного результата интеллектуальной деятельности к объектам авторского права следует учитывать, что по смыслу статей 1228, 1257 и 1259 ГК РФ в их взаимосвязи таковым является только тот результат, который создан творческим трудом. При этом надлежит иметь в виду, что, пока не доказано иное, результаты интеллектуальной деятельности предполагаются созданными творческим трудом. Необходимо также принимать во внимание, что само по себе отсутствие новизны, уникальности и (или) оригинальности результата интеллектуальной деятельности не может свидетельствовать о том, что такой результат создан не творческим трудом и, следовательно, не является объектом авторского права.

I do not see any copyrightable creative work in this TASS report, it almost entirely reports the content of a public domain document: "By the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, for systematic actions incompatible with the citizenship of the USSR and causing harm to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Solzhenitsyn A. I. is deprived of the citizenship of the USSR and expelled from the Soviet Union on 13 February 1974. Solzhenitsyn's family can visit him whenever it deems necessary". That's about it. Brandmeister (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crop the 2nd paragraph from shot of the report, and I will have agreed. There are no any words about family in the Decree. Alex Spade (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't see that one-sentence 2nd paragraph as copyrightable under PD-RU-exempt. But that's just my opinion. Brandmeister (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have cited The Supreme Court - work is creative on default: the user's PoV is unimportant, only court defines lack of creativity. Simplicity is not criterion of copyrightability, Black Square was copyrighted, and it is in PD because of copyright term expiration, not simplicity. Alex Spade (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leonardo Fagundez.jpg[edit]

https://www.tenfield.com.uy/apunta-todo-a-revertir-2/. aterial audiovisual, gráfico y textual con derechos de uso reservados. Prohibida la utilización en cualquiera de sus formas sin previa autorización. © Copyright 2023 - Todos los derechos reservados. Tenfield S.A. ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Monedes St Climent.jpg[edit]

please see VRT; also it's not "work of a computer algorithm" Prototyperspective (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pääministeri Kalevi Sorsan hautan (Hietaniemen hautausmaa).jpg[edit]

Derivative work of Elämänkaari, grave memorial of Kalevi Sorsa by finnish sculptor Kimmo Pyykkö (Wikidata:Q11871555), born 1940, living. No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in Finland, not in PD. Htm (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 3[edit]

File:N. Kuznetsov Portrait of Pelageya Terechtchenko.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) AnatolyPm (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added correct licence --AnatolyPm (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:UK-Royal-Signature William.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, original file was deleted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (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]

File:UK-Royal-Signature Edward.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, original file was deleted on Commons A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (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) 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ali Larijani - Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri - Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf - Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel - Parliament of Iran - 2023 - (5).jpg[edit]

Redundant to File:Ali Larijani - Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri - Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf - Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel - Parliament of Iran - 2023 - (19).jpg, Unused and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mech-Masz Szczeciński Logo.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, one of several promo images uploaded by company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image represents one of the oldest Bakery Machines manufacturer in Poland. Mech-Masz Szczeciński is well known and respected on the market for almost 40 years. 5.185.72.19 13:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mapa etapes monestir Sant Feliu de Guixols.jpg[edit]

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 3 December 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.

File:Зарваницький регіональний ландшафтний парк.jpg[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Building in 1990-2000th. Микола Василечко (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Зарваницький регіональний ландшафтний парк.jpg[edit]

Uncertain if the image depicts the same architectural work as that of the deleted image file. w:en:Zarvanytsia#History suggests the belfry as contemporary in origin, built through the donations of the Ukrainian diaspora (perhaps from 2000s at the most earliest decade). Most likely still under building designer's copyright. Regrettably, commercial freedom of panorama is not granted in the source country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Building in 1990-2000th. --Микола Василечко (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also  Delete next files

--Микола Василечко (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Kashmiri Community MC Conversation.jpg[edit]

copyrighted photograph (user icon), no permission Krd 08:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also:

--Krd 09:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krd: Any mention for the 4 remaining files in the ticket? --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. Krd 08:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BesëlidhjaeLezhës.jpg[edit]

I don't know who is the author of this painting – but it's not Ermina Lekaj (Croatian politician) > it was published as a complete picture by the Albanian president on the same day https://www.facebook.com/ilirmetazyrtar/posts/2840723385973916/ – and only that the picture shows an event in 1444 it doesn't mean that the picture has no copyright – maybe it's even quite new because I can't find any mentioning before 2020. So, without knowing the author and an earlier first publication, it's most probably not copyright free Albinfo (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Social Democratic Party (Taiwan) logo.png[edit]

No proof of permission. Political party logo is not government work. {{GWOIA}} does not apply. Wcam (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be within COM:TOO China --Zenwort (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:TOO Taiwan applies and this logo clearly exceeds that threshold. Wcam (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Neighbourhood in Marsh Farm.jpg[edit]

I took a photo, but would like it taken down because I don't think it's good enough and for privacy reasons. MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Air Asia Taylor Swift logojet.jpg[edit]

Although this photograph is licensed per VRT ticket:2011091110011064, the file is a derivative work of the copyright-protected airplane design, specifically the photos of Taylor Swift. Filename and Wikipedia usage disqualify de minimis exception. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket here .. no valid reason for deletion --Zenwort (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ticket covers the photograph itself, not its subject. This is similar to why I cannot upload a picture of a copyright-protected statue even if I release the photograph under a free license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Boris Tadić (2023).png[edit]

Image is not the work of SRBIN.info but Tanjug photographer Zoran Žestić. https://n1info.rs/izbori-2022/predsednicki-izbori/tadic-uskoro-o-kandidaturi-za-predsednika-uglavnom-sam-u-vrhu-po-rejtingu/ Vacant0 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responsibility for the use of the photo rests with SRBIN.info, therefore full responsibility for author's rights rests with SRBIN.info. If the SRBIN.info has given the right for free use, it is not up to us to get into the disputed issue of copyright, but on the N1 or on Tanjug. We don't need to get into the copyright problem, maybe SRBIN.info bought the copyright from Tanjug, but it's not up to us to establish that. --Smiroje (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is definitely incorrect and that is not how copyright works. SRBIN.info has a long history of re-using copyrighted content, whether being an image, like in this case, or a full re-uploaded video. Tanjug's photos are copyrighted and we do not know whether they issued a license for SRBIN.info to re-use their images, considering that they do not indicate this anywhere on their website or the description of the video. The image is ultimately the work of Tanjug, not SRBIN.info, therefore the copyright rests on Tanjug. Same example happened earlier this year when a user uploaded an image from the YouTube channel of Zdravko Ponoš (it was a re-uploaded video whose work belongs to Al Jazeera, not Ponoš, and the image was subsequently deleted due to copyright violations). Vacant0 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See all the way down below for the video license for using the content below the video. Where does it state that SRBIN.info grants the right to freely use the content. If SRBIN.info grants the said right, then it assumes responsibility for the possible consequences of copyright infringement. If you believe that it is a violation of copyright, feel free to delete the photo. --Smiroje (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hossam Ramzy.jpg[edit]

Likely license laundering. The EXIF states the German photographer André Elbing took this picture. The photostream of the Flickr account is full of images taken from the web (also with CC-BY licenses). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PRZ-002276 (4462890465).jpg from another problematic image from the same Flickr account. Günther Frager (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Capture d’écran 2023-11-10 124435.png[edit]

Goodle is not uner cc-by-sa licence Culex (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyvio from where? But yeah, this is not a great map, we have thousands of the Caribbean, this is nothing great to keep  Delete --Enyavar (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait of Hilaire Belloc.jpg[edit]

author died 1972, not in the public domain in the source country until 2043 Hekerui (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uploader wrote "Date: 1915; Source: LIFE". At one point Google hosted all the Life magazine articles and images, including hires scans of the images sent by the photographers to Life magazine. Under USA copyright case law, when the image leaves the custody of the photographer, the image is "made public". If the creator has an intention of registering for a USA copyright they must mark all perceivable copies with a copyright symbol and the year. They also have to register for a USA copyright and then renew that copyright prior to 1964. You were required to have the symbol up until 1989. The link the uploader provided no longer works, but the Life archive is still online. See: https://images.google.com/hosted/life Having a copy of an image in the UK National Portrait Gallery archive, just means they have a copy too. Google has only scanned issues from 1936 to 1972 so far. --RAN (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment It's still up at [1]. It says 1925 there (not 1915) and "Location: United Kingdom". It does not say that it was published in LIFE magazine. --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the 1925 volumes of LIFE are among the ones fully viewable at HathiTrust (list here). I've searched the two 1925 volumes for Belloc, had one one search hit in each volume, but not this photograph. Which is not very surprising, the heyday of LIFE as a photo magazine started in the 1930s. --Rosenzweig τ 22:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same result for the 1915 volumes: a few search hits for Belloc in each of the two volumes, but not this photo. --Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Howard Smith liekki 2003.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of sculpture Liekki by Finnish sculptor Howard Smith (Wikidata:Q11863692), died 2021. No Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, not in PD Htm (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kerrotko vielä miksi nämä pitäisi delteoida, ne kun ovat itseni ottamia, eivätkä ole riidoissa minkään tekijänoikeuden kanssa? Tamburator (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per nominator. @Tamburator: Kuvan käyttäminen kaupallisissa yhteyksissä loukkaisi veistoksen alkuperäisen tekijän (Howard Smithin) tekijänoikeuksia, ja Commonsissa edellytetään, että kaupallisen käytönkin tulee olla sallittua. Ks. Commons:Licensing/fi, Commons:Licensing, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Finland#Freedom of panorama. ––Apalsola t • c 02:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 4[edit]

File:Paul Chong Hasang 01.png[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained-glass windows, paintings and statues of Saint Andrew Kim Taegon in the Philippines. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sous-marin Imperator Aleksandr III, Boreï de classe A.png[edit]

Initially tagged as SD for copyvio by @User:CSR2Forever under the reason "LQ image". I'm objecting to the SD as the case is not obvious and the reason given doesn't relate to a copyvio at all, hence this DR. S5A-0043Talk 02:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lorena Berdún.jpg[edit]

licence introuvable Pierrette13 (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Another sloppy deletion request without any effort made. 30 seconds to find that file was uploaded April 3 2008 to know that license is valid as "El Diario 20minutos, tanto en sus ediciones de papel como digital, ha decidido acogerse a la licencia Creative Commons by-sa 2.1" i.e. "Diario 20minutos, both in its paper and digital editions, has decided to use the Creative Commons by-sa 2.1 license". Tm (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Indy500winningcar1931.JPG[edit]

Because the image is of the 1923 car. No more pages are using the 1931 file name. RegalZ8790 (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Letter Carrier with Mail Sack.jpg[edit]

Taken in 1965 by an unknown photographer. Unclear whether this is the work of a US government employee or whether it was published with a copyright notice. Reviewed as part of w:en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:16, 4 December 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.

File:Ternopil, Ternopil's'ka oblast, Ukraine - panoramio (1).jpg[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama for buildings in Ukraine. Building in 1953-1957. Mykola Vasylechko 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of redirects[edit]

Nominating this and the other redirect for deletion, after my speedy deletion requests were rejected. In my opinion these two redirects should be deleted so that the previously occupied files of the same name deleted by both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ternopil, Ternopil's'ka oblast, Ukraine - panoramio (1).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ternopil, Ternopil's'ka oblast, Ukraine - panoramio (12).jpg can be easily undeleted in the future should the assumed works (buildings) fall public domain. I have already changed the instance of use at w:uk:Вікіпедія:Wiki Loves Earth/Тернопільська область/Тернопіль to point to the current file name. However, I do not believe the uses must be changed at w:uk:Вікіпедія:Wiki Loves Monuments/Тернопільська область/Тернопіль, as I assume the instance of uses refer to the old deleted files, not the current files that do not show something monumental. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mokin AM.jpg[edit]

Снимок со старого фото, нарушено АП. Годы жизни человека на фото 1926-1994 -- Tomasina (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Оригинальное фото найдено в семейном архиве. Снимок, видимо, был сделан в фотогорафии (фотоателье) как фото на документы, но большого формата (размер оригинала 10х8). Чтобы точно ничего не нарушать, могу переделать лицензию с CC Atribution на CC Zero. Spalexxx (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

There is no reason to believe that the YouTube channel owns the rights to the intro music used in the videos

Trade (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade Just a little suggestion... Can we just cut the video or maybe mute the music, using Commons:VideoCutTool ? MilkyBoba (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome to do so Trade (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: I think i will wait until the video bug is resolved before editing. Thank you for the consideration. MilkyBoba (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Low-quality videos of no obvious educational value. Why are these within Commons scope? - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have better replacements? Trade (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I guess what you mean by "low-quality" is the video resolution. All video are originally in 1080p. See Category:Videos with bug 173 for more information; until the issue is resolved, they will stay at "low-resolution". MilkyBoba (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nazionale italiana Beach soccer.jpg[edit]

(apologies to the uploader, since I meant to list this right after the conversation below)

Based on the uploader's comments at User talk:9002Jack#Notification about possible deletion, the photograph is incorrectly licensed as the uploader's own work.

@9002Jack: Please let us know if there are other uploads that aren't your own work. If there are photographs you have received permission for, please submit that information to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thank you. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adeletron 3030 there are no more photo wrong 9002Jack (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry.jpg[edit]

Contains a presumably copyrighted logo that is featured too prominently in the image to meet de minimis. Reviewed as part of w:en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep, clearly a photo of the museum building, which looks like the front of cannot be photographed without incidental inclusion of the logo on the building. Most of the incidental logo is simple text, not a copyright problem. If the small semi-circles with designs of an airplane and a locomotive are problematic, I suggest requesting those small portions of the image be blurred by Commons:Graphic Lab - this seems our only photo of this museum building, in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HSG Campus 1963 Treppenanlage von der Seite mit Studierenden; ehemaliges Waisenhaus im Hintergrund HSGH 022-001769-03.png[edit]

{{ Superseded | File:Aussenaufnahme HSG, Treppenanlage von der Seite mit Studierenden, ehemaliges Waisenhaus im Hintergrund HSGH 022-001769-03.tif | better version available }} Tim | Universitätsarchiv St.Gallen (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HSG Campus 1963 Treppenanlage von oben vom Hauptgebäude aus mit Studierenden HSGH 022-001769-01.png[edit]

{{ Superseded | File:Aussenaufnahme HSG, Treppenanlage von oben vom Hauptgebäude aus mit Studierenden HSGH 022-001769-01.tif | better version available }} Tim | Universitätsarchiv St.Gallen (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HSG Campus 1963 Treppenanlage von unten mit Hauptgebäude im Hintergrund und Studierenden HSGH 022-001769-02.png[edit]

{{ Superseded | File:Aussenaufnahme HSG, Treppenanlage von unten mit Hauptgebäude im Hintergrund und Studierenden HSGH 022-001769-02.tif| better SVG version available }} Tim | Universitätsarchiv St.Gallen (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An SVG version of an image? That doesn't sound right. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for highlighting! I forgot to adjust the template. There is a better file available, not as SVG but as TIFF. Tim | Universitätsarchiv St.Gallen (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Canva Logo.svg[edit]

Given the Australian COM:TOO thresholds discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Australian Aboriginal flags, I am not sure that this is PD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I find it a little difficult for a textual-only logo not to be in the public domain. All in all the recreation of the latter is also easy. I'm waiting for other comments from other users and see what they think Giov.c (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:China Zhi Gong Party logo.png[edit]

Given the COM:TOO#China example, I am not sure that this is in fact too simple for copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image has only a star, Chinese and English texts and two ellipses. What is wrong with {{Bild-LogoSH}}? 35 of May (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The party was founded in October 1925. {{PD-China}} is valid. 35 of May (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jo-Jo EumerusIs what 35 of May wrote valid? Neriah (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the logo was made at the same time as the party, I'd imagine PD-China (and PD-US?) would apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vot PNC Parlament Catalunya 14F 2021-BCN.pdf[edit]

Fair use 83.41.161.60 19:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I really don't understand this deletion request made by an anonimous user, with no other explanation ythan "fair use". In any case, I vote "keep", because is an ordinari ballot vote as other hundreds we have in commons. It contains public free information. amador (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fresh Hare (1942), screenshot, 42s.jpg[edit]

Acccording to the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fresh Hare the character of Bugs Bunny (seen here on the wanted poster) is in copyright until 2036. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I specially choose this shot to avoid showing BB. The drawing is certainly de minimis here, i.e. it could be blurred, and the image retains its interest. Yann (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 5[edit]

Files in Category:Palazzo Silone (L'Aquila)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about the architects of this building, Massimo Buccella and Pierluigi Properzi, they clearly haven't been dead for more then 70 years yet since it was built in 1990. So these images should be deleted as copyvio until an undernimmed date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. And no the fact that it is owned by the local government doesn't count, because it was originally a business park. Meaning it wasn't built on behalf of or at the expense of the government.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Corso Europa 22 (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Vico Magistretti, died in 2006. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2077 unless some provide evidence to the contrary. And no, the fact that some of them came from BEIC isn't evidence since their terms of use are extremely questionable.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:DSHRG Rusich patch during 2022 Ukraine war.png[edit]

Wrong free use rationaler: it is not a state-owned symbol, but of far-right paramilitary. Altenmann (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello
I cannot comment on the copyright protection or not of this badge of the Russian paramilitary unit (I have no knowledge of Russian law), but when I read the license, it says "This image represents (or assimilates) a symbol used by Russia and its Armed Forces or an organization close to it, or others who advocate or glorify wars of aggression or aggressive behaviors." The far-right paramilitaries Rusich Group are indeed an organization close to the Russian army (they have the status of auxiliaries in their active and armed participation in the fighting in Ukraine), it is indeed an organization that advocates or glorifies wars of aggression or aggressive behaviors (ultranationalist organization).
For me, the template {{PD-Textlogo}} should be applied at the same time as {{Russian militarism symbol}} if (and only if) the rights in Russia do not protect the images that do not “include only simple geometric shapes and text”
I think that before doing anything, it would be necessary to clarify the rights on the Russian military (or paramilitary) badges as it was done for Ukraine and create a dedicated template
cordially Christian28TMA (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rusich is a semi legal organization and it would be very hard for wikipedians to find proof of it being a state owned symbol without explicitly making it clear that Rusich is not a paramilitary F.Alexsandr (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sidd Ahmed at the White House.jpg[edit]

Image obtained from the personal Instagram account of Sidd Ahmed, not from the White House, thus the PD license tag is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment. It doesn't matter where it was posted. One can clearly see that Ahmed is not taking the picture (unlike several selfies in the same Instagram story). Consequently I would assume this was taken by a member of the VP's staff unless there is evidence to the contrary. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BSicon NULgf.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G2. Actually this nomination was created by IP. I often distrust speedy deletion nominations created by IP and I give one week for regular discussion. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The redirect target has been corrected, so NULgf →   (NULg+f) is now consistent with NULfg →   (NULf+g) and lNULfg →   (lNULf+g). Useddenim (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sportfondsenbad Venlo Afdeeling Bouwbureau Wolter bakker.png[edit]

Technical drawing by Wouter Bakker (1888-1970) mentioned in stamp in image (bottom right corner states "Architect Wouter Bakker") still under copyright. Mdd (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Xyzxyz 2023 lineup.jpg[edit]

Says photo taken by Conrad Javier, uploaded by user Bettynocry Jimfbleak (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lion Head (Converted) Orange Accents.png[edit]

Clearly not own work, because this particular logo is owned by w:Reading Royals of the w:ECHL. – Sbaio (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the creative director for the Reading Royals. 50.222.63.88 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you User:Yoshi032192? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Priyanca.jpg[edit]

Copyright? Is this only contribution of the user own work? See also here. See also this deletion request. Wouter (talk) 14:22, 5 December 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.

Files in Category:Plaques in Minsk[edit]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: по возможности необходимо на некоторые файлы и зданий ставить {{NoFoP-Belarus}}, поскольку в украинской Википедии правило несвободы панорамы весьма строго соблюдается, в русской же дела аналогичные. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Во всех этих файлах памятные доски и монументы являются главным предметом изображения, поэтому {{NoFoP-Belarus}} иррелевантно. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Plaques in Minsk[edit]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Вітаю, Яўген! Вялікі дзякуй за ўвагу і зварот, хоць і з такой нагоды. Як маецеся? Наколькі зразумеў з разьдзелу перакладаемай зараз мною старонкі даведкі Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter/be-tarask#3-вымернае мастацтва (скульптуры) пытаньне ў тым, што: «Дазвол ад мастака амаль заўжды патрабуецца, калі спачатны мастацкі твор застаецца пад аўтарскім правам. Проста фізычнае валоданьне такім спачатным мастацкім творам, як ляпніна, не дае валоданьня аўтарскім правам: яно застаецца ў мастака». Ці магчыма прыбраць барэльеф акадэміка Леаніда Кісялеўскага, калі ў гэтым справа, каб захаваць выяву таблічкі Інстытуту энэргетыкі? У такім разе буду ўдзячны за такое рэдагаваньне дадзенага здымка, калі ёсьць такая магчымасьць замест яго выдаленьня. З найлепшымі пажаданьнямі,—W (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Больш дакладна - дазвол ад ўладальніка правоў (мастак, нашчадак, дзяржава, арганізацыя?). Пра барэльеф залежыць як прыбраць: проста адрэзаць ці замяніць фонам? А апошнім выпадку лепей запрасіць дапамогі ў Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop ці паспрабаваць сэрвісы штучнага інтэлекту (тыдні два таму цікавіўся, бо трэба выправіць наступствы невялікай плямы на аб'ектыве). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Найлепш проста адрэзаць той барэльеф. Вялікі дзякуй за тлумачэньне магчымасьцяў.—W (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Паспрабуйце адпаведны інструмэнт CropTool (уключаецца ў Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets). Нават у гэткай, на першы погляд нескладанай справе, ёсьць нюансы, напрыклад прапорцыі і кампазыцыя. Калі не атрымаецца, зраблю на свой, далёка ня лепшы, густ :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Вялікі дзякуй за параду і чаканьне. Спадзяюся, што атрымалася належным чынам паправіць выяву.--W (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Дзякуй! Выкрасьліў са сьпісу. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MM - 22.719004 copy.jpg[edit]

series of instagram photos. uploaded without permission (sources: https://www.gethucinema.com/2022/07/actress-malavika-mohanan-hd-photos-and-wallpapers-july-2022-2.html/malavikamohanan-27-2, https://www.instagram.com/p/CgbiOMtPdUm/?img_index=1) ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Duolingo Leaderboard Glitch.png[edit]

As the original uploader claimed in the description, it is very likely that this image is a screenshot from the webpage, putting this self-claimed license into question. MilkyDefer 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, the capture does not seem to show any copyrighted material, issue with the self-claimed license? Sev6nWiki (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wikidata Days - Poster 20230927 140053.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of copyrighted posters Darwin Ahoy! 19:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bendera Pemerintahan Rekonstruksi Untuk Pengampunan Nasional Republik Indonesia.jpg[edit]

Out of scope: fictitious flag. Omphalographer (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cecil Sandford 1952.jpg[edit]

I now believe the subject on the picture is not Cecil Sandford, facial features do not match other pictures available, and the number on the bike on the uncropped pic does not match the number Sandford had in that particular race.. SunflowerYuri (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Encyclopedia2001 (talk · contribs)[edit]

There is no indication that these images have a free license. The sources cited are official websites like https://seccatid.gob.gt, https://senabed.gob.gt, https://seprem.gob.gt, https://sbs.gob.gt, https://www.scspr.gob.gt. These official sites don't have a terms and conditions page, and some of them even have a copyright symbol on the footer. Moreover, the exact pages where these images appear are not given, and the reserve searches I performed didn't give any result. The template {{PD-Guatemala-exempt}} is used, but none of the criteria is met, not even the clause that says goverment works not used in 5 years enter in the public domain. Guatemala is part of the Berne Convention since 1997 and these images are recent enough, thus they are also protected in the US. Without a proper source of these images where it shows they have a free license we cannot keep them.

Günther Frager (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo Football Club OTT.png[edit]

Doubtful case that could reach COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 6[edit]

File:Signature of John James Hope Simpson.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, subject died in 2007 so not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Charles Fletcher-Cooke.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, subject died in 2001 so not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Arthur Robin Adair.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, subject died in 1981 so not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Michael Shanks politics signature.png[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Sean Connery.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Sean Connery.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marianne Faithfull Signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2023 (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) 23:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:(LR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo (cropped).jpg[edit]

I cropped the original to just George Chakiris; however, I didn't simplify the crop name of this one. On the second file, I did. So I prefer to keep that simpler crop-file name (seen here on this tremendously long wikilink) and toss this one, because the additional names on this crop are irrelevant. Thank you. Cinemaniac86 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Question Cinemaniac86, did you just mean to request COM:File renaming? Wanting to change the filename is not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, well I should have just done that and will do that in the future, yes. But since I made a second copy with the shorter name already (hence the "second file" that I linked above there), I suppose I went the messy way about things. My apologies. No, I just simply want this file deleted because I already have a second crop, as aforementioned, with a shorter file name. Thus, no need to rename this one–it's now a duplicate-by-proxy.
  • Also, I requested a name change of the original with the trio of actors. Because that file I meant to name (LtoR) not (LR). I didn't wanna be complicated with another name change.

@Ikan Kekek Hey, do you have any idea what occurred here? Not sure if this was you or someone else, but everything was done incorrectly, and I was hoping you might be able to help me fix it.

1) Main File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(LR)_George_Chakiris,_Yvette_Mimieux,_%26_James_Darren_-_%22Diamond_Head%22_(1962)_promotional_photo.jpg

  • THIS IMAGE is the one that I want to be renamed (notice L to R // ~to~ in the middle): (LtoR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo.jpg
  1. Unwanted Name: :File: (LR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo (cropped).jpg
  2. Requested Name: :File: (LtoR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo (cropped).jpg

2) Nomination For Deletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(LR)_George_Chakiris,_Yvette_Mimieux,_%26_James_Darren_-_%22Diamond_Head%22_(1962)_promotional_photo_(cropped).jpg

  • Duplicate of #3. This can be deleted. It is exactly the same, except a long file name. Instead of requesting a name change for the crop as well, I made a second crop and nominated this picture for deletion. I will not do this again. Alas, for just this once, I just wanted to make sure one duplicate goes away, so the one I use won't disappear in an article.

3) Short Name Crop: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:(LtoR)_George_Chakiris,_Yvette_Mimieux,_%26_James_Darren_-_%22Diamond_Head%22_(1962)_promotional_photo.jpg

  • Now I've got a new problem....Someone renamed THE SHORT CROP, that used to be "Chakiris Diamond Head promo squared crop" into this (LtoR) rename.
  1. Correct Name: :File: Chakiris_Diamond_Head_promo_squared_crop.jpg
  2. Incorrect Name: :File: (LtoR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo (cropped).jpg

(Incorrect only because it belongs on #1, NOT #3.)

Do you see? I made 2 crops, because I forgot to shorten the file name the first time. Then tagged for deletion. I requested a name change to the big picture with all 3 actors, because I wanted it to say "(LtoR)" inside of the parentheses. They renamed the second squared-crop of George Chakiris's face, which I had made to have a simple short file name.

So instead of renaming the main file of the three actors, they renamed of all photos, the short file name crop photo. Which basically means all THREE photos are now screwed up.

Please help. Thank you.--Cinemaniac86 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Cinemaniac86. I didn't do the renaming. It looks like the name of the main file was fixed. The crops aren't identical, because File:(LR) George Chakiris, Yvette Mimieux, & James Darren - "Diamond Head" (1962) promotional photo (cropped).jpg has a bit of a pink cast. That's probably a mistake, so it probably should be deleted. Once it's deleted, it will be simple to rename the remaining cropped file anything you like, and since I have renaming privileges, feel free to text me at that time. Keep in mind, though, that it might be most useful for its name to reflect the fact that only Chakiris is shown. The fact that it's cropped from a larger photo that shows 2 other actors is made clear by the text "This file has been extracted from another file" and a little clickable thumbnail of that file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Ikan Kekek, sorry for the misdirected inquiry. I certainly wasn't accusing, so I hope it didn't seem that way, but I apologize just because I was frazzled. I'm more at home on Wikipedia, getting more accustomed to things, but here I'm still a rookie.

And the person who did help had good intentions, but...and this is the kicker...renamed the good crop...with the requested change name of the ORIGINAL file (LtoR) and all 3 names! So yesterday was a series of hot messes; however, they're all sorted out now, I think?

So, pink cast you say? What is that? I do appreciate your help. If it's not too much trouble, if I do have a minor renaming request, hope you won't mind on me just dropping you a message. Patience isn't my #1 virtue, but it's one I'm working on these days.

Lastly, one more question. This one might be overthinking. So the original with all 3 (Photo #1), I then cropped to the pink cast with the long file crop name (Photo #2). Then the good crop--I just highlighted the entire frame of #2, and saved it with a new, shorter file name (Photo #3). So if #2, our pink-cast photo, gets deleted, being the middleman between #1 and #3, and thus breaking the chain, does that delink them as extracted files from one another and/or affect Photo #3 in any sort of way? I know it won't affect #1, but I was curious what impact might befall #3 as a result. (My theory just being that it will no longer be tagged as an extracted file of anything. Unless all extracted files OF extracted files remain tagged back to the original, idk.....Root File, per se?) I feel like I just typed up a math proof theorem thingy. Cinemaniac86 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I'm not the least bit offended and have nothing to be offended about. I'm having a bit of trouble following all these details, but it's not a problem for a filemover like me to move a file to the name of a deleted file. In terms of what a pink cast is, it means in this case that the photo is not strictly black & white but has some pink overtones to its COM:Photography terms#White balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arizona's Apollo 11 Goodwill Display.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP US, only buildings are protected by FOP—this does not include dioramas, sculptures, and the like. Sculpture could have only been created after the moon landing, so it's young enough to still be copyrighted. Reviewed as part of w:en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep. The diorama was either created by NASA or the Arizona Historical Society. In the former case, it's a public domain US government work. In the latter case, the owner of the sculptural work is the same as the owner of the photograph. Given that the photograph was released under a free license by the presumed copyright holder of the object, there is no issue with the derivative work infringing on the sculptural copyright. Finally, the object is likely in the public domain anyway due to age (probably pre-1978, given the Apollo 11 context), public display, and lack of copyright notice. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allium polyanthum[edit]

this is a duplicate and incomplete page of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Allium_ampeloprasum Amada44  talk to me 08:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cattleya violacea illustration.webp[edit]

Scale-down duplicate of File:The Orchid Album-01-0101-0033.png. 0x0a (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Project Beervelde.jpg[edit]

no permission Thieu1972 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tanla Solutions Brand Logo.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Official_logo_tanla.jpg NoneTheFewer (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Affiche de recrutement de l'Armée de Vichy - Troupes Coloniales.jpg[edit]

The artist died in 1978. Not PD in France and in USA. Yann (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like the Bibliothèque historique de la Ville de Paris has amended the license on this image. Can undelete in 2049. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment - "Secreteriat d'etat a la guerre" translation to English is "Secretary of State for War" and "Affiche intérieure" is "Interior poster"- Was this poster was produced by the French Government? Would that effect PD status? -- Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Yann and @Tcr25. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if we consider it is a work of hire, it is in the public domain in France. Yann (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It (along with the ones deleted here, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:World War II recruitment posters from France) were produced by the Vichy government, but I haven't found anything that says if Sogno was staff or contract or what the copyright implications are. COM:FRANCE only notes very limited situations where works by the French government are automatically in the public domain, and these Vichy-produced works aren't included. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:IAEA at COP28 (cop28 0913) (53369502419).jpg[edit]

No FoP in UAE - see COM:FOP UAE Ooligan (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cropped version still not de minimis per COM:De minimis and the No FoP building is the central focus of this photograph. --Ooligan (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2022-10-01. 34e Festival des Globe-trotters.jpg[edit]

COM:DW, copyrightable photo takes up significant portion of screen Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le créateur de l'affiche et l'auteur de la photo m'ont autorisé à les utiliser. ClaudeH (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usage of copyrighted watermark, this is already duplicate as well as all videos are already uploaded on commons.

December 7[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:MMDAA logo.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:TNLA logo.jpg

File:Enhypen - Orange Blood.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Ss112 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: License was changed from a copyright license by an IP [2]. This image is not too simply for copyright. The letters are stylized, and the background is not one singular color Quite simple. OK for {{PD-textlogo}}? Yann (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Sn1per (talk · contribs)[edit]

there can be several copyright involved:

  1. copyright of this arrangement of this version of this song.
  2. artist who had performed this version of the song to be recorded and brought to space.
  3. the guy in germany who recorded this radio and published his recording online.

RZuo (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep
1. I see (and hear) no evidence that this very simple rendition is arranged at all distinctly enough from the standard version of the song to possibly warrant copyright protection. I'd like to bring up analogous cases such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poacher.ogg which had a deletion request founded on the same grounds rejected.
Additionally, as this is a musical performance and not a printed version of the song, it should only fall under (lapsed) 50 year protection under Chinese copyright law.
2. The song was synthesized using a tone generator, not played from a recording. (see https://web.archive.org/web/20130406184658/http://scitech.people.com.cn/GB/25509/55912/185601/186989/11367584.html)
3. This doesn't satisfy criteria of originality ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in us law a person who makes a recording owns a right to the recording.
i dont know whether german law has similar provisions. we should not dismiss this concern. RZuo (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be copyrightable, a work must satisfy criteria of originality (or in the words of the US copyright office, it must contain "a sufficient amount of production authorship"). The recorder didn't introduce anything new or original in this recording, so they do not have copyright protection over it.
This is copyright paranoia at hazard of depriving Wikipedia of a recording which complements and enhances the articles it is included on in a way that can't be done any other way (It isn't like any of us can go back in time to record this satellite's broadcast) ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep per above.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:48, 9 December 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.

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

Out of scope: Personal fiction

Enyavar (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete. See en:Special:Diff/898433833 for an example of where these images were used. Omphalographer (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Likely copyvio: These images of political figures are all described as "own work", but this is clearly not the case. At least one is a cropped version of another Wikimedia photo (File:James Traficant 105th Congress 1997.jpg); others appear to be edited versions of various web photos.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep These all appear to be images that have had the background removed and are based on images we already have. See for instance: James Traficant 105th Congress 1997-removebg-preview.png, the image comes from the Congressional directory and we have the original on Commons with the background. So far the same with the others I have looked at. Just add in a link to the original image, and decide who get the credit as the author, the original photographer or the background remover, we only have room for one name. --RAN (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Neutral: as was already pointed out, the Traficant picture is already on commons. I also found File:George Voinovich.jpg, File:Bernardine Dohrn NLN cropped.jpg and File:Denniskucinich.jpg (color versions with background), so the three corresponding images may be kept as well (conditional  Weak keep as long as the false attributions of "own work" are removed). However, if we have higher-or-same-quality images of these people already on Commons, I don't see the benefit of having these derivatives. The uploader's intention was apparently to illustrate an alternate history story with real images: not something we should support. --Enyavar (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by 森 康哲 (talk · contribs)[edit]

These images may be copyrighted per COM:PACKAGING. I'm not aware that the copyright of Camel cigarettes packs has expired in the US or Japan and I'm pretty certain the Kirin brewery's IPs are still copyrighted. Some of these may be below the threshold of originality (I didn't list photographs of Pepsi bottles with just the wordmark and simple circle logo for that reason), but thought they were worth a review at least.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 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.

Unnecessary files of mine[edit]

Reasons for deletion request -- These files are meant to raise awareness about the fictional flags of Vietnam (a project which its purpose is to rewrite history). Since I have found better files to do the job, these aren’t necessary anymore.
See:w:en:List of flags of Vietnam#Misattributed flags — Daeva Trạc (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FlexPro Logo DEU.png[edit]

The 3D blocks in the upper left are likely above the ToO. I've uploaded a new revision with the blocks removed; the old one should be hidden. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please retract your DR then and add Template:Non-free embedded revdel instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 8[edit]

File:Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother signature 1960.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Keep I think crown copyright applies here. And that has a protection period of 50 years after publication. So it's PD due to it's age. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2023 (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) 23:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Matty Healy Signature.png[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2023 (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) 23:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Brian Eno.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2023 (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) 23:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Minskip scarecrow competition 2023[edit]

Derivative work of various Disney characters (Winnie the Looh, Mickey Mouse, etc)

Trade (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep

(1) In British law, intention is always given consideration. These are non-commercial works, created by householders to exist for a few days in a scarecrow festival. They were all destroyed a few days after the festival. The only commercial element in the scarecrow festival was the sale of the trail map on behalf of a local charity - a single sheet of printed paper, containing only a map of the village. The objects of the photographs had no financial value. None of the objects was labelled with Disney film names. On the trail map, only the exhibit numbers and locations were given.
(2) None of the objects in the photographs contain direct photocopies, tracings etc. of Disney copyrighted images. Many of them (e.g. the mermaid) would not be recognisable to the Disney company if the photos had not been labelled with names similar to the films. They may be inspired by Disney films, but they are not copies of Disney designs, in fact they are as much inspired by books (e.g. Winnie the Pooh, Little Mermaid, and Peter Pan) as the films. They are not impinging on copyright.
(3) All are photographs of 3D objects, taken from the public highway, covered by Panoramafreiheit in UK law.
(4) This deletion request is inappropriate (and in my opinion, ludicrous), because the only parts which could be suspected of being derivative of Disney cartoons are three faces, which are de minimis on the scarecrows concerned. They are only inspired by three Disney faces, anyway, and they are hand drawn. The rest of the scarecrow constructions are straw-filled sacks, which Disney would never confuse with their cartoon drawings. All the file page descriptions make clear that the exhibits are inspired by the films. It does not say they are copies because they are not. It is not a breach of copyright to be inspired.

Storye book (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And another thing. Having looked at some of the other recent similar deletion requests, I am now asking that if you really believe that any element of any of the above scarecrow creations are in any way direct copies of a copyrighted Disney image, please supply a link to that original Disney image so that we can decide whether any of the above photographs are breach of copyright. I should add that I took all the above photos myself, so I am aware of all the circumstances described above. Storye book (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(1) Disney lost copyright to Steamboat Willie, the 1928 version of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, and lost exclusive rights to Tigger (from Winnie the Pooh) on 1 January 2024. Disney also lost exclusive rights to Winnie the Pooh in January 2022. The Winnie the Pooh books (1926 and 1928) are out of copyright anyway. Sources: Guardian, "Copyright for original Mickey Mouse persona to run out 1 January 2024", by Richard Luscombe, 28 December 2023, and BBC, "Disney's earliest Mickey and Minnie Mouse enter public domain as US copyright expires", by Noor Nanji, 1 Janaury 2024.

(2) Regarding Disney's other cartoon characters, copyright covers situations where one cannot tell the difference between the original cartoon and the counterfeit copy. In the above cases, it is quite clear that Disney could not have created those intentionally scruffy scarecrows, made of bags of straw and wobbly hand-drawn faces, which do not resemble Disney's original cartoons line for line.

(3) Being inspired by a film or cartoon is not the same as copying a film or cartoon. No-one could make money out of any of those photos by pretending the objects were the work of Disney. Being about Disney is not the same as copying Disney, which is why our WP articles about Disney are not a copyright problem per se. Storye book (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete drawing upon elements of Mickey that are still under copyright. Seems to mostly be pulling upon the Fred Moore redesign from 1940's Fantasia. Undelete in 2036. SDudley (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*  Keep reply
@SDudley: . "Drawing upon" and "pulling upon" in copyright law, as I understand it, is a matter of degree. The Mickey Mouse faces in the above photographs are only referencing the character, and are not imitations constructed such that the viewer cannot tell the difference between a bunch of sacks of straw with a hand-drawn face, and the original drawn lines of Disney's own screen cartoon. And the other photographs listed above are not of Mickey Mouse. Although inspired by a Disney theme, those are fundamentally references to the original books (e.g. The Little Mermaid (1837)), which are far more the common experience of UK people than the films, because those books are commonly available to children here at all times at home, in schools and in public libraries. No-one over the age of five years is going to believe that the Disney company personally created those non-commercial sacks of straw. when they were clearly amateurishly (and sometimes rather clumsily) made by the parents and children of the village. Storye book (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 10[edit]

File:SPECJAL KRZYSZTOF KIESLOWSKI AWARD FOR Sam Mendes TORUŃ 2022.jpg[edit]

jest już taki 9 Double) 2A02:A311:C044:FB80:309E:1B02:EFF3:24F5 11:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Witold Sobociński Camerimage Festiwal.jpg[edit]

juz jest taki ( double) 2A02:A311:C044:FB80:309E:1B02:EFF3:24F5 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reza Hajatpour in Bamberg, fotografiert von Steven P. Carnarius im Café Müller.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Steven P. Carnarius M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo Antiguo de Almansa.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa VERSION 2.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa VERSION 2.svg[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa VERSION 1.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa VERSION 1.svg[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa en la Segunda Republica Española.svg[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa tras la Guerra de Sucesión Española.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa en la Segunda Republica Española.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa en la Segunda Republica Española.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa tras la Guerra de Sucesión Española.svg[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Almansa en la Primera Republica Española.png[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo Antiguo de Almansa.svg[edit]

No es correcto y hay otro archivo mas concreto y mejor en calidad. Raúl Almansa (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケに1000円渡してみた」第4回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない. Yasobara (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケに1000円渡してみた」第1回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。 Yasobara (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケに1000円渡してみた」第2回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。 Yasobara (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケがスイパラに行ってみた」第2回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。 Yasobara (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケに1000円渡してみた」第3回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。 Yasobara (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:はちみつロケット 「はちロケがスイパラに行ってみた」第3回.webm[edit]

明らかな教育的利用方法がない。 Yasobara (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep the video uploaded in order to provide Japanese pop culture info, like other many pop music groups from Japan/other countries. (see also Category:Japanese idols

Category:Girl groups from Japan Category:Pop music groups from Japan) Puramyun31 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:16 - Cupola di S. Maria del Fiore III.jpg[edit]

Presumably copyrighted page of an article not written by the uploader Abzeronow (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no copyright on this pdf. If I have uploaded it, it is because I can upoload this file.
I don't know how it is possible (or, I do not understand the seriousness of this matter...) to report such action without any evidence of it.
Best regards,
Michele Michele-ing (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Michele-ing: the page includes various logos, diagrams, and illustrations in addition to the text - all elements need to be either public domain or your own original work for the stated license to be accurate. Can you please clarify the situation for all elements here? For example, did you do the draw the original diagrams, and if not, where are they from? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 11[edit]

File:Milei Casa Rosada mandatarios.jpg[edit]

No indication that the CC license applies to the Instagram post of Casa Rosada A1Cafel (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was already a case with another file, exactly the same situation. 1, "especially in the manner that the license statement covers all content of Casa Rosada, not limited to this website only". Sargen220 (discusión) 20:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Milei Casa Rosada.jpg[edit]

No indication that the CC license applies to the Instagram post of Casa Rosada A1Cafel (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was already a case with another file, exactly the same situation. 1, "especially in the manner that the license statement covers all content of Casa Rosada, not limited to this website only". Sargen220 (discusión) 20:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1983.Kugelstoßer mit Läufergruppe im Stadion.42x30.jpg[edit]

Copyvio of non-free artwork, artist died in 1998. 2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 13:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auch mal das Kleingedruckte lesen und verstehen

Diese Werke oder die Werke dieses Künstlers sind möglicherweise nicht gemeinfrei, weil der Künstler noch lebt oder vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Bitte lade keine Fotos oder Scans von Werken dieses Künstlers hoch, es sei denn, sie fallen unter eine der folgenden Ausnahmen:

Siehe bei https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wilhelm_Landgraf?uselang=de --Bybbisch94 (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nach zullesen bei Permissions - German Wikipedia (permissions-de@wikimedia.org) und gilt global ausdrücklich für alle Werke des Künstlers--Bybbisch94 (Diskussion) 09:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File:1960.Lößnitz-Stadt mit der St.Johannis Kirche.40x30.jpg[edit]

Copyvio of non-free artwork, artist died in 1998. 2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 13:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auch mal das Kleingedruckte lesen und verstehen

Diese Werke oder die Werke dieses Künstlers sind möglicherweise nicht gemeinfrei, weil der Künstler noch lebt oder vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Bitte lade keine Fotos oder Scans von Werken dieses Künstlers hoch, es sei denn, sie fallen unter eine der folgenden Ausnahmen:

Ganz einfach, wo sie hingehört, bei https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wilhelm_Landgraf?uselang=de --Bybbisch94 (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich finde dort keinen Verweis auf die Freigabe? GPSLeo (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das Werk wurde vom Urheber oder seinen Erben in einer E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons ausdrücklich für eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung freigegeben.--Bybbisch94 (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Frage ist: Wo ist diese E-Mail? GPSLeo (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diese ist bei Permissions - German Wikipedia (permissions-de@wikimedia.org) und gilt global ausdrücklich für alle Werke des Künstlers--Bybbisch94 (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weißt du zufällig die Vorgangsnummer oder das ungefähre Datum, damit das Supportteam die Mail finden kann? GPSLeo (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Nutzungsrechte wurden am 8.3.2017 bei German Wikipedia eingereicht bis zur endgültigen Freigabe hat es allerdings etwas gedauert. Übrigens zur Information, am 3.8.23 habe ich bei permissions-de@wikimedia.org dazu nachgefragt, ob die Freistellung auch für Zeichnungen des Künstlers gilt. Die Antwort lautete: ist gültig.--Bybbisch94 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marek in San Francisco posing with a local.jpg[edit]

this is a bit uncomfortable since the user is deceased, but according to an old comment, this is not his own photo and the photographer did not grant permission, obviously no way to corroborate, just passing along: "Note: Photography assisted by Ms. Karen Krebser (remote release). This is Karen Krebser, and I was never contacted to release this photograph I took of Marek. Nice. Whatever, dude." Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Raúl Almansa[edit]

Este ya no es mi nombre de usuarios Almansa Infinita (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Castilla y León sin Corona.png[edit]

Ya existe otro archivo de mejor calidad y mas exacto historicamente Almansa Infinita (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo del Infante Don Juan Manuel.png[edit]

Ya existe otro archivo de mejor calidad y mas exacto historicamente Almansa Infinita (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Estados Unidos Peru-Bolivianos.svg[edit]

File:Peru–Bolivia Confederation (orthographic projection).svg depicts the same state more accurately and as an actual SVG. Not tagging it for speedy because it isn't a duplicate right now, but fixing it would make it one. Rubýñ (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pressefoto BastianBenoa.jpg[edit]

Urheber und abgebildete Person sollen identisch sein, es handelt sich aber offensichtlich nicht um ein Selfie, daher Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk"" Lutheraner (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pressebild BastianBenoa 2023.jpg[edit]

Urheber und abgebildete Person sollen identisch sein, es handelt sich aber offensichtlich nicht um ein Selfie, daher Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk"" Lutheraner (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Paul Verchères[edit]

1953+50 = 2003 which post-dates URAA. Will expire (assuming 70 p.m.a) in 2024, otherwise undelete in 2044

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Denis Gagne52: See Commons:URAA. Though that depends on when the work was published, and works from 1923 or 1926 are fine. These are apparently Canadian, and the Canadian copyright for them expired at the end of 2003. (Canadian copyright was recently extended to 70 years pma, but that was not retroactive). So  Delete the 1948 works (and restore them in 2044),  Keep the rest. --Rosenzweig τ 07:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Thanks ! But I’m aware of all of this. My question was regarding the « undelete in 2048 » only. So on 17 requests, three are well founded and 70 p.m.a. or 95 p.m.a. (1953 + 95 = 2048) are both irrelevant. How can we expect a newcomer to cope with the subtilities of URAA when it is difficult for an experienced user as @ShakespeareFan00: and if he is informed many years later of a potential problem with his uploads. As soon as a file is deleted, the book created on Wikisource is broken. Before its deletion, did you consider moving the file elsewhere where it is in public domain ? --Denis Gagne52 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Denis Gagne52: Who do you mean when you ask "did you consider [...]"? As for me, I did not consider anything like that. If anybody wanted to do it, the time is now. But even later, files can be temprorarily undeleted for such a move if someone wants to do it. --Rosenzweig τ 07:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Well ! Considering this question means that it may be important to notify a community before deleting files essential to its mission. --Denis Gagne52 (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Denis Gagne52: None were deleted yet. If I'm the admin deciding to delete files which are in use at en.ws, I notify them if they can upload them locally (because they apply American copyright). Per s:fr:Aide:Droit d’auteur, the 1948 files could apparently be uploaded to French Wikisource locally (because they're in the PD in Canada), so fr.ws should be notified in the case of a decision to delete. Since you are here in this discussion, fr.ws already knows about the case it seems. --Rosenzweig τ 12:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/Paul Verchères/, Paul Verchères and Alexandre Huot seem to be the same person, with Huot being the actual birth name and the other one a pseudonym. And he's the writer, the illustrators are other people, Albert Fournier and J. Maurice for the 1923 and 1926 works, and someone else (couldn't read the signature) for the 1948 books. We hardly know anything about these people, Fournier is speculated to have been born ca. 1900, that's it. I can find an Albert Fournier, born ca. 1900, living in Montreal, in the 1921 and 1931 Canadian census, and it appears he's listed as a dessinateur. Ancestry offers me more about people with that name, including church records, but they're handwritten and difficult to read. Perhaps someone who can read French well has better luck. --Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this website [3] [4], the main illustrator for the publisher Police-Journal was André L’Archevêque (1923-2015). On the cow-boys booklets 1 and 2, we can discern the letters "que" at the end of the signature, so that's probably him. There is a short blog article about him at this other website [5]. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch :( So 2058 to be PD-Canada (by which time it will already be PD-US) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2086 actually (for the 1948 illustrations) with the current Canadian 70 years pma term. Thank you Asclepias for finding that information. The man has a nice name, "Andrew the Archbishop" :-) --Rosenzweig τ 19:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. When did it change? (It's so I cna be certain I am calculationg correctly in subsquent DR's.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: They changed it a few days before the end of 2022 (non-retroactive), so works of artists who died before 1972 are still in the PD in Canada. Note that for anonymous works the Canadian term is now 75 years from publication or 100 years from creation, that was changed in 2020 (before: 50 years and 75 years). See {{PD-Canada-anon}} and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: See also Template talk:PD-Canada#Amendments. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a WP article at fr:André L'Archevêque. --Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that there is Category:André L'Archevêque on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have an OTRS for some of this works, Worth a French speaking Commons person reaching out about these old covers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could require some serious research to find to whom to ask. I suppose that the 2009 OTRS permission was sent by the artist, but he died in 2015. The Commons user who obtained the permission has not contributed since 2009. The publishing business doesn't exist anymore. It may not be worth spending much effort to obtain a permission for those copies of those three covers in particular. The author created hundreds of covers in the early years of his career. Looking for info in connection to this DR, I saw that there are much better copies of many of the booklets and their covers. For example, one guy scans systematically everything from the publisher of those booklets [6] [7]. However, the Wikimedia user who in 2009 uploaded the files that have the VRT ticket 2009070210055908 also uploaded other files, apparently including some of the early cover works, also with the template OTRS-pending, but those files were deleted, see logs. It could be worth asking the VRT people what precisely the issue was. Maybe the ticket did not mention the deleted files. Or maybe the VRT agent concluded that the permission needed for such works should come not from the artist but from whoever might now own the copyrights of the former publishing business. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/Albert Laberge/[edit]

Albert Laberge died in 1960- +5- is 2010, which post-dates URAA

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep File:Albert Laberge.png, Laberge is the subject, not the photographer. Photographs in Canada are in the public domain if they meet one of two requirements 1) Created prior to January 1, 1949 or Creator died before January 1, 1972, not both. "File:Signature Albert Laberge - Le destin des hommes, 1950 (page 4 crop).jpg" is after 1949 but is PD-Signature. Prior to the January 1, 1972 change in Canada copyright law, the copyright term was 50 years pma, with no claw back. While the sculptures themselves may still be under an active copyright, the images of the sculptures are correctly licensed as being in the public domain from creation, which would put them in the public domain the USA. --RAN (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please indicate the text and reference you are relying on to add 95 years to an author's date of death? Where did you find this ?--Denis Gagne52 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? What does "relying on to add 95 years to an author's date of death" mean? Under the terms of PD-Canada, the copyright clock starts at creation. You are thinking of pma copyright jurisdictions like the EU. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also  Keep File:Laberge - Quand chantait la cigale page 06.jpg and File:Laberge - Quand chantait la cigale page 64.jpg. These are 1936 works (published as illustrations of a Laberge novel) by Canadian artist Charles de Belle, who died in 1939. So his works were in the PD in Canada on the URAA date in 1996, and their US copyrights were not restored. And  Keep File:Laberge - Visages de la vie et de la mort, 1936 (page 7 crop).jpg, 1936 work by Canadian artist Émile Vézina, who died in 1942, Canadian copyrights for his works expired before the URAA date as well. Finally  Delete File:Laberge - Visages de la vie et de la mort, 1936 (page 13 crop).jpg, 1936 work by Canadian artist Joseph Saint-Charles, who died in 1956. So his works were still protected in Canada on the URAA date, and their US copyrights were restored. That file can be undeleted in 2032. --Rosenzweig τ 20:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/Ubald Paquin/[edit]

Ubald PAquin died in 1962 + 50 = 2012, which post-dates URAA. Undelete in 2026.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 12[edit]

File:PARANDOWSKI - BOLSZEWIZM I BOLSZEWICY - OKLADKA I STRONY TYTUŁOWE5.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Malarz pl as Copyvio (copyvio) Could this be {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Józef Chełmoński correspondence, publication by Jan Wegner, Warsaw, 1953, Ossolineum edition, contents.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Malarz pl as Copyvio (copyvio) Could this be {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PARANDOWSKI - BOLSZEWIZM I BOLSZEWICY - OKLADKA I STRONY TYTUŁOWE4.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Malarz pl as Copyvio (copyvio) Could this be {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Luino blason.PNG[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Vale93b as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.araldicacivica.it/comune/luino/
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as external hit is from 2016[8], whereas our version was uploaded already in 2013. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Túrelio the external hit has clearly been reuploaded: I’m sysop on it.wikipedia and I can tell you that the araldicacivica picture was already available back in 2011, when it was uploaded on itwiki under https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luino-Stemma.png Vale93b (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:RIVER MARCH SL.jpg[edit]

Not the work of the claimed author. See Saxon's Lode, Uckinghall and File:Saxon's Lode, Uckinghall - geograph.org.uk - 466192.jpg. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Weak keep: I have corrected the description to credit the author and reference the original. I'm not sure if it's redundant nevertheless, though. --bjh21 (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dalton Caldwell (43627374955 cropped).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by C.Fred as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Getty Image, not under CC license, per https://www.flickr.com/photos/techcrunch/43627374955/

The Flickr page states (Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images for TechCrunch) and license CC-BY-2.0. If this is inappropiate for Commons, 100+ files in Category:TechCrunch Disrupt must be checked because of similar copyright marks. GeorgHH • talk   12:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GeorgHH The license was below the fold and may not have even displayed on my initial view of the image. I see it's a CC license with no restrictions on commercial or derivative work; if this request is based on my tag, I withdraw it. C.Fred (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ritratto del pittore Vincenzo Petrocelli, terracotta, di Vincenzo Gemito.jpg[edit]

Vincenzo Gemito died in 1929, so the sculpture is probably out of copyright in some countries; in Italy it may enjoy perpetual protection as a part of the national cultural heritage (it appears to be in the Collezione Minozzi of the Museo di Capodimonte, see here). But what about the photograph? No indication of who the photographer is/was, no permission, no EXIF data. NB This is an upload of an obvious Alec Smithson sock (I can explain privately why I'm sure of that). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jahrom from sky.jpg[edit]

No indication of being a work by Mehr News, no photographer credit either. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep It obviously has a watermark of Mehr news on it, and all Content by them is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I do not see any reason to delete it. Rizorius (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Ahbarmaki1352 (talk · contribs)[edit]

All files are casually claimed to be "own work", while they are clearly not (even one is visibly a screenshot). No proper information and license provided.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello. no good reason is provided to delete. as these are common public documents in public domain accessible. 2605:8D80:682:9CFA:EFFC:D475:9D17:A45D 15:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Namakdoost.jpg[edit]

This is their profile picture on X (formerly Twitter), this file lacks proper size and EXIF. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but maybe he has saved this from here and then used for his X profile. The photo has been uploaded here and is the work of mine. This is original and is under Creative Commons copyright law. Esmatly (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Esmatly Would you please upload the original version of this picture with metadata (your file is only 70 KB)? As I can see, other files you have uploaded have been taken with a variety of camera models, including:
  1. Canon PowerShot SX30 IS
  2. DMC-FZ150
  3. Canon EOS 50D
  4. GT-I8150
  5. NIKON D3S
  6. KENOX S860
  7. Canon PowerShot A540
This fact brings one's authorship into question. The rest of the files lack such information and some of them (like this) have "Screenshot" mentioned in user comment sextion. Uploading the original file would help. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Esmatly Metadata for this file that you uploaded (writing "I took it myself" in the source section) indicates that the photographer is Hamed Barchian, a professional photographer. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Santa Caterina Martire (Rome)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about the architect of this building, they clearly haven't been dead for more then 70 years since it was built in 2001. So these images should be deleted until an undetermined date.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Friniate: I actually looked into that before I nominated the images for deletion and from what I could find it really depends on the host country and how they decide to do things. There is no global rule that embassy grounds are governed by the laws of the country the embassy is for though. So its probably to air on the side that Italy's copyright rules would apply in this case unless there's any evidence to the contrary. But I couldn't find any either way myself. Again, just that it depends on how the particular countries decide to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Reza Zavare'i.jpg[edit]

The uploader's claim that this file dates "before 1987" is unsubstantiated, and there is no evidence that it was published more than 30 years ago. PD-Iran license is therefore questionable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IVECO VehiXel Indcar Mobi sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IVECO Irisbus VehiXel Cytios Advance 4 34 sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IVECO Crossway Pop sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IVECO Crossway Pop sur le réseau Néva (été 2023).jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HeuliezBus GX 127 sur le réseau Néva (blanc).jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HeuliezBus GX 127L sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:HeuliezBus GX 127 sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Van Hool NewA308 sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Volvo 7900 Electric sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Volvo 7900 Hybrid (10.6m) sur le réseau Néva.jpg[edit]

Je souhaite supprimer cette image s'il vous plaît. Elle m'appartient. MaitreCapuche (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Karls Erlebnis-Dorf Logo.png[edit]

I think it is above the threshold of originality Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Martin Garrix in Armani Exchange Spring Summer 2019.jpg[edit]

Screenshoot from an Emporio Armani ad. The Vimeo account is from the company that was hired to make the video, however, it is unlikely to they hold the copyright. The copyright owner in case of WFH is normally the company that paid for the content, Armani in this case. Günther Frager (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Martin Garrix Armani Exchange Spring Summer 2019 (Cropped).jpg[edit]

Screenshoot from an Emporio Armani ad. The Vimeo account is from the company that was hired to make the video, however, it is unlikely to they hold the copyright. The copyright owner in case of WFH is normally the company that paid for the content, Armani in this case. Günther Frager (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C-SPAN images not from the House or Senate[edit]

Per {{PD-CSPAN}}, only images "from the chambers of the US House or US Senate" can be licensed in the public domain. The images listed in this deletion request are not from the House or Senate chambers and therefore not acceptable on Commons. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Susan Cole Speaker Election Jan 6 2023.png appears to be from the house floor. I think each file should be nominated separately. -- William Graham (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Corrinebrowngator.jpg appears to be from the house floor as well. I think these files should have been reviewed better before nomination. The nominator appears to be a bot, which raises concerns from me. --William Graham (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cryptic-waveform: can you review your bots nominations? --William Graham (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I withdrew the nomination for both files. The bot doesn't act on its own, it just provides me with an easier way to open mass-deletion requests. I've reviewed all the other files nominated (basically the content of Category:C-SPAN images and don't see any more file that would be from the House or Senate chamber. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Robert Koch in Vietnam Stamps.png[edit]

The license on this file is invalid and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says nothing about stamps. Although there's no blanket exception for government works and Vietnamese currency seems to be copyrighted. Therefore it's unlikely stamps from the country are PD. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:George Dimitrov on stamps.png[edit]

The license on this file is invalid and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says nothing about stamps. Although there's no blanket exception for government works and Vietnamese currency seems to be copyrighted. Therefore it's unlikely stamps from the country are PD. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Vani Bhojan At The ‘Oh My Kadavule’ Press Meet.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: EXIF states Copyright © 2016 Silverscreen Media Inc. This image is protected under the United States and International Copyright laws and may not be downloaded, reproduced, copied, transmitted or manipulated without written permission. Flickrwashing is suspected 0x0a (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete initial rationale applies 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dani Charles is a photojournalist at Silverscreen. I think he has the right to publish it under a free license. See [9]. 0x0a (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is what we are seeking to establish. It depends on technical aspects of copyright, notably which party is the actual copyright owner. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 19:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment whether this file is deleted or kept depends in my view on whether the photographer retained the copyright of the picture, or whether their contract with Silver Screen Media Inc passed that copyright to Silver Screen. If Silver Screen is the copyright owner then their copyright statement must, surely, affect the discussion such that the file is deleted. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment COM:PCP applies here. Sufficient time has elapsed from the original nomination and from this DR for a conclusion to be drawn. I suggest that correct permissions need to be submitted to COM:VRT for this to remain here. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Dani Charles is a photojournalist at Silverscreen, Previously permission was obtained through COM:VRT see ticket:2017032910012057. However, due to the time-consuming nature of this process, Administrators at Silverscreen India have agreed to modify the captions of requested images slated for release under a Creative Commons license. see ticket:2017052710009061. Perumalism (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:صادق بوقی.jpg[edit]

نقض کپی‌رایت Mostafamirchouli (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:N,N-diethylacetamidine structural.png[edit]

Carbon carbon angles are incorrect, see others in the series RAN (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep I do not think that the angles in two-dimensional chemical structures are meaningful. Even if they are, some better founded reasonings are needed to convince anybody to delete the file (in a fact, the cartoon). It seems to me, that this is a spam request aiming to bring attention to the user page with advertising their own stuff. With these regards, I strongly recommend to ban the nominator. Ahasheni (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet the structure is incorrect and needs to be deleted. Having correct angles is important, that is why all the other chamical structures are correctly drawn. You can always redraw it correctly. --RAN (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Móczár Gábor[edit]

Following an internal revision of ticket:2022100710002746, we think that the permission is invalid because the original authors of the pictures are unknown and the National Heritage Institute does not own the copyrights of the files. Pinging @Krd and Bizottmány.

Bencemac (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nem értek egyet a képek törlésével a következő okok miatt:

  • 1.) A fényképeket a Kerepesi temető (ma Fiumei Úti Sírkert) dolgozói készítették munkájuk során, nevük feltüntetése nélkül, a sírok nyilvántartó lapjain (karton hátoldalára ragasztva) alkotói jogokat nem követelve, így a fotós ismeretlen.
  • 2.) Ezeket a képeket még a Wikimedia Commonsra sem lehetne korrekció nélkül feltölteni, mivel nem művészi, hanem minimális minőségű, kizárólag a sír azonosítása céljából készült munkaképekről van szó (jómagam csak azokat töltöttem fel, amelyeknek a felirata már nem olvasható, vagy lekopott a sírokról).
  • 3.) Ezek a képek a munkáltató tulajdonát képezik, mivel a fotókat készítő személyek neve nem ismert, ezért a sírnyilvántartás jelenlegi tulajdonosa a Fiumei Úti Sírkert, amely a Nemzeti Örökség Intézetéhez tartozik , és annak igazgatója, Móczár Gábor jogosult engedélyt adni a közzétételükre.
  • 4.) Vizler Imre neve azért szerepel, mert a Kerepesi temető jogi engedélyével a 2000-es évek elején ő szkennelte be ezeket a képeket, és ő bocsátotta rendelkezésemre a digitalizált fotókat, amelyek közzétételére Móczár Gábortól kaptam engedélyt.

Üdv, --Bizottmány (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the deletion of the images for the following reasons:

  • 1.) The photographs were taken by employees of the Kerepesi cemetery (now Fiumei Úti Sírkert) during their work, without their names being indicated, without claiming any creative rights on the register sheets of the graves (pasted on the back of the cardboard), so the photographer is unknown.
  • 2.) These images could not even be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without correction, as they are not artistic, but are minimal quality working images taken solely for the purpose of identifying the grave (I have uploaded only those whose captions are no longer legible or have been worn off the graves).
  • 3.) These pictures are the property of the employer, as the names of the persons who took the photos are not known, and therefore the current owner of the tomb register is the Fiumei Úti Sírkert, which belongs to the National Heritage Institute , and its director, Gábor Móczár, is entitled to give permission for their publication.
  • 4.) That's why Imre Vizler's name is mentioned because he scanned these images with the legal permission of the Kerepesi Cemetery in the early 2000s and he provided me with the digitised photographs, which I have permission to publish from Gábor Móczár.

Greetings, --Bizottmány (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:1974 stamps of Venezuela[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela stamps of Venezuela are copyrighted until at least at least 60 after the publication date. So these images should be deleted until at least 2035 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 13[edit]

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 Potapenkovd (talk · contribs)[edit]

Commons:Derivative works from commercial packaging.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2017 (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 Potapenkovd (talk · contribs)[edit]

All of these matchbook covers seem to come from either Russian or Ukraine. Really, it's not even clear which, when they were published, or who the artists are. Except they clearly weren't created by the uploader or published more then 70 years ago. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Проблема: я отримав попередження від Adamant1 про можливе вилучення великої кількості завантажених мною унікальних тематичних фотографій, виставлених в статті Сигарета української Вікіпедії.
Суть:
1. Я, Потапенко Володимир Дмитрович, провідний тютюновий експерт України, один з відомих світових експертів з ніковілії, власник найбільшої в Україні й однієї з найбільших в світі колекції сигарет й цигарок (40.000+ екземплярів). Моя колекція занесена в Національний Реєстр Рекордів України.
2. Декілька років тому в статті Сигарета в главі "Сигарети в Україні" я створив розділ "Внутрішні українські виробники, марки й дизайни сигарет", а в ньому таблицю з переліком всіх українських брендів й марок сигарет - тоді без фото.
3. Останні тижні я зайнявся додаванням в таблицю фото до кожної позиції. Всього таблиця вміщятиме до тисячі фото дизайнів сигаретних пачок, які вироблялися в Україні й на території України з 1945 по 2023 роки.
4. Всі фото різні, переважна більшість фото створені мною особисто сканером або фотоаппаратом, це фото пачок моєї власної колекції, яка зберігається в мене вдома (м. Дніпро). Менша частина фото зроблена на мій запит моїм колегою Яковенко Андрієм (Харків), володарем другої за розміром колекції сигарет в Україні. Ми з ним працюємо спільно під моїм керівництвом й моєю відповідальністю. Мізерна частина фото взяті в Інтернеті з відкритих джерел.
5. Окрім мене ніхто в Україні не може якісно виконати цю роботу. Закінчення заповнення таблиці очікується за 2 тижні, в грудні 2023 року. Після цього будь-яка людина України зможе знайти фото сигарет, які вона палила в дитинстві або палить зараз, відслідкувати розвиток асортименту тютюнової продукції України. Додатково я організую рекламу цієї таблиці в міжнародних групах колекціонерів сигарет світу, що призведе до збільшення відвідуваності української Вікіпедії. Наведена інформація стане довідником по темі на багато десятиліть вперед.
Прошу: дозволити зберігання завантажених фото й відображення їх в статті Сигарета, дозволити продовження завантаження фотографій для завершення заповнення таблиці.
Додатково: я маю лише початкові знання з редагування Вікіпедії, тому виконую мінімальний обсяг необхідної роботи. Очевидно, я не зробив всі необхідні дії - прошу мене вибачити й підтримати. Я навіть не знаю якою мовою маю писати цей текст, не впевнений я я за адресою його відправляю. Тому нижче додам англійський переклад цього тексту, й відправлю обидва тексти (українською й англійською) в інші вікна, посилання на які пропонує мені лист на email. Якщо Ви українець, прошу подзвонити мені на 068-626-17-18 або написати на potapenkovd@meta.ua, й розтлумачити ситуацію простою мовою.
Щиро вдячний! З повагою, Потапенко Володимир.
Problem: I received a warning from Adamant1 about the possible removal of a large number of unique thematic photos that I uploaded to the Сигарета article of the Ukrainian Wikipedia.
Essence:
1. I, Volodymyr Dmytrovych Potapenko, a leading tobacco expert of Ukraine, one of the world's well-known nikovilia experts, owner of the largest collection of cigarettes and cigarettes in Ukraine and one of the largest in the world (40,000+ copies). My collection is entered in the National Register of Records of Ukraine.
2. Several years ago, in the article Cigarette, in the chapter "Cigarettes in Ukraine", I created a section "Domestic Ukrainian manufacturers, brands and designs of cigarettes", and in it a table with a list of all Ukrainian brands and brands of cigarettes - then without a photo.
3. In recent weeks, I have been busy adding a photo to each position in the table. In total, the table will contain up to a thousand photo designs of cigarette packs that were produced in Ukraine and on the territory of Ukraine from 1945 to 2023.
4. All photos are different, the vast majority of photos were created by me personally with a scanner or camera, these are photos of bundles from my own collection, which is kept at my home (Dnipro). The smaller part of the photo was taken at my request by my colleague Andrii Yakovenko (Kharkiv), the owner of the second largest collection of cigarettes in Ukraine. He and I work together under my leadership and responsibility. A small part of the photos are taken from the Internet from open sources.
5. Apart from me, no one in Ukraine can perform this work qualitatively. Completion of the table is expected in 2 weeks, in December 2023. After that, any person of Ukraine will be able to find a photo of cigarettes that he smoked as a child or smokes now, to follow the development of the assortment of tobacco products of Ukraine. In addition, I will organize advertising of this table in international groups of cigarette collectors of the world, which will lead to an increase in visits to Ukrainian Wikipedia. The given information will be a guide on the topic for many decades to come.
Please: allow the storage of uploaded photos and display them in the article Сигарета, allow the continuation of uploading photos to complete the filling of the table.
In addition: I have only basic knowledge of editing Wikipedia, so I do the minimum amount of work required. Obviously, I did not do all the necessary actions - please forgive me and support me. I don't even know what language I should write this text in, I'm not sure at the address I'm sending it to. Therefore, I will add the English translation of this text below, and I will send both texts (in Ukrainian and English) to other windows, the links to which are offered in the email. If you are Ukrainian, please call me at 068-626-17-18 or write to potapenkovd@meta.ua and explain the situation in simple language.
Sincerely grateful! Sincerely, Volodymyr Potapenko. Potapenkovd (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply. 1)Wikimedia Commons is for potentially educational images that are *Free licensed* (see COM:LICENSE). The copyright of matchbooks would generally be held by the person who designed the artwork, not the person who photographed a copy of it (See COM:DW). So even if the images are useful in some educational or historic context, they cannot be stored on Commons if they cannot be shown to be free licensed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - Commons:Derivative works. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

All of these matchbook covers seem to come from either Russian or Ukraine. Really, it's not even clear which, when they were published, or who the artists are. Except they clearly weren't created by the uploader or published more then 70 years ago. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Проблема: я отримав попередження від Adamant1 про можливе вилучення великої кількості завантажених мною унікальних тематичних фотографій, виставлених в статті Сигарета української Вікіпедії.
Суть:
1. Я, Потапенко Володимир Дмитрович, провідний тютюновий експерт України, один з відомих світових експертів з ніковілії, власник найбільшої в Україні й однієї з найбільших в світі колекції сигарет й цигарок (40.000+ екземплярів). Моя колекція занесена в Національний Реєстр Рекордів України.
2. Декілька років тому в статті Сигарета в главі "Сигарети в Україні" я створив розділ "Внутрішні українські виробники, марки й дизайни сигарет", а в ньому таблицю з переліком всіх українських брендів й марок сигарет - тоді без фото.
3. Останні тижні я зайнявся додаванням в таблицю фото до кожної позиції. Всього таблиця вміщятиме до тисячі фото дизайнів сигаретних пачок, які вироблялися в Україні й на території України з 1945 по 2023 роки.
4. Всі фото різні, переважна більшість фото створені мною особисто сканером або фотоаппаратом, це фото пачок моєї власної колекції, яка зберігається в мене вдома (м. Дніпро). Менша частина фото зроблена на мій запит моїм колегою Яковенко Андрієм (Харків), володарем другої за розміром колекції сигарет в Україні. Ми з ним працюємо спільно під моїм керівництвом й моєю відповідальністю. Мізерна частина фото взяті в Інтернеті з відкритих джерел.
5. Окрім мене ніхто в Україні не може якісно виконати цю роботу. Закінчення заповнення таблиці очікується за 2 тижні, в грудні 2023 року. Після цього будь-яка людина України зможе знайти фото сигарет, які вона палила в дитинстві або палить зараз, відслідкувати розвиток асортименту тютюнової продукції України. Додатково я організую рекламу цієї таблиці в міжнародних групах колекціонерів сигарет світу, що призведе до збільшення відвідуваності української Вікіпедії. Наведена інформація стане довідником по темі на багато десятиліть вперед.
Прошу: дозволити зберігання завантажених фото й відображення їх в статті Сигарета, дозволити продовження завантаження фотографій для завершення заповнення таблиці.
Додатково: я маю лише початкові знання з редагування Вікіпедії, тому виконую мінімальний обсяг необхідної роботи. Очевидно, я не зробив всі необхідні дії - прошу мене вибачити й підтримати. Я навіть не знаю якою мовою маю писати цей текст, не впевнений я я за адресою його відправляю. Тому нижче додам англійський переклад цього тексту, й відправлю обидва тексти (українською й англійською) в інші вікна, посилання на які пропонує мені лист на email. Якщо Ви українець, прошу подзвонити мені на 068-626-17-18 або написати на potapenkovd@meta.ua, й розтлумачити ситуацію простою мовою.
Щиро вдячний! З повагою, Потапенко Володимир.
Problem: I received a warning from Adamant1 about the possible removal of a large number of unique thematic photos that I uploaded to the Сигарета article of the Ukrainian Wikipedia.
Essence:
1. I, Volodymyr Dmytrovych Potapenko, a leading tobacco expert of Ukraine, one of the world's well-known nikovilia experts, owner of the largest collection of cigarettes and cigarettes in Ukraine and one of the largest in the world (40,000+ copies). My collection is entered in the National Register of Records of Ukraine.
2. Several years ago, in the article Cigarette, in the chapter "Cigarettes in Ukraine", I created a section "Domestic Ukrainian manufacturers, brands and designs of cigarettes", and in it a table with a list of all Ukrainian brands and brands of cigarettes - then without a photo.
3. In recent weeks, I have been busy adding a photo to each position in the table. In total, the table will contain up to a thousand photo designs of cigarette packs that were produced in Ukraine and on the territory of Ukraine from 1945 to 2023.
4. All photos are different, the vast majority of photos were created by me personally with a scanner or camera, these are photos of bundles from my own collection, which is kept at my home (Dnipro). The smaller part of the photo was taken at my request by my colleague Andrii Yakovenko (Kharkiv), the owner of the second largest collection of cigarettes in Ukraine. He and I work together under my leadership and responsibility. A small part of the photos are taken from the Internet from open sources.
5. Apart from me, no one in Ukraine can perform this work qualitatively. Completion of the table is expected in 2 weeks, in December 2023. After that, any person of Ukraine will be able to find a photo of cigarettes that he smoked as a child or smokes now, to follow the development of the assortment of tobacco products of Ukraine. In addition, I will organize advertising of this table in international groups of cigarette collectors of the world, which will lead to an increase in visits to Ukrainian Wikipedia. The given information will be a guide on the topic for many decades to come.
Please: allow the storage of uploaded photos and display them in the article Сигарета, allow the continuation of uploading photos to complete the filling of the table.
In addition: I have only basic knowledge of editing Wikipedia, so I do the minimum amount of work required. Obviously, I did not do all the necessary actions - please forgive me and support me. I don't even know what language I should write this text in, I'm not sure at the address I'm sending it to. Therefore, I will add the English translation of this text below, and I will send both texts (in Ukrainian and English) to other windows, the links to which are offered in the email. If you are Ukrainian, please call me at 068-626-17-18 or write to potapenkovd@meta.ua and explain the situation in simple language.
Sincerely grateful! Sincerely, Volodymyr Potapenko. Potapenkovd (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Potapenkovd: Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like a cool project. The problem is that unique artwork on matchbook covers is often copyrighted, which is why I nominated the images for deletion. Please read Commons:Copyright rules and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine. Per the last link, the normal copyright term in Ukraine is 70 years after the publication date for anonymous works or 70+ years after the artists death. The few images of matchbook covers in your collection that were either created prior to 1953 or where the artwork is minimal would be fine for Commons. That seems like only a small amount of the images you uploaded though and I didn't include them in the deletion request anyway. The rest were clearly published after 1953 and contain copyrightable artwork. One of the problems though is that you didn't to include any information about the dates of publication or artists when you uploaded the files.
Regardless, I can understand wanting to document and share your collection, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't possibly violate other people's copyrights. Otherwise you'd probably be better off uploading the collection to Flickr or a personal website. Your free to upload images of pre-1953 matchbook covers to Commons if you include the publication date in the file descriptions though. Otherwise there's really no way for us to know or verify that they aren't copyrighted. Commons obviously isn't going to host copyrighted material just because your using it to create a Wikipedia article either. That's not how this works, again per Commons:Copyright rules and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine. Both of which I really recommend you read and follow in the future if you don't want this to happen again. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't include any information about the dates of publication because these photos were never published. I made them myself and saved them on my own computer. If I upload photos to Flickr or a personal website, no one in the world will see them. On Wikipedia, I shared a unique database with the whole world, with all people. If this work is destroyed, after my death, perhaps this systematized knowledge will be lost forever. Potapenkovd (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Potapenkovd: It seems you didn't read the guidelines like I asked you to. Otherwise you'd know I was talking about the publication dates for the match covers, not your photographs of them. Just to reiterate myself since you didn't get it the first time, Your free to upload images of pre-1953 matchbook covers to Commons if you include the publication dates of the match covers in the file descriptions. Otherwise the photographs are copyrighted per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging and similar guidelines. Which again, you need to read and follow if your going to continue uploading images. Also, I wouldn't discount Flickr as a place to store the images. I have an account there myself that I use a backup. Images I upload to both places will often get more views on Flickr then the reverse. The important thing though is that they are more lax about copyright then Commons is. So you'd probably have zero problems uploading the images there. Otherwise the images are bound to be deleted eventually if you continue to try and upload them here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Princess Alice, 1859.jpg[edit]

Royal Collection Trust / © His Majesty King Charles III 2023 ZimskoSonce (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BOORST Logo rgb 1000px weiß.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, one of multiple promo images uploaded by presumed company rep, no use Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bin iNHABER DER FIRMA boorst UND boorst IST dpma mARKENRECHT EIGETRAGEN:
wERDE BEI lÖSCHUNGEN sCHADENERSTANSPRÜCHE GELTEND MACHEN Lall193035 (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Figure 14- An undirected graph of Continental U.S states.png[edit]

It looks like this is a copyright violation: the same figure appears in Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming", page 254 (Section 7.1.4: "Binary decision diagrams"). The same is probably the case for the other uploads by the user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Andyguo1023 A3nm (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ponyprog screenshot mainwindow.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 06:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Autor- F. Tales Massei.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source - perhaps Kacamata could explain why he or she does not accept the uploader's claim that they took the photo themselves? Geo Swan (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geo Swan. This file has no indication of a valid source on the metadata. Also, this is very likely a copyvio (see here). This account is an SPA trying to use Pt.WP as a means for promotion. Anyway, this is a personal, unused, out of scope image. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Kacamata, the guy is a Professor, and the editor of a scholarly journal. Surely that makes images of him in scope? I have seen some people assert that an individual has to measure up to en.wiiki's WP:GNG before they are in scope, and I assert that is too high a bar. I think WP:CSD#A7 notability is all that needs to be met. Massei meets that.
Because we only use freely licensed images individuals sometimes assert we are using images that hurt their vanity. I ask those individuals to consider picking their favorite selfie, or going to a professional photographer, and uploading a superior image to the one they don't like. I don't think there is any policy-based reason why a genuinely notable person should not upload some of their favorite images of themselves, or ask a friend to take a photo, and upload that. I think this is true even if they are only WP:CSD#A7 notable. If you think this advice is incorrect, please explain why.
As to whether this particular image is a copyright violation, or a "likely" policy violation... can you explain your reasoning more fully? Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person is not notable by any means. This is only a published author, like the thousands who try every single day, use the WP as a means for self-promotion. The uploader account is a spammer and tried to create an article for this person in the pt.WP several times, before the title was protected against recreation. As per the claim of copyvio, the image was published before elsewhere, hence it was taken from the internet and published here. If the image were properly uploaded with proper source and info, I would never ask for its deletion, because it could be useful in the future. However, I honestly don't think it's the case here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geo Swan It's way worse than I thought. This is a LTA. See User:F. Tales Massei. They have several socks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Kacamata you wrote the uploader planned to "use the WP as a means for self-promotion". Could you please respond to the 2nd paragraph of my initial reply?
As to whether the images of Massei were uploaded by someone who employed sockpuppetry, and who has been blocked... WMF projects block people. Sometimes they are blocked indefinitely, if shorter blocks don't get them to comply with policy. But when do we routinely delete material they uploaded, before they were blocked? Answer, we don't do that. Material they uploaded, before their block, may be deleted, but on a case by case basis, when it violates policy. We don't punish them by deleting all their contributions, even those that comply with policy... So, sorry, but I dismiss your arguments calling for the deletion of these images, because the uploader may have been an LTA.
You say that, over on the Portugese wiki, he tried to create an article about himself, and it was deleted. Well, that article probably violated the Portugese wiki's version of COI. It does not mean he did not measure up to the Portugese wiki's version of A7. I suggest he does measure up to en.wiki's version of A7. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His article was deleted in the PT.WP because he's not notable per any means. Simply as that. Not because he violated any "Portuguese wiki's version of COI". As per "use the WP as a means for self-promotion", it's evident by the fact that this is (again) a cross-wiki spammer with several socks blocked here and in the PT.WP. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Kacamata, you now seem to be accusing the uploader of "self-promotion", in uploading their own images. It seems to me that contradicts your earlier claim that the images are copyright violations. Should we assume you are dropping copyright violation as a justification for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is funny. These images were uploaded by a cross-wiki spammer, so it's obviously an attempt to self-promotion. Also, none of these images have a proper source and most of them are likely copyvio. It's funny how you are so interested to keep images uploaded by a LTA. Images that are out of scope, personal and unused. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Wait a second. How can you assert the images are copyright violations, while also asserting Massei took them himself, and uploaded them for "self-promotion"?
  2. If you are accusing him of uploading his own photos, for self-promotion, why do you also keep asserting there is no source?
  3. As a Professor, journal editor, and author, why are you not accepting he is at least WP:CSD#A7 notable?
  4. Isn't his current block status irrelevant when considering whether these images are in scope? Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete out of scope image uploaded by a spammer and LTA with several blocked socks here and in the pt.WP. Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I asked you, multiple time, why you think the activities that got him blocked justify deletion.
    • I pointed out that WMF projects don't routinely delete everything a blocked contributor ever submitted. Rather non-compliant material is challenged on a case by case basis.
    • You keep asserting the image is out of scope. I pointed out that Massie's status, as a Professor and Journal editor and author mean that he at least measures up to WP:CSD#A7 notability. I have asked you, repeatedly, to explain why you don't accept that this puts images of him in scope. Even if he is not notable enough for a standalone article images of him could be used on the University where he teaches. Geo Swan (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dr. F. Tales Massei - Teólogo e Escritor.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source - perhaps Kacamata could explain why he or she does not accept the uploader's claim that they took the photo themselves? Geo Swan (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Geo Swan. This file has no indication of a valid source on the metadata. This account is an SPA trying to use Pt.WP as a means for promotion. Anyway, this is a personal, unused, out of scope image. Regards. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lebedev sniper.jpg[edit]

Fake license. Also Lebedev himself couldn't be an author of the foto. Kursant504 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep and tag with {{PD-Russia-1996}}, on the basis that "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym: [...] between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, and the name of the author did not become known during 70 years after publication, counted from January 1 of the year following the year of publication." Verbcatcher (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Генерал-майор И.И. Якубовский на улице Москвы.jpeg[edit]

no evidence that it was published anywhere more than 70 years ago Kursant504 (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:الريادة، فن اقتناص الفرص لتقديم القيمة.pdf[edit]

Copyrighted Materials: Publication date 2004 Michel Bakni (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dear sir,
the book will be available early 2024. It is not 2004. I am posting a preview of the book for interested arabic readers. I am responsible for this work. It is my own work.
Best
Thanking you
Wisam Shamroukh (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Helianthemum vulgare DIAGRAMMA.jpeg[edit]

unknown / unverifiable source in combination with date of creation stated as 1900, which seems to be the basis for having applied license PD-OLD : This combination cannot work together with claim that a WP-user is the author of the image. Delete file due to potential CopyVio unless Source, Author, and License can be updated / corrected properly. Archie02 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K.s.undercover.png[edit]

fake album cover and gibberish Prototyperspective (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment. The file is currently in-use on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please leave this DR open until somebody has clarified whether it is fake which it seems to be and corrected the misinfo.
Maybe I'll do so but it would be best if somebody else, speaking Ukrainian, could do that. Same for File:Capitan evidence.jpg. Any Ukrainian editor here? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have requested the image to be removed on the talk page. Will remove it myself if it's not done quickly. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed it from uk:Кей Сі. Під прикриттям since nobody replied by now. Waiting for a short time before deletion so it's possible that the removal is reverted would be good. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Vasa-till-bernadotte-statschefens-uppgifter-foto-jean-baptiste-beranger v3.jpg[edit]

It is unclear that this image's terms of use (see https://www.kungligaslotten.se/press--och-bildarkiv.html) are compatible with Commons' licensing requirements. WikiDan61 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Heimo1.jpg[edit]

from Facebook. No indication that own work Estopedist1 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photo in question is also used on Facebook, demonstrating its public distribution. The author of the photo is the person depicted on it, and all rights and permissions to use this photo have been obtained from owner and person from photo. The photo, along with all this information, has been uploaded, and the rights to it are registered to Heimo Aaduaadua (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Guruji Vishwananda.jpg[edit]

Available at a higher resolution at https://shraddha-om.livejournal.com/477091.html, albeit with a later upload date. I can’t figure out the source for the image, since the original uploader doesn’t seem to exist. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:52 hertz short film.jpg[edit]

Nothing to suggest that Mehrnews.com owns the rights to the poster Trade (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Foto grupal presentació llibre i pòdcast Superheroïnes de l'esport (07-02-2023).jpg[edit]

Potentially derivative work Trade (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand your point of view, because source and license are clear.--KRLS (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The poster in the background is still copyrighted Trade (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade Ok! I have added ''de minimis'' template, because poster is not the main object of the image. This is an image could be used in book tour article or similar. KRLS (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm willing to retract if you blurry the poster. Since it's not the main object, it shouldn't hurt the image too much Trade (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
''De minimis'' doesn't work as you explain. If you want to make a derivative work blurring the poster, go ahead. KRLS (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Patricia Fanlo.jpg[edit]

terms of use: El Gobierno de Navarra es titular de los derechos de propiedad del dominio web www.navarra.es (http://www.navarra.es), así como de los elementos contenidos en el mismo. ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PengGuanying.jpg[edit]

I can find this photo on social media, missing information about real author, source ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Casa de la Senyoria d'Olocau 16.jpg[edit]

Images from 1979 up to 1981 - why exactly they should be free licensed? Especially when taken out of th context as File:Helena Bonet, excavació al Puntal dels Llops, 1981.jpg? It is sad, but the creator is not dead since 50/70/100 years, so there's no freedom. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Screenshot of safari, against Commons:Screenshot

Lemonaka (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MarwaHassani.png[edit]

La joueuse m'a contacté et elle ne veut plus que cette photo figure sur wikpédia pour des raisons religieuses car elle porte désormais le voile. Khalil Le Rajaoui (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pita-limjaroenrat.jpg[edit]

Photo: Sirakorn Lamyai (info: https://www.tatlerasia.com/gen-t/leadership/pita-limjaroenrat-the-young-businessman-ready-to-be-a-prime-minister-for-all-thais) ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blason ville fr Ormoy-la-Rivière (Essonne).svg[edit]

Le blason a été modifié par la commune fin 2020 et celui-ci n'est plus le bon / voir https://www.ormoy-la-riviere.fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Blason_Histoire.pdf 86.246.12.68 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PManeg 1192 25 I.jpg[edit]

© Paul M.R. Maeyaert,pmrmaeyaert@gmail.com ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Paul Maeyaert, a.k.a. uploader User:PMRMaeyaert, is indeed the copyright holder of this photograph. He has released this file under the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Vysotsky (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sln.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Somaliland.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Profile YamadaMarina 20210401.jpg[edit]

Copyright: 2018 by Crocodile.ltd ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I received permission from the copyright holder to publish the image.
https://www.crocodile-ltd.com/news/post-2806
I have corrected the "source" to this link, so I would like you to withdraw your deletion request. LyingDownCat3725 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Emblem of the Government of West Bengal.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G4 Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose This file is used in a the Bangla translation of the Constitution of India which itself is under {{EdictGov-India}}. The book is being transcribed on Bangla Wikisource and this file is needed there for the transcription of the relevant part. The rationale behind previous deletion request does not fit here. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete This qualified as SD, because the same logo was deleted 2 months ago in this DR and its undeletion was later rejected in this UDR. Also the description claims it was extracted from an official PDF, but the document is monochrome and logs indicates the SVG file was transferred from this link, a website that doesn't use free licenses[11]. Günther Frager (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rahele Asemani.jpg[edit]

terms of use: © هرگونه کپی برداری از مطالب سایت فتوکده صرفا با کسب مجوز امکان پذیر است ZimskoSonce (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court[edit]

No evidence this is a federal government work, the Tennesee Historical Society is not the federal government.

* Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rita-Subowo-pidato-lagi.jpg[edit]

this low quality image is all over internet, can't find information about author ZimskoSonce (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Published at least as early as 2014, found at https://m.tribunnews.com/superball/2014/06/27/rita-subowo-wakil-asia-kurang-beruntung Adeletron 3030 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A. Bartlett Giamatti in 1982.jpg[edit]

I loaded this but have since found their copyright registration in the USCO database for all issues of The College Board Review from 1978 onward. RAN (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Roggenmischbrot hay còn gọi tắt là Mischbrot, một trong những loại bánh mì đặc trưng của Đức.jpg[edit]

random internet image (example: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-different-kinds-of-breads-in-Germany-and-what-are-they-used-for) ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Obi Peter Adigwe.jpg[edit]

Flag is copyvio of this work, which has been found on the internet earlier: https://www.informationng.com/2013/10/the-wonders-of-night-life-in-nigeria.html Bremps... 19:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peter obi dan takaran shugaban kasa Nigeria 2023 (cropped).jpg[edit]

Same rationale as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter obi dan takaran shugaban kasa Nigeria 2023.jpg Bremps... 19:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Royal hanfu.png[edit]

source: https://www.nuwahanfu.com/product-page/dream-of-red-chamber-ming-dynasty-historical-restoration-pifeng ZimskoSonce (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logotipo de Panamericana Televisión (1978-1979).svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Ruthis.123 as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? Johnj1995 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Museugrafia Eufònic Urbà Festival.jpg[edit]

I think we need VRT permission from Jordi Play on this file, as they are clearly the copyright holder in the metadata. Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The license of the work is PDM 1.0 Deed Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal
https://www.flickr.com/photos/artssantamonica/49639245736/
If you finally decide to make any changes related to this image, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. Alzinous (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Helmut Grill vor seinem Atelier in Wien.jpg[edit]

Ureheber und abgebildete Person sollen identisch sein, es handelt sich aber eindeutig nicht um ein Selfie, insofern liegt eine Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" vor Lutheraner (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gibt doch ne Selbstauslöser-Funktion. Unwahrscheinlich, aber möglich. BurningKestrel (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Andershall au Défilé twerkistan .jpg[edit]

Mise à jour MatrixEncrypt (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Small size, no EXIF, etc. Uncertain copyright. Very little educational value. Yann (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Guinea bissau anthem.ogg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guinea-Bissau.ogg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Esta é a Nossa Pátria Bem Amada (instrumental).ogg Champion (Talk) 21:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 14[edit]

File:Coat National Bolshevik Party.svg[edit]

The work meets the threshold of originality. FlorianH76 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Grégory Montel - Festival de Cannes 2008.jpg[edit]

I am Mr Grégory Montel and i do not authorise this picture of me in wikipedia Baigneur76 (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cette photo est extraite d'une autre photo. Cela signifirait que les deux photos doivent être supprimées. D'autre part, cette photo a été prise lors d'un point presse, d'après la description. Cela signifie que c'est une photo d'une personnalité publique prise dans alors que cette personne exerçait sa fonction de personnalité publique. Donc, totalement légal. J'admets que Grégory Montel n'est pas forcément à son avantage sur cette photo mais c'est la seule de lui. Si Grégory Montel peut fournir une meilleure photo de lui, ça permettrait d'illustrer son article avec une meilleur photo. Cette photo-ci n'aurait alors plus d'intérêt et pourrait clairement être supprimée sans dommage pour le projet. Guy Delsaut (discuter) 12:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SaveGER6-Demonstration des Nuklearia e. V.jpg[edit]

copyvio ([12]), no public domain 2003:D0:5F1F:B250:2DBC:7589:8DC6:46EF 13:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The image's original has the following copyright and license info in its EXIF metadata: © Copyright 2020, Rainer Klute, CC-BY 3.0. So I do not see on which grounds the deletion request is made. Public domain was not claimed when uploading. The Wikimedia Commons metadata section says CC-BY 3.0, too.
Maybe, the reporter merely looked at the thumbnail embedded on https://saveger6.de/stand-up-for-nuclear-2020/ ? One has to click on the thumbnail in order to browse the photographer's Google Photos gallery. Sommozzatore (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

None of the nominated images show the monument trivially or incidentally (so not de minimis). See Commons:Deletion requests/File:17-07-02-Maidan Nezalezhnosti RR74396.jpg for the information about this unfree public art from Ukraine.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Blasone Urselli.svg[edit]

[translated from Italian] It is a low-resolution black and white Urselli (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kiev maidan.jpg[edit]

The monument is centered and not de minimis here. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:17-07-02-Maidan Nezalezhnosti RR74396.jpg for the information about this unfree public art from Ukraine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Фидель Кастро проезжает по ул. Декабрьских Событий.jpg[edit]

Not an own work, not old enough for PD, the author of the photo is Александр Георгиевич Васильев and it is under copyright (see bottom of the file). The same with File:Люди на ул. Декабрьских Событий ждя Фиделя Кастро.jpg ‎ - SpeedOfLight (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Charc2018 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream.

Gikü (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, the FlickR account states that these files are in the public domain. How do I understand if they are not? Thanks Charc2018 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing wrong on the FlickR account side. The problem is in Commons. These two deletion rationalia from past Deletion Requests of such files may help... or may not: Special:Diff/553811085, Special:Diff/613203828. Gikü (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for this context, I despair a bit! Charc2018 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jüri Antsmaa.jpg[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep PD-EU for a 1915 image from Estonia, you can fix in the time it took to nominate. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Can you please explain the evidence you are using to support the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} licence you added? Specifically, the template requires that "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication." Suggesting the nominator can source this evidence "in the time it took to nominate" is not a fair comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You cannot prove a negative, the best we can do is perform due diligence. Tineye looked at over 15 billion images and did not find anyone making an active copyright claim. Nor did it find an attributed photographer. Google image search performed the same search and returned the same results. The search took a few nanoseconds. --RAN (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not arguing either way on this one but I would note that your TinEye argument is fundamentally flawed. Several times I have used TinEye and got zero matches, only for me to find the image on Getty images (or similar site). Yes, it claims to search billions of files but if it can't find a match in a popular stock photo site, it can't be seen as particularly reliable for proving an image is free of copyright. Also, TinEye searches don't always work well with matching crops to a more complete source. Finally, using an online only search provides no information about copyright details from a physical work - the source may record the photographer's name and we would never know (as the uploader gave no source details other than claiming it as own work). From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The best we can due is perform due diligence. Almost all copyright jurisdictions allow a clawback from the public domain should a named creator be found while the copyright period is still active. I also never said I only used Tineye, I also said I used Google Image Search, which does search through Getty. You can always argue that if I just keep searching a little bit more, I may find and active copyright claimant or a named creator, but that fear, uncertainty, and doubt argument can be used on every image using this license. You can also endlessly play the "what if game". Who took the picture? It must be the named photographer, right? What if the photographer was in the bathroom, and an assistant pressed the shutter release. What if the photographer's spouse pressed the shutter release while the photographer adjusted a light. What if a monkey entered the photo studio while the photographer, their spouse, and the photographer's assistant, were inattentive and the monkey pressed the shutter release. What if the camera was on a random timer, and no one was responsible for pressing the shutter release.

File:The Pilot- A Tale of the Sea.png[edit]

fake book cover ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1952 - NeuweilerLight Lager Beer Label - Allentown PA.jpg[edit]

The label clearly has a copyright marking on it. Although it's possible the copyright wasn't renewed, but there's zero evidence of that and the license needs to be changed if that's the case. Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I do wonder if the copyright is even valid. It looks to me like the only copyrightable element of that logo would be the eagle and sheafs; I suspect we might find one just like it pre-1928, though it would of course take some research. - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might be right. Who knows. I'm fine with redrawing this if someone can find an example from before 1928. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 15[edit]

Files in Category:Mass grave of Soviet soldiers on Lomonosova Avenue, Kostiantynivka[edit]

Commercial freedom of panorama is not granted in Ukraine. The monument was erected in 1974. This means the sculptor is not yet dead for more than 70 years for the monument to be in public domain in Ukraine. Also, as a pre-1978 monument, may be eligible for U.S. copyright through Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which means even if this monument becomes free in Ukraine, the images should not be undeleted until U.S. copyright expires (1974+95+1 years). URAA can be ignored if Ukraine had commercial FoP (which would have made {{Not-free-US-FOP}} applicable here).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


While the rest is true, the comment about URAA is confusing here. We've never cared about URAA for pictures of monuments that fall under FOP.
I really think somebody should ask the Ukraine government to establish FOP, as a precondition for entering the EU ;-) Most of these monuments will anyway be destroyed at the end of the war, unfortunatelly. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PaterMcFly no hope for Ukraine in my opinion. Ukrainian Wikimedians lobbied for an adequate FoP at least for public outdoors and exteriors, beginning in 2014, but look at what their legislature gave in Dec. last year (2022): a non-commercial FoP (see COM:FOP Ukraine), with their legislature making a dubious claim that the 2022 amendments, such as the non-commercial FoP, they introduced are in accordance with EU model. (Non-commercial FoP in accordance with EU model? Very dubious claim.) The fact that their legislature introduced non-commercial FoP may have been a big slap to Ukrainian Wikimedians that had been lobbying for a sufficient FoP for about eight years (from 2014 up to last year). This also means the famous Kharkiv Regional Administration Building (the target of Russian strikes in March last year) still remains not free for commercial CC licensing on Commons (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sumska 64, Kharkiv).
For URAA, many public domain Slovenian monuments have been redeleted because of direct conflict with URAA (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sveti Janez Marija Vianej.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Trnovo Bridge as two examples). If Slovenia had commercial FoP, we wouldn't mind about URAA and instead slap all Slovenian monuments with {{Not-free-US-FOP}} tag, whether still under copyright or not. The same is true for Ukrainian monuments, whether copyrighted or in public domain, U.S. copyright doesn't matter as long as we can slap those images with that tag. But as Ukrainian FoP is invalid (non-commercial only), that tag is also invalid for Ukrainian monuments. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, understood. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you where arguing that URAA would need to apply even for countries that do have commercial FOP, such as germany. PaterMcFly (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Lenin on Lenin Sq., Dnipropetrovsk[edit]

Commercial freedom of panorama is not permitted in Ukraine. Removal in 2014 does not magically eliminate sculptors' posthumous copyrights. The statue dates to 1957 and is co-authored by late sculptors Макар Вронський (d. 1994) and Олексій Олійник (d. 1977) as well as late architect Олександр Сидоренко (unknown death date).

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:A portrait of Cheoljong.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Zhxy 519 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Marking as possible copyvio because A restoration work during 1987-1989 by Choi Kwang-su (1932-1990), no copyright released. MGA73 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More for reference:

--Zhxy 519 (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... That is indeed a special case, as the restoration was basically a recreation of half the image. That's clearly not an usual restoration task. Do we know when the original was that badly damaged and whether there exist pictures of the image before it was destroyed? If the image was destroyed long ago and there are no pictures how it looked before, the restoration would indeed include the artists creative activity. PaterMcFly (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to [13], the original was damaged on 26 Dec 1954. Unfortunately no photo found taken before the damage. Zhxy 519 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/insource:https://legvi.org/[edit]

The photographers photographing members and buildings of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands are not employees of the United States federal government deserving of exemption from federal copyright law under {{PD-USGov}} without evidence. Vague references to https://legvi.org/ are insufficient.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added File:Seal of Virgin Islands Legislature.png, designed by someone who is not a federal employee either.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Jeff G., are the Virgin Islands not covered by Template:PD-USGov-Unincorporated? "Used for work created by governments of 'W:Unorganized territories' (excluding American Samoa), because they are considered part of the US Federal Government) and hence their works are ineligible for copyright" according to Commons:Copyright tags/Country-specific tags#US_Territories. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BottleOfChocolateMilk: Who were the photographers? Were they working for the US federal government at the time of photography? Exactly what pages did these photos appear on?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jeff G. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you read the copyright tag I posted, it says that the territories are "considered part of the US Federal Government." Why do we need to know the name of the photographer if we know it was created by the territorial government? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BottleOfChocolateMilk: To satisfy our COM:EVID policy.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jeff G. All that page says is that the uploader must show "the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed...as far as can reasonably be determined." If it's an official headshot of a legislator posted on the official website of the legislature, it seems fair to assume it was produced by a government employee. By your logic, no official portrait of any politician in any government can be posted on Commons, since we basically never know the exact person who took the photo; I challenge you to find a file posted using one of the many US government copyright tags where the name of the photographer is known. Tens of thousands of files would have to be removed from this site, potentially hundreds of thousands. It really seems like your interpretation of this rule is vastly different from the prevailing consensus. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BottleOfChocolateMilk: That is how copyright laws and our policies work. There once was a headshot of an certain orange-haired POTUS that was taken during his candidacy and that his supporters really liked. Despite pleas by his supporters, we couldn't host it because we didn't have permission; it was not produced by a government employee. Candidates for office frequently get their headshots taken by professional photographers, who in some cases do not release their copyrights unless they are paid an exorbitant price. I have seen signed contracts and bills for prices at or above US$10,000, which I believe is the typical size of the fine for copyright infringement. Does the USVI Senate have one or more official photographer(s)? Are they on the payroll for that Senate? What is/are their name(s)? I would accept a pool of names, one of which would be the actual photographer. If we did not protect the rights of the actual photographers, they could file DMCA complaints with us and our reusers, or sue for copyright infringement. We have lots of photos taken by named and ranked US Navy photographers in the course of their duties released by the Navy, I believe through a system called NIBIN; we host them cheerfully.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jeff G. I'm confused. Are you calling to remove the official headshots of all U.S. senators unless a photographer can be named? Again, I don't get why you're trying to act like your interpretation of the rule is actually the consensus when 99% of government-produced images on here don't have a named photographer listed. If you really think you're right, then feel free to nominate every single congressional headshot for deletion. I'm serious. Go to File:John Fetterman official portrait.jpg--which does not have a photographer listed, and thus, by your interpretation of the rule, should be deleted--and nominate it for deletion. Since that file is used on Fetterman's Wikipedia page, the deletion discussion will attract more attention, and we can see how many editors interpret COM:EVID the same way you do. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @BottleOfChocolateMilk: I am not picking a fight with a sitting US Senator; you can if you want. This page concerns Senators in the USVI Senate, a lopsided unicameral body that probably can't afford a staff photographer. US Senators (and the US Senate as a whole) probably can. FYI, the uploader of most of these files, LiveIsle2022, has been blocked indefinitely for uploading unfree files after warnings. Who was the photographer of File:Vialet.jpg and File:Vialet (cropped).jpg?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jeff G. lol thanks, that talk page message gave me a laugh. Photographers are not that expensive, we shouldn't be picking and choosing based on which legislative bodies we think are too poor to pay for a photographer. Who was the photographer of File:John Fetterman official portrait.jpg? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rifugio-3A.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Erastophanes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.rifugi-omg-formazza.it/?page_id=141 Friedo (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Seite ist öffentlich (Link enthalten bei Rifugio 3A). Der Fotograf ergab sich nicht daraus; sicher kann man auch eine andere Lizenz wählen. Einen Löschgrund sehe ich allerdings nicht.--Friedo (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Seite hat keine Angaben zum Urheberrecht, zumindest habe ich nichts gefunden. Daher kann man nicht davon ausgehen, dass die Inhalte Public Domain sind, das Internet ist kein rechtsfreier Raum. Der Fotograf wäre, wenn er das Foto direkt nach Erbauen der Hütte geschossen hätte, und dann gestorben wäre, grade mal 44 Jahre tot, das ist weniger als 70. Du hast doch, nach deriner Benutzerdisk hier, schon mehr Erfahrungen mit dem Urheberrecht gemacht. Ohne Freigabe des Fotografen geht nix, bei unbekanntem fotografen greift die pragmatische Lösung 100 (oder 120?) Jahre nach Veröffentlichung ... Erastophanes (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich werde versuchen, den Fotografen herauszufinden oder eine Erlaubnis des Vereins zur Veröffentlichung zu erhalten. Friedo (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich habe den Verein angeschrieben, bislang aber noch keine Antwort erhalten. --Friedo (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Izmir Metro Extension.png[edit]

Created from incorrect data bluetime93 💬 13:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Calvados - Haut-Empire romain (territoires des cités) - Localisation de Giberville.png[edit]

Auteur de la carte. Création du fichier avec la mauvaise extension. Import d'un autre fichier au format SVG. Augusta 89 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:DRNH-9900006666 蘇俄外交政策 (page 4 crop).jpg[edit]

The photographer is not specified, so PD rationale cannot ground on term of author's life. 188.123.231.51 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Now fixed, it comes from a PD-Taiwan book. --RAN (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Delete. This is published in USSR for China. The photograph is no way of Chinese origin but Russian, so Chinese PD terms are not applicable. --188.123.231.51 06:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Are you claiming that Chinese photographers were not allowed to visit the USSR? -- Wesha (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Wesha, are you claiming that Soviet officials, wishing to publish any brochure home in the USSR in Chinese, had to invite a Chinese photographer to Moscow? Otherwise they wouldn't have managed it? And for 50 identical books in different languages - 50 photographers from the corresponding countries? Your logic resembles one of the old joke, when, in order to get three half-length photographs, you should dig three holes. As far as I see, you are on the side of those who want to prove that the photo is in the public domain? So do it and don't ask me for proof. --188.123.231.51 03:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Do you have that book? Does it explicitly state that its creators were Soviet people? When I see a book in a langiuage not terribly widely spoken outside of country X (unlike English, which is well better widespread), I'm giving 95% chance that such book was written by a native of the country X. Otherwise, it would be quite harkening to a case of Chinglish (in reverse). -- Wesha (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It just got more fun. If you make the extraordinary claim that the Soviet Union is not capable of publishing a brochure in Chinese for its own embassy in China, then you read your favorite coffee table book. And wouldn’t it be difficult for you to finally explain how all these thoughtful talks about languages have to do with the photography under discussion? And don't forget to open the link to the policy above. It clearly states who must prove what to whom. --188.123.231.51 04:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rei - Drawing (307406194).jpg[edit]

Falls too far into the derivative work territory to be acceptable per COM:FANART. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:BT ultrasound.jpg[edit]

The source is open access (meaning it's available without payment), but I can't find any evidence it's relased under what Commons consideres a free license * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SCC MRI.png[edit]

No evidence this is available under a free license * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bersama dengan Presiden Soeharto di kediaman beliau.jpg[edit]

probably wrong date and not own work Xocolatl (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bersama Mohammad Hatta.jpg[edit]

probably wrong date and not own work Xocolatl (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The uploader's account is not verified as Kira Yarmysh's personal account. It is unlikely that the depicted person is the photographer too.

A.Savin 18:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ertuğrul Sağlam 2023.jpg[edit]

I contest this licence on flickr. The account is very new, no followers, no nothing, and Kocaelispor does not have a link from the official website to this flickr account. Looks like someone simply took the official photos and created this flickr account to falsely claim cc licence.... https://kocaelispor.com.tr/ If this flickr account IS a valid account, Kocaelispor should confirm this to Commons. Xia (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Xia: , I am founder member of Wikimedia Community User Group Turkey, We are encouraging content sharing with this type of sport clubs. Last year photographers sharing with his acoount FFÇetin, you can see linkedin and instagram his personal accounts. And this year they decided create new account for club. As you can see almost all photos studio photos. I hope this explanation is OK. Regards, Zafer (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zafer They should link this account from an official page or send a letter to commons. Anyone can make an account on flickr and claim it's official. Having personal connections is great but we need to think about traceability of licences in 10, 20, 30+ years too. Xia (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Xia: , I can ask them for this type of icon for their website but If they close website or change domain how can we trace after 10 years? "I think" Community members are reliable users, aren't we? Regards, Zafer (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zafer: archive sites like The Internet Archive, and Licence Reviewers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Jeff G.: , you sent warn meesage, but i didn't commit any violations. Our last year cooperatin news release is here and also You can find evidence of the meeting here last July. Zafer (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zafer: You uploaded File:Turkish general election, 2015 - Justice and Development Party (Turkey) - İsmail Kaşdemir - Canakkale.JPG in violation of COM:POSTER. There are more redlinks on your user talk page and the edit history thereof.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Jeff G.: , I was uploaded many years ago, as you can see my recent uploaded there are no any upload like this. I have more then 10.000 files. I am not deleting or hiding deleted file message. All of them staying there. Also you can see my deleted changes more than 4500 deleted change. Almost all of them delete request. I always try to be a useful user. Please consider this too. Regards, Zafer (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also if you are search on Google here resolution is 1080 × 1350, Flickr copy is 3.814 × 4.488. Regards, Zafer (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Statue of Lesya Ukrainka, Zviahel[edit]

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The monument was inaugurated in 1987 and the cited authors were sculptor Обезюка Миколи Наумовича (still alive) and architects Босенка Миколи Олександровича and Жигуліна Валентина Костянтиновича.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Kulykivskyi Park (05).jpg[edit]

The park apparently dates to 1966, so the sculpture must have been displayed there in the same year (or later).

Assuming 1966 as the year of public display, it is a pre-1978 fine art still copyrighted in the United States (established by the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act that Commons must follow). U.S. copyright expires on January 1, 2062 (provided that it is also from 1966 just like the park). However, there is no immediate information on when this monument was exactly erected or who was its sculptor, to determine copyright status in Ukraine. As Ukraine does not allow commercial freedom of panorama, Commons may need to take this image down per COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by Michaelnacario24 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Most likely previously published on Facebook: FBMD code seen at the metadata. Proof of identity verification of the true copyright holder (the photographer) via email correspondence is required for images previously published on social media so to confirm if the uploader is indeed the photographer (the copyright holder) of these images and that the photographer (the copyright owner) has applied the license as indicated, as there have been numerous cases on Wiki before (and up to now) that the uploaders just grabbed images from Facebook or other social media sites. For email template, see COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. Better still, have the originals overwrite these FB-derived images, if the images are truly self-photographed works of the uploader.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Legoland.PHOTOSPHERE.jpg[edit]

Protected by copyrigt, Freedom of panorama is not working ether. Lukas Beck (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mine-deFunes-1934.png[edit]

This file was uploaded with a {{PD-France}} license tag and the claim that it is a "Collective" work (a category in French copyright law), but the site it was taken from clearly says it's a photo by French photographer fr:Jean Moral (1906–1999). So this photo is not "collective", but the work of an individual, and it is still protected in France until the end of 2069. So the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2070. Rosenzweig τ 21:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright holder is not necessarily also the author. In this case, the author is named as Jean Moral. --Rosenzweig τ 11:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • According to the French law, if the author (photographer) works officially for an agency, even when his name is specified, this is collective work.
Studio Harcourt photos have been judged to be collective works [14]
This judgement makes a "juris prudence" in France, so the "70 years after the photo has been taken" rule applies.
Regards. Tisourcier (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read quite a bit about collective works in French copyright for another deletion request. We have {{PD-France}} for collective works, which says right in the template The collective work status is quite restrictive, please make sure that it is actually established. Is it for this case? en.wp has an article on these collective works, en:Collective work (France), which says The concept of a collective work (œuvre collective) in French law is complicated and unclear, [...] The article goes on to say that all authorities agree that the concept of an oeuvre collective in France covers dictionaries, encyclopaedias and periodical works such as newspapers or magazines.

Here and here are two articles about court cases from 2014 and 2017. The second one immediately starts by saying that such court decisions declaring photographs to be collective works are rare ("Rares sont les décisions de justice admettant qu’une œuvre photographique est une œuvre collective"). The French Ministry of Culture, in this guideline for photographs in cultural institutions, calls collective works "rare exceptions". So it's not like such decisions are common. On the contrary, the norm in French intellectual property law, as confirmed in the first article linked above, is not collective works, but works by individual authors, persons, not corporations. Collective works were introduced in 1957 mainly for the cases I mentioned above (dictionaries, encyclopaedias and periodical works such as newspapers or magazines), even if at least one court has now applied them to specific photographs.

Both of the court cases, decided by the same court, same pôle (the one for intellectual property law), same chamber, in Paris, revolve around photographers employed by companies, in 2014 the Studio Harcourt, in 2017 some online merchant of clothes, shoes and fashion accessoires, hence the 2014 "studio" case and the 2017 "fashion photos" case. The first was brought by the photographer, the second by the company, but essentially in both cases the photographers wanted to retain control of their photographs and also additional payment for additional uses, while the companies wanted complete control over how the photographs were used, without any additional payments beyond what they had payed the photographer initially. So the companies argued that these photos were collective works because all the prerequisites demanded for this by article L.113-2 alinéa 3 of the French Code de la propriété intellectuelle (intellectual property law) were fulfilled, namely that (my summary) the work was created upon the initiative of a (natural or legal) person which edited this work, published and distributed it under his/her/its direction, and that the individual contributions of the various people involved cannot be distinguished anymore ("sur l’initiative d’une personne physique ou morale qui l’édite, la publie et la divulgue sous sa direction et son nom et dans laquelle la contribution personnelle des divers auteurs participant à son élaboration se fond dans l’ensemble en vue duquel elle est conçue, sans qu’il soit possible d’attribuer à chacun d’eux un droit distinct sur l’ensemble réalisé"), and the court agreed.

The court then decided, after hearing the case, reviewing evidence that was brought etc. that the photographers and other people involved (stylists, lighting, make-up) were basically working under such tight guidelines regulating every detail of the photographs that they did not have any room to express any creativity of their own, so that the resulting photographs basically reflected the studio's or company's style and one cannot identify any individual contributions anymore; therefore these photos are collective works by the reasoning of this court.

That court was able to decide these two cases after reviewing the facts brought in each case, which apparently included detailed insights into how photographs are created in these companies. For this photo, we have nothing of the sort, we don't know how it worked back then for Jean Moral. Unlike the 2014 and 2017 cases, we don't have a court case for Jean Moral or this ageny. Finally, a 1934 photographer certainly wasn't expecting his photographs to be "collective works" when that whole category was only introduced into French IP law in 1957.

tl;dr: For the reasons given above, we should definitively not jump to the conclusion that all photos where some kind of French agency is attached are collective works. Unlike a court, we don't have the necessary insights and resources to make that determination, and we should therefore only label French photos as "collective works" if, like in the Harcourt case, there is a specific court decision declaring such. --Rosenzweig τ 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete No evidence that the photographer didn't own the copyright. Yann (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Yann,
Here a source wich indicates that à this period, Jean Moral was employed under contracts by companies for fashion and advertisement (example : "Seul photographe français sous contrat annuel avec Harper’s Bazaar" and also "Carmel Snow") but he was independant for others purposes.
https://journals.openedition.org/focales/2221
But we do not have any copy of his contract so... Tisourcier (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's interesting. May be further research would give more information? Yann (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And would that change anything as far as copyright is concerned? That a photographer has a work contract for a magazine does not mean that he is not the author of his photographs anymore. Nor does it mean that they suddenly become collective works because he worked for said magazine. --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Årsta 810 0927 Fylla förekommer tyvärr fortfarande i samband med vår fantastiska svenska midsommar (27799751242).jpg[edit]

Depicts a person in a vulnerable position, as well as several easily identifiable individuals. COM:DIGNITY LevandeMänniska (talk), 23:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vasiliy Tahtay.jpg[edit]

Image from Vasiliy Takhtay's official Instagram account: https://vesti.kz/mixedfights/obschiy-rekord-94-0-top-10-nepobejdennyih-boytsov-kazahstana-319028/, https://tengrisport.kz/tnsport/obschiy-rekord-94-0-top-10-nepobejdennyih-boytsov-kazahstana-482039/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 16[edit]

Files in Category:Statue of Italo Svevo in Trieste[edit]

No FoP in Italy, artist Nino Spagnoli died in 2005

A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Building of the Savings Bank of Marseille[edit]

No FoP in France, architect Albert Tournaire died in 1958

A1Cafel (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep all sculptural work close-ups. While Tournaire died in 1958, the individual sculptors of relief work on the building have all died more than 70 years ago. The building was built before 1928, so these sculptures are in the public domain in the US as well. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1962年郑律成作曲的歌剧《望夫云》首演剧照，赛马会上公主猎人相见.jpg[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:1962年郑律成作曲的歌剧《望夫云》首演剧照，第一幕：国泰民安.jpg[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Alicja Majewska autograf.jpg[edit]

The photo is protected by ław. It os note on CC license. Szelma W (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To jest wpis z Kronice Klubu Związków i Stowarzyszeń Twórczych. Zdjęcie jest zrobione przede mnie. Nie widzę tu naruszenia praw autorskich.
Wpis jest o tyle ciekawy, gdyż po odszyfrowaniu pozostałych autografów pozwoli stwierdzić z kim współpracowała Alicja Majewska. Dawcor (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ponieważ zdjęcie zostało zrobione przeze mnie, zostało opublikowane na licencji CC 4.0 BY. Dawcor (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither signature nor signed paper is a "work" according to copyright. Id doesn't have to be on CC licence. Tomasz Raburski (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zotov's images[edit]

The VRT agent made a mistake when accepted the permission for these files. The reason he accepted the permissions was: the books from which they were photo’ed were published in Russia (then Soviet Union) decades ago and are no longer subject to copyright … On the other hand, if there exists any copyright of the painter himself, it all belongs to Galina Suhovalova, and she granted me all the permissions (it is mentioned that Galina is an aunt of the author of the letter, but we don't know who is she for Zotov). However, there is no permission from Galina mentioned in the ticket, and there is no information about her relationship to the images' author. The works are still subject to copyright (Zotov died in 1984), and not all fragments of texts visible on them are in the public domain (not only Pushkin but also Chukovsky, who died in 1969). The author of the ticket has already replied that he doesn't want to do more work and obtain a real permission. --Анастасия Львоваru/en 10:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smt. Droupadi Murmu official portrait (1).jpg[edit]

The Indian President's official copyright policy on the site states, verbatim, This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from The President of India, If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website can not be used in any misleading or objectionable context." Lerutas (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TPK New logo October 2018 - Horizontal Full Colour.svg[edit]

TPKComms may be a fake account. The copyright policy states: "Copyright material on www.tpk.govt.nz is protected by copyright owned by Te Puni Kōkiri on behalf of the Crown. Unless indicated otherwise for specific items or collections of content (either below or within specific items or collections), this copyright material is licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. You are free to copy, distribute and adapt the material, if you attribute it to Te Puni Kōkiri and abide by the other licence terms. You must reproduce the material accurately and not use it in a misleading context. Please note that this licence does not apply to any logos, emblems, or trademarks on the website or to the website’s design elements, or to any photography and imagery. Those specific items may not be re-used without express permission." Lerutas (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lal Bihari Mritak 2022-01-08 at 6.56.22 PM.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted by Lal Bihari. Unlicenced. Lerutas (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ковель (102) Меморіальна стела „Хрест пам’яті жертв більшовицького терору”,.jpg[edit]

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The sculptural monument is from 2007 and authored by Ірина Дарчук. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Меморіальна стела „Хрест пам'яті жертв більшовицького терору”.jpg[edit]

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ковель (102) Меморіальна стела „Хрест пам’яті жертв більшовицького терору”,.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a photo taken by me personally during a trip to Kovel. Just like the previous one, on which someone presented their claims. The claims are completely groundless. A lot of people take pictures of this monument. 95.158.48.124 13:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Оксана Проценко: (assuming you are the logged-out commenter here), no, you and other people may have the right to take pictures of it, but you and others have no right to use commercial Creative Commons licenses over your pictures. Wikimedia Commons only accepts commercial licenses that allow everyone to freely use all media files, something that the Ukrainian copyright law does not permit (the law only permits non-commercial uses of copyrighted public monuments of Ukraine). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fascist Austrian Empire.png Commons:Deletion requests/Fascist Austrian Empire.png Soyo126

File:Martinus Thomsen.jpg[edit]

As the Bing tab indicates, non-commercial purposes hence can't be used, see restrictions at flickr where the search engine shows it from and Commons:Licensing. 87.49.43.208 13:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ordet. Scene fra slutningen af filmen.jpg[edit]

Movie still, same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carl Th. Dreyers film "Ordet". Slutscenen.jpg. 87.49.43.208 13:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1928-Passion-Joan. Et nærbillede af Jeanne d´Arc i Carl Th. Dreyers film "Jeanne d´Arcs lidelse og død".jpg[edit]

Close-up of Renée Falconetti (died 1946), though same argument as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carl Th. Dreyers film "Ordet". Slutscenen.jpg. 87.49.43.208 13:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Last surviving author of this film died in 1978. Undelete in 2049. Abzeronow (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Estátua de José Lopes.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Susana de Souza Lalic.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I suggest the deletion log entry should say "out of scope", not "no source". It is important to get this right as good faith newbies should be able to learn from the deletion log that exact error they made, so they can avoid it in future. Geo Swan (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Prefeita Pétala - Caçapava.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bruno Maia em show no Rio de Janeiro em 2017.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:WARI em apresentação em Porto Velho.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Coração do Penedo do Cavaleiro.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Can the initial challenger return here and explain, specifically, why they doubt the uploader's "own work" claim?
I suggest that he heart, while technically a sculpture, is too simple too merit copyright protection.
I believe this image is in scope.
So, keep. Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cavalo do Penedo do Cavaleiro.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It could be argued that the rocking horse is a sculpture, and that the person who built it has their own copyright, which would require deletion.
I do not doubt the "own work" claim. Geo Swan (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {{Delete}} because while this is almost certainly own work, as claimed, the rocking horse's designer has their own copyright. But I think it is important the deletion log reflects the right reason... not "no source" but whatever we put for cases like this. Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Margaret perry.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Kacamata as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are people who specialize in looking this stuff up.
The well-known film "It's a wonderful life" only became really popular after the studio let its copyright expire. It took years, but they were finally able to claw back the rights to the film, through their ownership of the rights to the short story on which the movie was based. Geo Swan (talk) 04:00, 17 December 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.

File:Кривонос.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Ukraine: modern sculptural work. Eleassar (t/p) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Кривонос.jpg[edit]

Bust is unlikely to be in public domain. The person commemorated by the tomb died in 1980, so the sculpture is not likely to be authored by a sculptor who died more than 70 years ago. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:43, 16 December 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.

File:Батьківщина-Мати.jpg[edit]

It's a modern sculpture. No FoP in Ukraine. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 02:28, 4 December 2013 (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:Батьківщина-Мати.jpg[edit]

No FOP in Ukraine. Built in 1981. It was already deleted once. Why is it here again? Off-shell (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Батьківщина-Мати.jpg[edit]

The monument is reused again for the third time. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Unlikely to be de minimis as the monument is a noticeable component here and one can use this in postcards to harm the economic rights of the sculptor's heirs. There is some economic value in this image that can harm the economic rights of those heirs. File name should be locked (w:en:WP:SALT) to prevent further abuse by Ukrainian WLM participants. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:162-163A, 169A, 172A-174A, 178A-180A, 183A (IA 162163a169a172a00nati).pdf[edit]

1961 photographs, copyright was possibly not renewed but that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, National Museum of Natural History is part of the Smithsonian. And, yes, I know that doesn't make it PD automatically, but might useful in working things out. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 17[edit]

File:Pysanka Museum in Kolomyia.jpg[edit]

There is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The building dates to 2000 and the authors of the architecture are local artists Vasyl Andrushko and Myroslav Yasinskyi. This commercially-licensed image violates the artists' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Pysanka Museum in Kolomyia - edit (bearb Sp).jpg[edit]

Derivative work of an image that violates both no-commercial Ukrainian FoP and the artists' copyrights. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pysanka Museum in Kolomyia.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:MAXELL UR 60 Audio Cassette — Rear Side.jpg[edit]

A derivative, COM:PACKAGE. 188.123.231.51 03:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And File:Various Maxell Type II cassettes.jpg and File:湿式ヘッドクリーナー.JPG and File:Various TDK, Sony, Maxell cassettes.jpg and File:日立ブランドの音楽用磁気テープ.JPG and File:Panasonic Audio tape PX.JPG and File:マクセル製のカセットテープ.JPG and File:Normal Position Audio tape LH.JPG and File:Maxell Original UR 60 (51878591981).jpg and File:Hitachi Maxell UR.JPG and File:Maxell UR 60 Position IEC Type I Normal (51885917497).jpg. C'mon, don't be lazy, copyrights aren't going to enforce themselves! -- Wesha (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:The Wonderful Wizard of Oz[edit]

Likely not actually own work and a copyright violation. Also they seem to be not fully related to the 1900 work, so would need better categorization.

SDudley (talk) 04:22, 17 December 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.

File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, село Мацьківці, вул. Садова, 31.jpg[edit]

No FoP in Ukraine - 1957 monument INeverCry 09:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination Krd 08:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, село Мацьківці, вул. Садова, 31.jpg[edit]

The monument appears to be from 1957. As there is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine, this is a violation of posthumous copyright of the sculptor (who is unknown as of this writing). However, because of being pre-1978 work, U.S. copyright courtesy of COM:URAA needs to be considered. Undelete this monument after U.S. copyright expires (not Ukrainian copyright), so 1957+95+1January 1, 2053. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 17 December 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.

File:Пам'ятний знак на честь воїнів-односельчан Чорна.jpg[edit]

No FoP in Ukraine - 1968 monument INeverCry 10:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination Krd 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Пам'ятний знак на честь воїнів-односельчан Чорна.jpg[edit]

This appears to be a monument from 1968. As there is no commercial freedom of panorama in Ukraine, this monument cannot be distributed under commercially-licensed images. Note that U.S. copyright needs to be taken into account (COM:URAA) due to it being a pre-1978 sculpture, so unless the sculptor has been identified (which may make Ukrainian copyright term longer), the image can only be undeleted after the longer U.S. copyright (95+1 years after 1968) expires, not the shorter Ukrainian copyright (70+1 years after 1968). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:HƯƠNG LAN – 2023.06.03 – P2.jpg[edit]

appears to be license laundering DHN (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hold up. That's not license laundering. I have checked this image's license carefully before I uploaded it. Why do you want to delete? Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mickey Đại Phát The YouTube uploader does not seem to have the rights to the videos. DHN (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DHN Are you sure that? There has a license. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mickey Đại Phát They can license it all they want but if they are not the rightful owners it's meaningless. DHN (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uhm. I think all videos of this account are having license. They're must be rightful owners. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:231030佐藤愛子先生 作者が撮影した作家佐藤愛子先生のポートレート。撮影日は2023年10月30日。.jpg[edit]

被写体に未許可、肖像権侵害、非公式の画像であるため 240F:10E:F801:1:95BC:70B5:F3BE:9E5B 09:57, 17 December 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.

File:Taras Shevchenko Monument.jpg[edit]

No FoP in Ukraine - 2000 monument INeverCry 08:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination Krd 08:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Taras Shevchenko Monument.jpg[edit]

Prominent inclusion of the Taras Shevchenko Monument, which was inaugurated in 1959 and authored by father-and-son sculptors Іван Зноба and Валентином Зноба. Ukraine does not provide commercial freedom of panorama, and the monument in this image is substantial enough to be used in postcards and other commercial items that have economic value and harming the economic rights of the sculptors' heirs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Hipodérmia.jpg[edit]

photograph is not significantly relevant for the page. Moreover, it belongs to the personal archive of the page author Bombarral1914 (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Twilight of Idols, The Case of Wagner, Nietzsche Contra Wagner.djvu[edit]

The URL given as a source does not work (error 403). Veverve (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested that the previously deleted metatada for this file be restored; once it is restored the URL will be correct. If you are an admin, you can do this yourself if you like. Beleg Âlt (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

High resolution but low quality photos of a protestor killed in 2022, dated to 2023. More likely to have been taken from news coverage that used social media photos (eg. https://www.radiozamaneh.com/792440/) than somebody who knew the deceased and personally took the photos. File:Nodnol line.jpg has a darker black stripe across the top that makes it look like a screenshot.

Belbury (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Golfpark De Kurenpolder[edit]

All files uploaded by this user are claimed to be own work. According to meta data, one file is from Paul Korthuijs, two others are from Koert van As. --Wimmel (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klopt, Paul Korthuijs is mijn echtgenoot, foto's mogen gebruikt worden - zijn speciaal voor dit soort doeleinden gemaakt. Koert van As heeft - als betaalde opdracht voor ons - foto's gemaakt die wij tot in einde der dagen mogen gebruiken. Golfpark De Kurenpolder (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik heb de auteur op File:Golfschool De Kurenpolder.jpg aangepast, als mijn aanpassing accoord is, trek ik de verwijder nominatie ook in. In combinatie met bovenstaande uitleg is dat wat mij betreft prima. Die andere twee zijn lastiger, door ze hier op wikimedia commons te zetten, geef je ook anderen toestemming om ze tot in einde der dagen mogen gebruiken voor elk willekeurig doel. Ik lees niet dat de toestemming zo uitgebreid is. Als de auteur toestemming mailt zoals beschreven op Commons:E-mailsjablonen, is het in ieder geval goed. Als de bestaande toestemming wel zo uitgebreid is, stel ik voor om die toestemming naar dat zelfde email adres te sturen (permissions-nl@wikimedia.org), dan kan de vrijwilliger die toegang tot die email heeft dat beoordelen en een markering toevoegen bij de betreffende afbeelding dat er toestemming is. Zie bijvoorbeeld File:Strepera versicolor arguta1.jpg hoe dat er dan uit ziet. --Wimmel (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Golfpark De Kurenpolder: graag nog een reactie op bovenstaand bericht. --Wimmel (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Regierungsgebäude Duckionary.jpg[edit]

Unsinnsbild; kein Regierungsgebäude einer fiktiven Regierung sondern irgend ein beliebiges Privathaus. Benutzer:WvB (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wappen bild.png[edit]

Wappen eines fiktiven Staates. Begleitende Fakeartikel gelöscht. Benutzer:WvB (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Das sagt genau der Richtige!
Freiherr Werner Basil von Delft und von Danzig, Ritter Colditz-Hardenberg bzw. Werner von Basil
https://www.mn-wiki.de/index.php?title=Werner_von_Basil Dermensch4 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flagge.duy.png[edit]

Flagge eines fiktiven Staates. Begleitende Fakeartikel wurden gelöscht. Benutzer:WvB (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ist duckionary.com fiktiv?
Die Flagge wird immerhin auf zwei Wikipedia-Artikeln (ein deutscher und ein japanischer) genutzt 194.96.68.72 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Werner von Basil
Duckionary ist nicht fiktiv, siehe Google!
Das Einzige, was hier fiktiv ist, ist Ihr Adelstitel! Archiduck313 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 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.

File:Man on bench - duane hanson.jpg[edit]

COM:DR (photograph of a copyrighted sculpture) MB-one (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep FOP. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MB-one: Can you be more specific about which sculture you are talking? Since it is COM:INUSE Is it possible to crop the sculture and still be educativ usefull?  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoKalliauer: The main subject is this copyrighted sculpture of an artist, who died less than 70 years ago. Cropping is therefore not really an option. --MB-one (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Vd}} as by MB-one  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep. According COM:FOP UK ({{FoP-UK}}) it applies even indoors for museums etc for 3D-Works of art. --JuTa 04:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ 1  Keep. --Methodios (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JuTa: I wasn't sure about the breadth of the term "public", since the Saatchi Gallery is a privately owned museum (unlike e.g. the National Gallery). But since this "presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment" I will withdraw my vote. --MB-one (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: withdrawn request because of COM:FOP UK .  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 05:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Man on bench - duane hanson.jpg[edit]

Non-free content, derivative work, out of bounds of FoP. Image contains copyrighted sculpture, PMA not yet long enough for public domain, photographed in the United Kingdom at a temporary exhibition. This image was previously nominated for deletion and kept under the rationale that UK FoP "applies even indoors for museums etc for 3D-Works of art." While this is true for works in permanent collections or works sited permanently in a place, this sculpture is neither a permanent installation or a permanent part of the museum's collection. A) This work is not permanently sited, it was removed sometime before 2009 and B) Saatchi Gallery buys and sells art constantly, this work was sold in 2009 by Saatchi, and eventually resold again in 2012 (per provenance from Christies sale); as far as I can tell, UK FoP is not meant to include temporary installations, even if they are temporarily housed in a museum's collection. --19h00s (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Dussopt incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2023"[edit]

I cannot verify the PD claim. Following the source I find https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/about-site/copyright/ which states

© European Union, 2023.

Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted.

This is clearly ND which is not sufficient for commons. Can someone verify?

Gbawden (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Neon Genesis Evangelion. Lilith.jpg[edit]

Violazione di copyright (Gainax, Mitsui Iso). TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was my inattention. I didn't pay attention to the license. Next time this won't happen again. Sorry. Двадцать четыре (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Наровлянский историко-этнографический музей.jpg[edit]

Иной автор Ил Т (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Иной автор Ил Т (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Александр Щербина .jpg[edit]

Two files uploaded by User:Nicemess claim different authors (one mentiones Olga Chikina when copyright info has Robert Gorsoun) and second is claimed as his/her work when it's from a photo session of Nika Dorofeeva (https://vk.com/album-335060_261085131?rev=1). Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chikina.jpg[edit]

Two files uploaded by Nicemess claim different authors (one mentiones Olga Chikina when copyright info has Robert Gorsoun) and second is claimed as his/her work when it's from a photo session of Nika Dorofeeva (https://vk.com/album-335060_261085131?rev=1) Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dolwyddelan Castle ground plan.jpg[edit]

The copyright status of the image is unclear; it may not be covered by the open government licence A.D.Hope (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Criccieth Castle ground plan.jpg[edit]

The copyright status of the image is unclear; it may not be covered by the open government licence A.D.Hope (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 18[edit]

File:Yayoi Kusama wax model at Louis Vitton.jpg[edit]

Flickr photo of a wax model which would seem to make it a COM:DW and mean that the copyright status of the model itself would also need to be assessed. I originally tagged this with {{Dw-nsd}}, but am converting it to a regular DR because the file is used quite a lot by a number of different projects. FWIW, the copyright license being used seems find for the photo itself; it's just not something that can cover the photographed model per COM:LL. Without knowing more about the provenance of the model (who created it, where it was photographed/first published, etc.) it's hard to assess whether the model might be PD per COM:FOP. For example, if this photo was taken in the US, then there's no FOP for publicly displayed works of art per COM:FOP United States, but there might be if the photo was taken somewhere else. Unless it can clearly be shown that the photographed model is PD or has otherwise been released under an acceptable license for Commons, I don't think this can be kept per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:La Fiesta De Santa Barbra Finis Card (1935).png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by DMacks as no permission (No permission since). 1935 U.S. film. I find it very unlikely that a CC license was issued for this, but I'm also not able to find a renewal record on the film itself. Am I missing something, or is this {{PD-US-not-renewed}}? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jpickering.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gnomingstuff as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. File was uploaded in 2012 and has long been on an EnWiki user page. That user hasn't done much except edit their user page, but I don't think that this is COM:SPEEDY material given that it is in-use on the English Wikipedia. As such, I'm sending it here rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete As stated in COM:INUSE, "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project." According to the user's EN Wiki user page, the upload and 5 other edits were made during a 2012 training session on how to edit Wikimedia. No edits have been made since. I don't think this user qualifies as an "active participant" even in 2012. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Christo et Jeanne-Claude, Paris ![edit]

No FoP in France and Christo died in 2020. The exhibit was a temporary one. Some file might be seen as de minimis but in my opinion that does not apply here as the Museums architect Renzo Piano is also still alive.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scale model could be deleted, but I'm surprised that the cords, pulleys and tools were nominated as they are standard accessories. Christo's actual artwork is the packaged bridge, as described in the temporary exhibition page. Romainbehar (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree. Yann (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Les Luthiers for the premiere of "Humor dulce hogar", 1985.jpg[edit]

Photo by Gerardo Horovitz taken in Argentina in 1985. This is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (it was a press photo distributed in 1985), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still protected in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it unless we obtain an explicit permission from the photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Asociația Deutsches Freikorps (3).jpg[edit]

The author ("P. Raymond") has requested its deletion Gergely H. Konrad (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Demonstrație de luptă - Asociațiile Deutsches Freikorps și Tradiția Militară.jpg[edit]

The author has requested its deletion Gergely H. Konrad (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reconstituirea luptei de la Podul Jiului - Asociația Deutsches Freikorps (2).jpg[edit]

The author has requested its deletion Gergely H. Konrad (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Asociația Deutsches Freikorps.jpg[edit]

The author has requested its deletion Gergely H. Konrad (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reconstituirea luptei de la Podul Jiului - Asociația Deutsches Freikorps.jpg[edit]

The author has requested its deletion Gergely H. Konrad (talk) 13:46, 18 December 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.

File:Les_Luthiers_en_el_Teatro_Solís_de_Montevideo.jpg[edit]

COM:DW may apply and COM:DM not as this is a main part of the image ~/w /Talk 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to en:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Public domain, Urugay requires a copyright notice. I do not see anything here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Exactly. The picture was taken in Uruguay and if we pay attention to what you have already quoted out, there is a paragraph where it clearly says the following: "Seeing something on the Internet without a copyright notice does not mean that it is in the public domain. Only two countries, Uruguay and Paraguay, currently require copyright notices for a work to be covered by copyright. Then, we can say that the picture does not have copyright status since, as you have explained, there isn't any notice. Apart from that, the whole image, uploaded from flickr, has a license compatible with that we manage here in commons. --Gustavo86 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep I don´t see the problem, there isn´t any violation of copyright and the image is relevant Ezarate (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep The legal considerations are specific; I do not see anything on the image about copyright.--User:Netito777 00:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep For the above-explained reasons, if a picture taken in Uruguay does not specify its copyright status, we assume that this picture is free.

Only two countries, Uruguay and Paraguay, currently require copyright notices for a work to be covered by copyright.

so, there is no infrigement of copyright. The picture should be kept. Thank you. Dferg T ES 17:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept. Eusebius (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Les Luthiers en el Teatro Solís de Montevideo.jpg[edit]

Photo taken in Uruguay, however the country of origin of the image is Argentina where the group comes from. Uruguay has FoP but it doesn't apply to temporary works. The spectacle "Premios Mastropiero" was premiered in 2005, so the image is still protected by copyright in Argentina. Günther Frager (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Segunda formación de Sumo en 1983.jpg[edit]

Photo by Claudina Puglies taken in Argentina in 1983, but published for the first time in 2015 in her blog [15]. Thus, it is still protected by copyright. The author has released it under CC-BY-NC-ND, a license incompatible in Commons. Günther Frager (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Audio sample Turoyo Neo-Aramaic.ogg[edit]

I recently became aware that my audio content may be in violation of copyright or other policies. In light of this, I would like to formally request the deletion of the specific audio in question. I understand the importance of adhering to the platform’s guidelines and policies, and I want to ensure compliance. Please proceed with the necessary steps to remove the mentioned audio from Wikipedia. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. MEHistory2023 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Audio sample Western Neo-Aramaic.ogg[edit]

I recently became aware that my audio content may be in violation of copyright or other policies.I would like to formally request the deletion of the specific audio in question. I understand the importance of adhering to the platform’s guidelines and policies, and I want to ensure compliance. Please proceed with the necessary steps to remove the mentioned audio from Wikipedia MEHistory2023 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rangers1928.png[edit]

Imagen publicada dos veces. El otro archivo corresponde a: File:Rangers, Los Sports, 1928-10-05 (291).jpg ElPabloRN (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Djsnake.png[edit]

doublon d'un nouveau fichier Baenjch (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Quezon Memorial Shrine.jpg[edit]

Reupload of an unfree sculptural monument already deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Quezon Memorial Shrine". Undelete or restore if freedom of panorama is already introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Gordon Ramsay Signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2023 (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) 23:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 19[edit]

File:Suspiria 1977.jpg[edit]

This is a frame from an Italian film, premiered on February 1, 1977. The screenshot is protected by URAA, as it was copyrighted as of the date of restoration (January 1, 1996). Copyright for stills of cinematographic films in Italy lasts for 20 years. You can read more about the PD-Italy consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. Seva Seva (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jessica Harper in Suspiria.jpg[edit]

This is a frame from an Italian film, premiered on February 1, 1977. The screenshot is protected by URAA, as it was copyrighted as of the date of restoration (January 1, 1996). Copyright for stills of cinematographic films in Italy lasts for 20 years. You can read more about the PD-Italy consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. Seva Seva (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jessica Harper and Stefania Cassini in Suspiria.jpg[edit]

This is a frame from an Italian film, premiered on February 1, 1977. The screenshot is protected by URAA, as it was copyrighted as of the date of restoration (January 1, 1996). Copyright for stills of cinematographic films in Italy lasts for 20 years. You can read more about the PD-Italy consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. Seva Seva (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marigny24Jan15 Healing Center Food CoOp Mural.jpg[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Oud Drimmelen Oud Drimmelen 9 Boerderij woonhuis.jpg[edit]

This is not a monument anymore. It is a rebuild house. There is no information on which building style, period etc.Adding to this, the former owner has ripped off several people with his dog breeding company. Still, people visit me and my family and threaten us. When we explain that we are new owners, they don't believe us always. We try to get our adress and pictures of our house offline as much as possible because the former owner has his own website and still has pictures of our house online. Therefore, I kindly request to take this picture offline. I can add pictures (owned by me, taken by the former owners family) of this house from the 1950's when desired. Den Engelsen (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, it is very unpleasant what happens to Den Engelsen in their house. However, I do not envisage why removing the photo from Commons would help to solve the problem. The house can be seen here, here and on Google streetview. The building can be seen from the road as the photo shows. On request through VRT I revised the photo and now this reason is given to remove the photo. I do not see the need to delete this photo. Ellywa (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note this other request to delete the photo. What is the real reason I ask? Ellywa (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least someone should remove the older version. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mao Yuanxin 1.jpg[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Proof it was renewed?
Kemkhachev (talk) 13:54, 19 December 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.

File:Li Na.jpg[edit]

The file should be deleted per Not-PD-US-URAA 219.78.190.165 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Either the URAA applies, or this file was unpublished before 2003, then {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies. Since the author is said to be unknown, that means the term is 120 years, so the file can be restored in 2080. --Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Li Na.jpg[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kim Wall - Exhibition - March 8th 2019-Ystad-Sweden.jpg[edit]

This exhibition contains a copyrighted photo. See also previous request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kim Wall - Utställning - Ystad-2019.jpg QubeCube (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo der Deutschen Verkehrswacht e. V..png[edit]

{{Löschen}} Begründung -- Urheberrechtlich geschützt // nicht gemeinfrei Edgar Moebius (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Copyvio|Non-free logo}} Edgar Moebius (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non-free logo 213.61.164.90 13:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please agree to deletion Edgar Moebius (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{speedydelete|non-free logo}} 213.61.164.90 13:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please agree to deletion Edgar Moebius (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Below COM:TOO for germany. PaterMcFly (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Not a reason for deletion, no copyright problem because below COM:TOO Germany. --Rosenzweig τ 08:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Not a reason for deletion, but can be replaced by File:Deutsche Verkehrswacht logo.svg --Didym (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep No reason for deletion — As said by others, the reason for deletion is nonsense (Simple sign logo, without higher threshold of originality, also COM:TOO Germany), which of course doesn't imply it would be free of copyrights. In addition to that, I expressively included all given license- & source-related informations and also explicitly mentioned its protected status of a registered word-mark. So what is this all about?

 Keep Reviewed the file- & change-logs: What is this nonsense Edgar Moebius?! First you upload it yourself, put it under CC-4.0 and drop in deletion-request after deletion-request (5x Nomination for deletion!), even a request for speedy deletion. And after someone rightfully removes the redundant NfDs and cleans up your mess, you again put in another NfD even citing the DPMA (all the while your very first Nomination is still underway, running)? What is this all about? Do you even understand the Wiki-principles of copyright and alike?
If something is copyright-protected and even a registered word-mark, that just means, that no-one else can use it legally in commercial and official transactions in similar fashion, legally representing such similar thing. Look up the lawsuit of Apple and the German Coffée-shop Apfelkind and how Apple lost the case when they tried to forbid the business-owner to use anything apple-related.
Source:
Just saying, had to battle nonsense lawsuits over my own nickname (Smartcom5) by some small Australian tech-firm in the 2000s and previously someone brought me before court in the 90s due to alleged similarity of its own product Smartcom (was a kind of modem). Just because it is claimed, doesn't mean it's actually true and holds any water! --Smartcom5 (Any thoughts?) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:March of the Volunteers.wav[edit]

The underlying music and lyrics are in the public domain, but the performance and recording are copyrighted and not released under a free license. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:March of the Volunteers vocal.ogg. Wcam (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is the performer here? I don't see how that other DR affects that question. PaterMcFly (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the performer is not even identified, we have no confidence that this recording is free, thus per COM:PRP should be deleted. Wcam (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The song is not under copyright protection according to the Copyright Law of China and Template:PD-PRC-exempt. According to the Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, "This law shall not apply to: (1) laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof." The song is the official release of the National Anthem of the People's Republic of China released by the State Council of the People's Republic of China published on the Government of China portal (www.gov.cn), as required by the Paragraph 4 of the Article 10 of the National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China, which states "The standard performance score of the national anthem and the official recorded version of the national anthem are reviewed and recorded by departments designated by the State Council, and are published on the website of the National People's Congress of China and the Government of China portal." This "official recorded version of the national anthem" is "of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature," and therefore, it is not under the copyright protection. Cfls (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source provided is just a link to a .zip file and lacks its provenance information for us to confirm that the uploaded audio file is indeed the official recorded version of the national anthem in accordance with the laws and regulations. I don't think it is safe to assume that everything hosted on a .gov.cn domain can be considered "official". Furthermore, the National Anthem Law does not specify the copyright status of the official recording of the anthem. Therefore, the recording should be considered subject to copyright protection. In addition, it has been determined repeatedly on Commons that {{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to texts and not to other media such as images. Wcam (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The official website of the State Council of China, specifically this link, hosts the audio file in question. This page was established in accordance with Paragraph 4, Article 10 of the National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, Article 5 of China's Copyright Law explicitly states that "this law shall not apply to...documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature." As such, the official recorded version of the national anthem, being a legislative document, is not subject to copyright protection.
In response to User:Wcam's concern, the provenance of the audio file is clear. It directly links to the State Council's official release, fulfilling the legal requirements for public dissemination. The absence of copyright protection for this official rendition is reinforced by the legal framework stated above. This distinction is crucial, as the precedent of other media (such as images) not being "PD-PRC-exempt"-compliant primarily stems from their lack of mandatory public release under the same legal parameters.
The National Anthem Law specifies the status of the anthem's official recording. The law, along with the official publication on the government portal, establishes the recording's legislative nature, exempting it from copyright. The legal framework clearly delineates its exemption.
In conclusion, the recording in question, being an official document of legislative nature, is exempt from copyright under Article 5 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, it should not be subject to deletion based on the copyright criteria. Cfls (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The recording of the national anthem may be of legislative nature, but it is not a "document" as "document" in this context should be considered as text only. See Article 2, Section 4 of the Berne Convention:

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such texts.

Clearly, sound recordings are not texts thus do not fall within the scope of the above provision. Wcam (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TSA Officer Checking ID.png[edit]

Taken from TSA Instagram account. It is not clear if this image was taken by a TSA employee as part of their duties. The account also posts images which are clearly not created by TSA staff, such as an image of Spock from Star Trek. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep The photo was uploaded to Instagram in 2015. Since TSA, unlike mainline DHS and certain DHS agencies, doesn't have a Flickr account which outlines licensing, it was one of the few places to grab TSA stock photos. Since then, the Instagram account has morphed into it's current iteration. --TUFKAAP (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:O de la Mare de Déu de l'Olivar. Gerard Miquel.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. Released under CC-BY.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TaronjaSatsuma: If it was released under a compatible license by its original creator, then, please ignore my proposal and speedy keep the file. However, I think that in order to avoid any possible changes of situation in the future maybe following the steps described in Commons:Volunteer Response Team should be better. But then again this is nothing more than my personal humble opinion. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an OTRS agreement, but a website policy. I believe that having the page in en:Internet Archive should be enough. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:National Stadium entrance (Honduras).jpg[edit]

While the photograph is freely licensed, there is no acceptable for Commons FoP in Honduras. The stadium was built in 1946 and the architect was Francisco Pratts whom I cannot find a death date for, but web search indicates he was possibly born in 1906. Honduras is 75 years PMA so Pratts would have needed to die before 1948 for it to be public domain. Stadium was also expanded in 1978. Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files found with Special:Search/insource:/birdsofrepublico04wetm/[edit]

1984 Copyright by the Smithsonian Institution - This is too recent for copyrights to have expired.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 20[edit]

Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream
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 in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream

These files have not been uploaded to FlickR by the copyright owner (see EXIF), nor with a CC0 license. The conditions for {{PDMark-owner}} to apply are not met. Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021

Gikü (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 12:00, 27 December 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.
Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream

These files have not been uploaded to FlickR by the copyright owner (see EXIF), nor with a CC0 license. The conditions for {{PDMark-owner}} to apply are not met. Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021

Gikü (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --FitIndia Semi-retired 12:33, 27 December 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.

Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream[edit]

These files have not been uploaded to FlickR by the copyright owner (see EXIF), nor with a CC0 license. The conditions for {{PDMark-owner}} to apply are not met. Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021

Gikü (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream[edit]

These files have not been uploaded to FlickR by the copyright owner (see EXIF), nor with a CC0 license. The conditions for {{PDMark-owner}} to apply are not met. Same situation as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021

Gikü (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Li Hongzhi 1.jpg[edit]

"© 1999-2013 MINGHUI.ORG 欢迎转载，但请注明出处". not a free license shizhao (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: What about Template:Attribution only license? S5A-0043Talk 08:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Planta De Cadis. Cadiz, Spanien.jpg[edit]

Bilden finns redan uppladdad, här: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:17th_century_hand_drawn_map_of_Planta_De_Cadis._Cadiz,_Spanien.jpg Helene Holmberg (Riksarkivet Sverige) (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Арештований В Чорновіл 1972.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Seva Seva as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NFL-logo.png[edit]

Alleged NFL copyright violation. Refer to NFL.com - Terms and Conditions. SheltonMartin (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nfl-100.png[edit]

Alleged NFL copyright violation. Refer to NFL.com - Terms and Conditions. SheltonMartin (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NFL-Logo-1984-2008.png[edit]

Alleged NFL copyright violation. Refer to NFL.com - Terms and Conditions. SheltonMartin (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kópakonan.jpg[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selkie statue in Mikladalur.jpeg. The image context is about the presence of the statue so the statue is not de minimis here. It can be cropped but "uploaded as a new file" with a different file name, file description, and categories to change the context. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Note, I have already cropped it and uploaded it as File:Mikladalur (2019).jpg (without the statue). So this original file can be deleted now in favor of the crop that does not show the statue in any way. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Tai Wong Street East c1960s.jpg[edit]

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Mir Akbar Khyber.jpg[edit]

Certainly not own work / 2023. Possibly public domain but without details it is impossible to say. MKFI (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Capitol Corridor logo.svg[edit]

Not created by government (see related DR) and also seems to be over TOO ZandDev (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Вільгэльм Тэль (1934).pdf[edit]

нарушение авторских прав автора предисловия VasyaRogov (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files from "Matthew D" Flickr stream[edit]

The Flickr user "Matthew D" uploads mostly files for which they are not the author of the photograph. The issue is that all these images are now attributed to "Matthew D" here on Commons, and the license is a CC license when it should be another license such as PD, or an adequate license for files originating from non-US sources. --Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the images have been published to the public domain under CC BY 4.0 or CC BY 2.0. Those licences mean that they can exist on anyone's photo stream or file sharing platform. Indeed, you or I are free to "copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially." Such is the beauty of creative commons. Thank you! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Such is the beauty of creative commons." This file that you uploaded has a wrong license and a wrong author. How is this the beauty of Creative Commons? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, that one does have the right licence. That was released as CC BY 4.0 (The ones from the US military are Public Domain, which has even less copyright restrictions than CC BY.) MatthewDalhousie (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, for anyone following here, the resolution is that, after the problem was pointed out, the "author" details for the image were corrected to "M Chan." The licence details were correct. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not necessary; the image description pages can be edited to reflect the PD licensing and the proper author. — Frostly (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but who is going to do all this work? And in what timeframe? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such is not a rationale for deletion. — Frostly (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Other licensing/copyright issues" is listed in the Commons:Deletion policy and covers this deletion request. Additionally if MatthewDalhousie is also "Matthew D" on Flickr, this is problematic in its own right. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Current status:
  • As far as I can tell, all files by "M Chan" have no evidence of permission, and there is still uncertainty whether they should be CC or PD.
  • A few files are taken by members of non-US armies and published on dvidshub. It's unclear what their licenses actually are.
  • File:AWH MP 2021 CC BY 4.0.jpg by Lauren Larking. No evidence of release in the public domain.
Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Cryptic-waveform,
1. With regard the images by M Chan. I made contact with the photographer, M Chan, last year, and understood that they would be sending formal permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I'm not sure where you are, but it's summer here in Australia and a lot of people are still away on holidays. Still, in this case, I will follow up, because I want to do that out of respect for you. Pleased don't take that as a precedent, or a precedent that indicates that this is how you can handle editors generally. I'm sure most people who have uploaded an image from a site, including approved sites with whom wiki has a formal relationship such as Flickr, have taken it as read, when they see a statement saying "CC BY-SA 4.0" or "Public Domain" that the publisher has intelligently taken responsibility at that point, and we can proceed from there. I don't think it would be fair for us to track down every single Wiki editor who has ever uploaded an image from an approved file sharing site, and demand that they generate an email from the image author. I don't think that's workable and I don't - if you don't mind me saying say - I really don't think that's acting in a collegial manner with a fellow editor. I am absolutely here to learn, and very happy to have my work edited and improved. I worry that since I have taken an attitude of being willing to learn, that this is being interpreted as some kind of permission to have everything I've done interrogated by one editor who isn't in fact in any position of formal authority; I sincerely hope that's not the case, and honestly wonder if it might be a good idea to let other editors interact with me, rather than see some unfortunate descent into an experience bordering on intimidation.
2. With regard to members of non-US military forces who have their work published on dvidshub - interesting question for those of a mind to explore laws. I must confess that my working assumption in such matters is to assume good faith, even when it comes to military and government image platforms, such that if a publisher states that they are releasing an image as CC BY--SA 4.0 or even Public Domain, that that is where we start. In the case of DVIDSHUB, can see on that, as far as I can tell, every single image available comes with a legal statement saying that the image has been released to the Public Domain. Now, in the case of an image where the original photograph was not made by an employee of the United States Government in their official duty, such as this image, which has been provided by the Government of Denmark to the US Department of Defense, we can see that the original owner of the image has passed on those rights to to the DOD, presumably with the understanding that, in that transfer, the longstanding policy of the United States Government would be understood by all parties involved, that's what I believe is the context to this shot for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Exercise_At-Sea_Demo-Formidable_Shield.jpg Again, I don't think it's realistic, for an editor who has uploaded that image to now find the Danish photographer who happened to be on that worship for NATO Exercise Formidable Shield, many years ago, and ask them to send an email to wikipedia. I believe it is reasonable and fair to assume that the publisher, in this case the United States DOD, but equally, an amateur photographer who chooses to use Flickr to gather and publish photos, is acting in good faith when they publish images under Creative Commons or Public Domain.
3. About the image authored by Lauren Larking: I haven't looked it just now, but can I ask: does it come from a platform where it is declared to be under Creative Commons or Public Domain? If so, then I can assure you it's been with that assumption that the image has been used.
I really hope you're having a good day. My view is that wiki, and interacting with wiki editors should be an enjoyable experience as we're all just here to see that there's good encyclopedic material here, and that we can improve it wherever possible. I sincerely hope it's in that spirit that you're interacting here.
MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, are you actually tracking down my edits, like this one? This is starting to get disturbing. If you have a mentor here at wiki, I strongly suggest you check in. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I'm starting to see that you've actually set aside a page, on your page, dedicated to finding new issues with things I've touched. At first I thought it was just a bit strange, but now that dozens of the issues have been resolved, and you've got to finding new ones, I'm really uncomfortable with this. Really uncomfortable. Please, please take that as a cue. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for adding permissions for many files nominated in this DR. I've updated it to reflect this.

I'm sure most people who have uploaded an image from a site, including approved sites with whom wiki has a formal relationship such as Flickr, have taken it as read, when they see a statement saying "CC BY-SA 4.0" or "Public Domain" that the publisher has intelligently taken responsibility at that point, and we can proceed from there.

As far as I know, Commons doesn't have a formal relationship with Flickr, and it is quite the opposite that we can take licenses on Flickr for granted. Again COM:FLICKRWASHING explains exactly why, and this DR started because you've applied wrong licenses to images on Flickr, and then copied this license and author info here. This wrong information now spreads on the web and this is problematic.
For images from non-US photographers published on dvidshub, I'm also not entirely sure but tend to think that they're probably not OK. A few contributors seem to agree with me (Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/04#US Government public domain images courtesy of a third party) although I wouldn't quite call this a consensus.

In fact, I'm starting to see that you've actually set aside a page, on your page, dedicated to finding new issues with things I've touched.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've created a page to help summarize the information on the files listed in this deletion request, and have advertised this here: Revision #833449649. Did you find something else?
Cryptic-waveform (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cryptic-waveform,
Regarding dvidshub, the pages hosting the images that Matthew D has uploaded clearly show "Public Domain" as the licensing status (example). The copyright page mentioned in the Village Pump discussions seems like a generic, boilerplate legalese disclaimer, and also might refer to other content on the site, such as blog posts.
As for this image, still linked in the DR above (and the only one in the list not from dvidshub), I see that the image is released under CC BY 4.0 on the source page; do you have any specific concerns about it?
Thanks for your dilligence! — Frostly (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, I simply want to apologise, and to say thank you, to any admin or editor of good will, who has been asked to look through all of this.

First, I have made some errors, particularly in conflating Public Domain with Creative Commons; though I believe I've sorted that all out now. A learning experience you might say.

Second, with regards all the finickity business above. Seems to me all but obvious that, yes, this platform does have a relationship with Flickr (honestly, took me five seconds on Google) where there are various agreements between the groups, and the way that images are uploaded from Flickr could probably be better! Wouldn't it be nice if you could select "Creative Commons 4.0" on Flickr knowing that, if you then used the wiki wizard for Flickr images here at the Commons, that's the setting which would kick in. Ah well. We can all improve.

Third, I'm going to boldly state that if a publisher, such as the US Department of Defense, publishes an image, taken by a photographer from an allied or partner force, we can take it as read that this is probably something that the US Department of Defence and that allied force has already discussed and that, just as we assume good faith here, we can assume good faith there.

Fourth, I'm happy to try and draw out assurances of authorship wherever it's possible and, as can be seen by the many recent Tickets that the hardworking people VRT have received above. I believe it's all checked out. But my goodness that's a lot of work they've needed to do and I honestly think it was sufficient for there to be an assurance of release at the point of upload. Still, grateful for the effort that team has made.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SSID-13413225 聊齋志異 鑄雪齋抄本 下.pdf[edit]

This is a typeset edition of Liaozhai Zhiyi published by Shanghai Ancient Classics publishing house (上海古籍出版社) in 1979 (Commons page gives false date of 1900). The text of Liaozhai Zhiyi is out of copyright, but this modern typeset edition is certainly still in copyright. BabelStone (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Scott Detrow at White House briefing.png[edit]

It seems clear that Bud Meyers is not the rights owner of White House briefing videos. It may be a White House video, though it could just as plausibly belong to C-Span or another broadcaster. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was originally uploaded by the State Department, albeit with White House branding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCSVNBWzkjk&ab_channel=U.S.DepartmentofState Spaghettifier (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reuploaded a screenshot from the State Department video and replaced the Youtube CC license with a government public domain template — is that the right way to amend this? Spaghettifier (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spaghettifier Thanks for responding. That’s perfect, I think. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:חתונה בבאיאן.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Poliocretes as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken off web, ownership suspect. No proof provided, please give a link. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ROK II Corp.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Lee6597 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F8 (There is an error in this file. It can be replaced with the high-quality version without errors.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before deleting:
  1. Please specify the error, for the record.
  2. Before deleting, please replace this file where in use with the suggested improvement file.
Till then, keep. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Tracing error: The blue circle was not drawn accurately. You can see that there is a vertical thin line at the top of the circle.
2. I already replaced it with the suggested file in all other places where this file was used on the wiki, but I couldn't replace it in the last one, the Vietnamese Wikipedia, because my editing on there was blocked due to technical issues. I think this part will require help from others. --Lee6597 (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. I made the needed edit in vi.wp. It’s good to go:  Delete -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Binondo-Intramuros Bridge sidejwilz.jpg[edit]

The photo shows someone else's work (a bridge built by an architect). The description states that this is the author's own work. NatalkaWiki (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Binondo‐Intramuros Bridge2jwilz.jpg[edit]

The photo shows someone else's work (a church built by an architect). The description states that this is the author's own work. NatalkaWiki (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep, a possible "revenge deletion request" of the nominator (possibly connected to User talk:NatalkaWiki#‎File:Berdychiv Monument of John Paul II.jpg or other Ukrainian FoP-related nominations). There is nothing copyrightable seen in this image of mine, and the bridge is not an architectural work as per Benjamin A. Bautista, project director of UPMO Roads Management Cluster 1(B) of the w:en:Department of Public Works and Highways (the quote is visible at the permission field of the description page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 21[edit]

File:Мезенцев.jpg[edit]

Person died in 2003, can not be original work of 2023. Original date? Author? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a scanned photo of Viktor Mezentsev. The photo was taken in the 90s. Mezentsev Victor is my grandfather. Marisinfo (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the original photo and I made the scan myself. Marisinfo (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please correct the image description to be accurate. Do you know who took the photo? Are you heir to them? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by AntonioC1814 (talk · contribs)[edit]

These are (all?) lower-res added-border versions of images which can be found elsewhere online (File:Incendio del 2008 del Castello di Moncalieri.jpg is from https://www.lastampa.it/torino/2017/10/17/news/dopo-nove-anni-riapre-al-pubblico-il-castello-di-moncalieri-1.34403692/, File:Scalone d'onore del Castello di Moncalieri.png is a distorted version of a photo at https://lavenaria.it/en/moncalieri-castle-tour)

Belbury (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi belbury, I ensure you, as Officer of the 1st Carabinieri Regiment "Piemonte" that all these pictures were taken by us, and I'm uploading them in order to update our own wikipedia page in italian. Of course they were previously published on the web by others, but that does not mean that they are not our own work. I hope you understand. Thanks. AntonioC1814 (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you able to upload the original versions of the photographs, rather than low-resolution copies like a 260x200 screenshot of one such picture as it appears on Marco Stucchi's website? Belbury (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chandragupta Maurya and Bhadrabahu.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pinkish Flowers as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Unauthorized usage, and lack of source . Wiki-common never encourage this type of cropping pasting work . It seems that user not given any souce and the user failed to provide proper attribution or information about the image's origin

Converting to DR since there's a good change the work is PD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Акт візитації 1783.jpg[edit]

втрачене першоджерело HerritageConsultant (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HerritageConsultant: дякую, що додали джерело. але не дуже зрозуміла навіщо номіновувати на вилучення файл? в архівах можуть збрегігатися дані про речі, що вже втрачені. це не робить ці дані вартими вилучення --アンタナナ 13:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Фрагмент надпису на одвірку.jpg[edit]

Втрачене першоджерело HerritageConsultant (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HerritageConsultant: даруйте, не дуже зрозуміла. в описі вказано: Переписаний надпис на одвірку церкви у літопис церкви св. Миколая у Стіні рукою священника Миколи Лазаркевича, станом на 1890 р. втрачено одвірок? чи літопис церкви? а звідки Ви взяли цей фрагмент? із архівів? тоді просто досить вказати, що є джерелом цього файлу (Ви сфотографували чи зісканували з архівних документів?) --アンタナナ 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ragn.jpg[edit]

single uploading by new user. Unlike that own work. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Taivo@Kruusamägi: file with 8 MB. By default, should be trusted the uploader? Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Merineeme, kas see on sinu enda tehtud foto või kuuluvad sulle foto varalised õigused või kust see pilt üldse pärit on? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 22[edit]

File:Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last"- 1923.webm[edit]

CSD-F8. Inferior version. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Vilniaus Sporto rūmai[edit]

The building was completed in 1971 by Eduardas Chlomauskas (1927–2004), Henrikas Vytautas Karvelis (1933–2012), Zigmantas Liandzbergis (1929–1993), and Jonas Kriukelis (1927–1985). There is no freedom of panorama in Lithuania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2083.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Oppose One of the main principles of the civil law is that of non-retroactivity, and this means that the current copyright law in Lithuania cannot be applied retroactively to a building completed in 1971, unless it was still copyrighted at the time the current law was issued and the law extended the duration of its copyright. At the time of the building's completion, copyright in Lithuania was governed by the laws of the Soviet Union and those of the Lithuanian SSR. It is very possible that, even under those laws, this abandoned building, a symbol of the Russian occupation in Lithuania, is still copyrighted (which would be very sad), but you must prove this when you request the deletion of the photos, not just blindly apply the "There is no freedom of panorama in [enter a country name]" tag on hundreds of photos.
Again, the building may indeed still be under copyright, but until this is proven, my vote is "oppose". --Nenea hartia (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose There is no confirmation that the building is under copyright so that photographs of the Sports Palace cannot be published on Wikimedia. Terminator216 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sergia Melita Rodríguez.png[edit]

Caricature based on a photograph (derivative work). Considering that the person photographed is still alive, there is a possibility that the photograph it was based on is not in the public domain. Taichi (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hildaura Acosta de Patiño.png[edit]

Caricature based on a photograph (derivative work). Considering that the person photographed is still alive, there is a possibility that the photograph it was based on is not in the public domain. Taichi (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Maryland is not a state where government works are inherently public domain, with the website stating that the archive is "presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use" which seems to contradict the {{Attribution}} license.

reppoptalk 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:TCG Anadolu.png[edit]

copyright violation - YouTube uploader not likely copyright holder FOX 52 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gilberto Isella.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no source (No source since) MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on it.wiki the same image (it comes from there) has been deleted because it has no source ZioNicco (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Block evasion by User:Enujrecneps, all uploaded a week after that user's block. No reason to believe that Spencer's wedding photo at File:June Spencer's wedding.jpg is in the public domain or (as is claimed here) was taken personally by the uploader. File:Spencer in 1946.jpg is only public domain if it was published anonymously around the date claimed, which I can't confirm and no clues about the source are given. File:Spencer in 1991.jpg is again unlikely to have been taken personally by the uploader at Buckingham Palace, probably a scan from a newspaper or biography. It would not yet be public domain 32 years on.

Belbury (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Сканирование0218.jpg[edit]

Scanned photograph, authorship is dubious therefore. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep if this is your only "evidence". Every photograph taken on film is scanned! What else? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This picture is uploaded as created on May 4, 2019. The house pictured on it had burned to ashes in 1998. I am old enough to have pictures from 1998 in my archive but I don't claim they are from 2019. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the date automatically taken by the upload tool from the EXIF data that's written into the image by the scanner. Just take a look at "metadata" at the bottom of the page! Happens here with scans and reproductions of all kind every day and unnecessarily often leads to confusion and deletion requests. Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/raoul ROCHER incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2021"[edit]

Uploaded by 2 different uploaders. Unlikely to be own work as claimed. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the cropped version File:Roger raoul ROCHER.jpg was uploaded a day after File:Roger Raoul Rocher.jpg, which implies to me that the second person was sloppy in explaining that one file was extracted from the other. The only places either image pops up in TinEye and Google Lens searches (besides Commons/Wikipedia) is two genealogy sites. It's impossible to say for certain that the Commons uploads predate the genealogy site uploads, but the ones there are of lower resolution making it likely that they were posted to Commons first or at least independently. There's still no real documentation of the photo's source and the identity of the photographer, so COM:PRP may still apply, but the stated rationale (different uploaders) seems to be explainable and correctable, not evidence of a copyright violation. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rod Taylor.jpg[edit]

Died in 2018, unlikely to be 2021 own work Gbawden (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo is of my father and was owned by him and my late mother. There is no copyright violation and the photo was give to Jay Williams with our permission to use for an article in The Telegraph. That said, please carry on with the deletion. Thank you. R Walden 185.67.234.98 16:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wayne Chvestuik[edit]

Revised file uploaded to "Bahatkivtsi" page. Wayne Chvestuik (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't quite understand. You want to delete your user page, User:Wayne Chvestuik, because a "revised file uploaded" to some page? --Rosenzweig τ 20:27, 22 December 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.

File:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

Is this logo simple enough to not meet the COM:TOO#Norway rules? Note to self that en:File:Color Line logo.svg will need some updating if this is kept or deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: I don't think nominating such files for deletion is the best course of action if the nominator does not take any position themselves. If you are unsure, just leave it please. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

The juxtaposition, colorization and varying lengths of the wave patterns are clearly a result of creative choices. Asav | Talk 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Norwegian IP-register have a registered trademark here covering the grapical parts, and for the words "Color Line" as wordmark here. If there was no originality in the marks it would not be anything for IP-protection. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this logo is simple enough to meet both COM:TOO#Norway and TOO in USA. The fact that there is a registered trademark does not mean that the file is copyrightable, and it does not mean that we can not have it on commons. I have added the {{Trademark}} template to this file. Tholme (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that this is a registered trademark in Norway does imply that the graphical pattern is complex enough to be copyrighed. Same applies to the words. If generic, simple or not defended, there would be a risk of beeing unable to register or loose registration. The Commons file is a mix of two copyrighted trademarks. It is in that respect not _a_ trademark. Andrez1 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Strawberry Logo.svg[edit]

The positioning of the individual elements (albeit simple geometric forms) is clearly a creative choice and a distinct visual element that undoubtedly meets the threshold of originality. Asav | Talk 15:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OEBB Nightjet Streckennetz Stand 2024.png[edit]

No source provided showing ÖBB published this map under CC-BY-SA 3.0 178.115.59.146 17:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then this should also be removed:
KonMixters (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fletcher breaks up a pass for Laveranues Coles in 2005.jpg[edit]

this link credits the photo to a cupcake shop, but it's like a news photo? Either way, better source information is needed. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Marimo2.jpg[edit]

Save file than File:Marimo colony.svg , but in lower JPG quality Borvan53 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Conjunto la industria norteña (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The name of the band is cited as the author,Possible as, Out of scope

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sheikh Bedreddin Calligraphy.png[edit]

Not really seeing how this image is the uploader's COM:Own work if it's supposed to be an example of the calligraphy of en:Sheikh Bedreddin who died in 1420 AD. This is either the uploader's recreation of such an example or something lifted from some other website. In the first case, the file might be OK as licensed if the original example is within the public domain. In the second case, this would seem to be a violation of COM:NETCOPYVIO if has not been released under an acceptable free license by it's creator. Calligraphy can be eligible for copyright protection depending up whether it's treated as an "art" form, and that could depend upon the copyright laws of country of first publication (if different from the US). So, if this isn't 100% the uploader's "own work" (e.g. COM:2D copying or COM:DW), then I don't think this file can be kept per COM:PCP without knowing more about the provenance of the original work itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you saying? I created this image my self. Its not a recreation or an upload of an already existing image some place else or a falsification. We always create such calligraphies to use on ar.wiki in particular: Just Arabic writing arranged in a certain manner!-- باسم (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does it have to do with Sheikh Bedreddin if this is 100% your COM:Own work? The description you provided for the file on its page states, "Calligraphy of Sheikh Bedreddin Mahmud bin Israel, leader of the revolution against the Ottoman Empire during the time of Sultan Mehmed I.", and Google Translate gives the following: "Arabic: An outline of the name of Sheikh Badr al-Din Mahmoud bin Israel, the famous disobedient against the Ottoman Empire during the time of Sultan Mehmed I." Is this an example you created of Bedreddin's caligraphy style? Is this your rendition in caligraphy of something that Bedreddin said or wrote? Can you translate the text in the image? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png[edit]

El escudo de este Municipio debería ser borrado porque según la legislación venezolana (se creó 1963 o antes) pero este escudo se creó en 2022,parece que no está OK, como pasó lo mismo que Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Las razones que indica no están en absoluto claras, se trata de un emblema público y no aporta ningún enlace a la legislación que demuestre que tiene razón, solo su palabra. Por contra, en las fuentes del propio archivo sí se hace mención, de forma correcta, a las leyes de Venezuela que son de aplicación y que permiten que el archivo siga existiendo en Commons. Echando una mano 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Echando una mano:  Delete Lamentable el Escudo de Armas públicó en 2022 y según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela "En general, 60 años después de la muerte del autor, con la excepción de las obras audiovisuales, difusión de obras y programas de ordenador, en cuyo caso la protección dura 60 años después de la publicación." por eso el Escudo no está "OK".
AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Porque lo dice usted: no es aplicable a emblemas públicos, según los datos de licencia que se ven claramente en File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. Además, por favor, explíquese mejor porque cuesta entenderle. Echando una mano 23:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:A ver, en cual ley o Constitución en Venezuela indica que las emblemas municipales son de Dominio público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: en el artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras. Además del artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor, que establece qué creaciones están sometidas a derechos de autor:

los libros, folletos y otros escritos literarios, artísticos y científicos, [...] las obras dramáticas o dramaticomusicales, las obras coreográficas y pantomímicas [...]; las composiciones musicales con o sin palabras·; las obras cinematográficas y demás obras audiovisuales expresadas por cualquier procedimiento; las obras de dibujo, pintura, arquitectura, grabado o litografía, las obras de arte aplicado, que no sean meros modelos y dibujos industriales; las ilustraciones y cartas geográficas: los planos, obras plásticas y croquis relativos a la geografía, a la topografía, a la arquitectura o a las ciencias;[...].

y no se establecen como tales los emblemas públicos, sean nacionales, estatales o municipales. Según su razonamiento no se puede representar ninguna bandera ni escudo cuyo uso sea de menos de 60 años. Echando una mano 00:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:En el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora. (Osea no significa que este emblema municipal esté en el dominio público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El artículo 325 no habla de qué clase de invenciones: la bandera y el escudo lo son. Veo que tampoco comenta lo que dice el artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor y que especifica claramente qué puede estar sometido a derechos de autor y, repito, no indica en ningún sitio que los emblemas públicos puedan estarlo. Echando una mano 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:Que osea "La Bandera y Escudo lo son"?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Efectivamente todos los escudos y banderas son invenciones; solo se basan en la imaginación de las personas. Echando una mano 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano:Ok,y Logos de Alcaldias, Concejos Municipales, Gobernaciones, Consejo Legislativos, también estará en el Dominio Público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: como la legislación no especifica que tengan derechos de autor entonces están en el dominio público. Echando una mano 00:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:KransbindarvägenRadhusTopDown.png[edit]

Complies to previous requests at first nomination SolensHamn (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved it to the file, rather than the file talk page.  Delete since it's out of scope now that it's not being used. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this can be closed early due of the lack of discussion. SolensHamn (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reber.ever first radiomap 1944.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Fabian RRRR as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not the work of NASA, but of Grote Reber (working at Bell Labs), so it's copyrighted. Disputed image uploaded in 2009 and in use, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 23[edit]

File:Drapeau samnite.png[edit]

The file is misleading. The source for it, a fresca, I believe, shows several warriors, with one carrying this on a pole. However, another warrior is wearing a tunic of a very similar design, and yellow belts are also worn. It is not a flag, but a tunic with a cutout for the neck, and a belt, hanging from a spear. This file mistakenly misinterprets it as a modern flag, non-existent at the time period.


https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2016-01/1452840218_1.-samnite_soldiers_from_a_tomb_frieze_in_nola_4th_century_bce.jpg Dughorm (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural  Keep as this is currently in use on cswiki, but I support deletion if that gets ironed out. Not only is unclear whether this frieze depicts a flag at all, but even if it is a flag there's no obvious reason to suspect that it represented the Samnite people as a whole. Omphalographer (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ida Lupino signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK, subject died in 1995 so not old enough to be in PD A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2023 (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) 23:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Phil Collins' Autograph.JPG[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, which one of the named reasons does hit here? KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So a photograph that I took of an autograph that I was sent should be deleted? Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unfortunately, but Cafel did not write exact reason until now. May be, it can be possible to put a hint on the file ... KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2023 (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) 23:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for your remarks and the hint Wikisympathisant (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Phil Collins Signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2023 (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) 23:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Taio Cruz.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2023 (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) 23:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Signature of Chen Shui-bian.png[edit]

Per COM:SIG Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Signature of Chen Shui-bian.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Marcus Chang Signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When I uploaded this file, I questioned about the issue in the Help Desk, which you can find at here. Anverleo (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flakestate Holding Pinecone.jpg[edit]

Possible F10 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leake Street. - 52978111247.jpg[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:55 Sine wave.ogg[edit]

File content is wrong; it’s 164.8 Hz. Stephan Leeds (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1944-DERROCADO-MAXIMILIANO-HERNANDEZ.jpg[edit]

no proof of PD PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Puente cuscatlan.jpg[edit]

no proof of PD PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Reporte de niños desaparecidos elaborada por la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de El Salvador durante la guerra civil. Dicho reporte es una de las principales fuentes de consulta en la investigación de hechos de la guerra salvadoreña.jpg[edit]

not an own work, no proof of PD PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 40-some uploads, all seem to be personal photos, and no global contributions; F10 probably applies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:2012 stamps of Colombia[edit]

These images were originally uploaded to Flickr by the Colombian national police under a cc-by-sa-2.0 license. The problem is that according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia stamps from the country are copyrighted for at least 70 years after the publication date. The same term also seems to apply to government works. So it's pretty unlikely these images are free of copyright. Otherwise there should really be better evidence then the images being uploaded to Flickr as cc-by-sa-2.0.

Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Agreed. As these are 2012 stamps, they are too new to have had their copyright expire in Colombia. They also have a 95 year USA copyright per URAA at Commons:Hirtle_chart, making this PD in 2108. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:C E M Joad 1945 by Griff.jpg[edit]

1945 work published anonymously in the UK. Did this get URAA'd? In other words, was it in the public domain in the UK by 1996? Therefore, do we have any reason to assume it's PD in the US? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment According to research done by Marnanel (via Discord), "Griff", the pseudonymous author, is a T. H. Griffiths, a British cartoonist. A relevant book entry for Grin with Griff: Over 150 Cartoons. A death date was not ascertained at this time. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Aver portrait.jpg[edit]

Оригинал фотографии никак не мог быть сделан в 2019 году, поскольку изображённая на ней персона умерла в 2008 году Jim Hokins (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Безусловно - это скан семейного фото, сделанного на пленочную камеру где в 1960х KunRiskun (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Будьте добры, снимите номинацию - как еще скан фотокарточки можно вписать в автоматическую систему загрузки..? KunRiskun (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David James Nielson Planning Photo.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: another fake own work, also ovbviously not PD, the incident was in WWII

Possibly public domain if published. We'd need to know more about the photograph though. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Abzeronow, could you please let me know what information you need about the photograph? Thanks Kai110ux (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kai110ux: Do you know who the photographer was or when this was published or where it was first published? Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know who the photographer was, I just found this photo, along with the other photos, in my great-grandfather's photo album and scenned them to my computer. I don't believe it is published online, and if it is then I can't find it for love nor money. Kai110ux (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. As an unpublished photograph of unknown authorship created in 1943 or 1944, this cannot be hosted on Commons until 2065. It would be possible to upload this locally to English Wikipedia as a fair use file under the guidelines at w:Wikipedia:Non-free content, I believe. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David James Nielson Military Portrait.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: another WWII "PD" claim

Published 1940s photograph. Could be public domain but we'd need to verify that. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there Abzeronow, I believe this file should be in the public domain as the Crown Copyright on it has now expired, since they only last 50 years, and since it is clearly a photo taken by a member of the armed forces for the armed forces. Thanks Kai110ux (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Crown copyright for this photograph would be plausible. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that you mean you think the copyright still holds? Or that you believe it is now public domain? Kai110ux (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be public domain now if it were Crown copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Antoniuskapelle (Hochmössingen)[edit]

copyright violation; painter died in 1977; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, offenbar setzt die Löschbegeisterung vor Weihnachten richtig ein. Seit drei Jahren sind die Fotos in den Commons und keiner hatte Bedenken. Da ist zum Beispiel das Foto einer Statue des hl. Antonius, vermutlich eine Gipsfigur, die es in zig oder hunderten Exemplaren gibt. Bei den Gemälden kann man bezüglich Schöpfungshöhe unterschiedlicher Meinung sein. Hier sollte zunächst die Fotografin angesprochen werden, um von den Hinterbliebenen des Malers oder eines eventuellen anderen Rechteinhabers die Bildfreigabe einzuholen, statt hier gleich den Löschantrag reinzuhauen. Auch der Löschantragsteller könnte helfen, die Freigabe zu erlangen. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo, zur Freigabe könnte man sich vielleicht an die Stadt Oberndorf am Neckar wenden. Dürfte wegen der Feiertage aber länger dauern. Gruß --Georgfotoart (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Arabic Wikipedia Logo Gaza (3).svg[edit]

Potential violation of the WMF trademark policy. GPSLeo (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section 2.1: "On the Wikimedia sites, you may use the marks in any form. You may create remixes of the wordmarks and logos, abbreviate them, and add to them." Pyb en résidence (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but it could fall under 5.3 Misrepresentation. "When you use a Wikimedia mark under this policy, please use it to represent only the project for which it stands. Please do not create the impression that your use is in any way endorsed, sponsored by, or is part of the Wikimedia Foundation." Especially in combination with the current description: "The Arabic Wikipedia logo and a Palestinian scarf in mourning for the martyrs of Gaza". GPSLeo (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GPSLeo, How is the above logo different from other logo variants? This logo only used to represent only the project for which it stands (2023 Arabic Wikipedia protest), and can you explain what impression did you get? Regarding the current description, perhaps the colleague made a mistake, and the "in mourning for the martyrs of Gaza" part should be removed. --Alaa :)..! 19:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found only one other variant with a plain national flag. And none of the past Wikipedia protests ever used an adapted logo. GPSLeo (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ukrainian Wikipedia used a "logo to support Ukraine against Russia invasion 2022". Is this not the same? Generousjj (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The sole purpose of the logo is to be used in a manipulative manner as a part of an ar-wiki banner making false statements on intentional targeting of schools and hospitals and other unsubstantiated statements ignoring HAMAS attrocities and its policy of using the civil population for its terrorist purposes. Such use is in blatant violation of NPOV, which is the fundamental principle of Wikimedia projects, and Wikmedia marks should not be used to make deceptive and biased political statements. It is perfectly fine to express support of the civilians affected by a military conflict, but not in such biased manner. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are any of these points relevant in any way to the discussion? Freedom4U (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a POV that you defend, but you can't oppose that Arabic WP takes bond with people in Gaza and Palestine. And in Hebrew WP, also exits. Anas1712 (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that Hamas committed atrocities can not in any way justify the horrible crimes Israel is now committing during this genocidal war. You cannot delate more than 21.000 civilian deaths, 40% children. You cannot delate the Palestinian people with your hasbara censorship. And you cannot delate the fact that Netanyahu government knew about the planning of the Hamas terrorist attack a year in advance and it did nothing to prevent it: the Israeli army was in the West Bank to oppress Palestinians along with the illegal settlers, no one Israeli soldier was defending the anarmed israeli people along the border with Gaza 2A01:827:826:3E01:E9E5:76AE:2FA9:1AC1 00:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I see no violation of policy, no biased statement, not even an allusion to any political side. Objectively speaking, it is a logo mixing Wikipedia logo + Palestinian flag + Palestinian scarf (other similar examples do exist and were accepted and even celebrated) in memory of the nearly 100,000 people killed and injured. 193.227.175.123 09:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is no violation of the policy. Many logo variants are made and there is no fundamental difference with the Arabic logo. Ahmed Naji Talk 12:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Must be possible for a project to support a cause, like with the anti-SOPA/PIPA protests. --Anas1712 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any difference with File:Wiki_advertisement3.JPG. --TadejM (t/p) 12:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a collage of multiple files the logo itself is not changed. But as I already wrote if we would decide to delete here we also need to have a look at other versions. GPSLeo (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, this nicely fits the claim 'On the Wikimedia sites, you may use the marks in any form.' I don't see any 'impression that your use is in any way endorsed, sponsored by, or is part of the Wikimedia Foundation.' that would stem from the image itself. Its description and usage on the Arabic Wikipedia may be contested, but this is a separate issue that does not require us to delete the image. --TadejM (t/p) 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, This flag has been a subject of controversy (Invented in 1964). it represents Palestinians as well as indirectly endorses actions considered extreme or inhumane, such as the use of civilian spaces for military purposes. Rojeh1995 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This flag represents the State of Palestine, and is not contested. Why are you conflating "represent[ing] Palestinians" with "endors[ing] actions considered extreme or inhumane"? Those are completely different things, and the use of this flag in no way supports inhumane actions, or a specific entity like Hamas. Generousjj (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David James Nielson Training Photo 1.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Date is at least 1930, obviously not PD

Possibly public domain in the EU, but we'd need to know more information about the photograph. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.

Estopedist1 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kris Jenner in Badgley Mischka.jpg[edit]

flickr washing - bogus license on Flickr doesn't match copyright notice "Photo by Jennifer Graylock/Getty Images for Heart Truth Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that all the images at Category:The Heart Truth 2013 have this issue. Other than an assertion that they are public domain and licensed that way on Flickr, the actual exif data on the images conflict with the details of the license. These are Getty Images sourced and photos were not taken by employees of the federal government as stated. Note the license states "Please ensure that this image was actually created by the US Federal government. The NIH frequently uses commercial images which are not public domain" That appears to be the case here, these are not public domain images. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portugal Hammerskins.svg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Logo from a political group from Portugal CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it isnt copyrighted as the political group isnt legal in Portugal due to their beliefs Cpmtiago (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is that, even if the group is illegal, there is an author for this picture. I am not aware of the law about logos in Portugal, but I doubt it falls automatically in public domain, even for an illegal group. Also, are you the creator of this logo, as you claim on the page? If yes, please follow the instruction on this page: [16]. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
from what I read, in Portugal, in order for a logo to be copyrighted the author must register the logo. in this specific case, as the logo isnt registered, the logo can be used freely. if you have other interpretation of the situation let me know. greetings! Cpmtiago (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not knowledgeable about logos from Portugal. I will let an admin decide. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Peru-Bolivian United States[edit]

Fictional flags / CoA for a country that never came to exist, only one official flag is known that remains on Wikipedia. Apart from being very low quality images.

 Goldsztern  ✶  19:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Album representantů všech oborů veřejného života československého - 1927 - Martin Benka.png[edit]

The proper license is unknown, and it was marked for speedy deletion. I hate to delete a perfectly good file in use on several Wikipedias that's clearly good under US law and probably good under Czech law if someone wants to find the correct details. Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Sorry - licence corrected! 2A02:8308:207:5E00:2C0D:648D:B697:E7DC 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Josetti JUNO Klebemarken.jpg[edit]

These ca. 1910s German advertising stamps are signed by artist Kon Linon. Kon Linon was the pseudonym used for a long time by graphic artist Walter (Konrad) Linon from Berlin. I couldn't find dates of birth or death for him, but I could find him in the Berlin phone and address books from 1923 to 1966. So it is pretty clear that the died less than 70 years ago, and his works are still protected in Germany, so the file should be deleted. The works here are dated to ca. 1910, I could find a ca. 1912 date for one of them in the web somewhere. Since we don't know Linon's year of death, the file can be restored with {{PD-old-assumed}} (at least 120 years after creation/publication, but not earlier than 70 years after the last year we have a record of the artist) in 2037. Rosenzweig τ 21:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 24[edit]

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

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Duchamp3 (talk · contribs)[edit]

problematic user. Very likely copyright infringements. Some files are already individually nominated for deletion

Estopedist1 (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:;paranoia kirjutaja isolaator.jpg – selfmade
File:;paranoia kirjastuse raamatuesitlus.jpg – selfmade
File:Metabor.jpg – selfmade
File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence Duchamp3 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive #Comment: Suspicious source. Uploading such files without knowing the photographer may be questionable
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage #Comment: concrete proof is needed that the file is in public domain or free license.
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence #Comment: how do you know? If you have permission from Gabriela Liivamägi, then use VRT

Pinging user:Duchamp3 and user:Kruusamägi and user:Taivo--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jaak Reevits.jpg – from family archive #Comment: Suspicious source. Uploading such files without knowing the photographer may be questionable.
– I know the photographer, it was my grandfather (he is dead now). Photo was made during Soviet time, that had no Western copyright system.
File:KIWA by T.Volkmann.tif – from artist information centre webpage #Comment: concrete proof is needed that the file is in public domain or free license.
– This webpage's goal is to spread the free info (incl pictures) about the artists. It is not a commercial art webpage.
File:Kiwa.jpg – free licence #Comment: how do you know? If you have permission from Gabriela Liivamägi, then use VRT
– Miss Liivamägi has granted me and to ;paranoia publishing the licence to use this photo for free. Duchamp3 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duchamp3, Miss Liivamägi needs to agree to all the terms laid out at COM:Licensing and contact COM:VRT to state her agreement to them. Whatever you post here is not going to be sufficient to keep the files. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She contacted VRT, but meanwhile her name has changed due to marriage. There is no way t o change the metadata. Duchamp3 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please help to change the photographers family name from Liivamägi to Urm in the file's summary section. Duchamp3 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? You can edit it yourself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 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.

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A1Cafel: Are we really going through this again? This topic was discussed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg in November 2019 and, again, in November 2020 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugowra Mural.JPG, and each time the verdict was Keep. Tell me how these repeated failed attempts to have these images of murals in Australia deleted despite a broad consensus that they are not copyright violations is not disruptive behavior? Calistemon (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have cases like this was deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what the image depicted but, I would say, because nobody else took any note of the deletion discussion, and you, despite being part of previous discussions that established the above mentioned consensus, went and nominated it for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: Now covered by FOP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg[edit]

Not really covered. The undeletions a few years before were made without proper discussions at Village Pump or other similar major forums. Much of the contention stems from the claim that street art is covered by Australian FoP because these are "works of artistic craftsmanship", but there has been no community-wide consensus that Australian street art can be freely exploited (see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#Concern on Australian murals). Moreover, a 2019 information sheet from the Australian Copyright Council concerning street art provides a different answer: street art is not a work of artistic craftsmanship (therefore not covered by Section 65), and that commercial exploitations are subject to permissions from copyright holders. The Burge decision as well as Ms. Pila's scholarly inputs do not provide answers if murals can be freely exploited by commercial users without artists' permissions. See also a concern at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Please comment: proposal to delete text under FOP heading. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument that a painting is not a work of artistic craftsmanship defies logic. Was the 2019 information sheet you cite the last word on that question? On the face of it, User:Aymatth2's comment in the linked discussion is very persuasive, but legal authorities can define a mural as an animal or vegetable if they really want to, I suppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek don't expect legal authorities in Australia will treat murals as works of artistic craftsmanship that we can freely exploit and license commercially, to the harm of painters who created those works. The Australian Wikimedians who seem to defend the free exploitation of Australian murals seem to be overly focused on the technicality of the term "works of artistic craftsmanship", but even then at least one user expressed concern that Ms. Pila's literature does not really address the basic question of Wikimedians: if the murals and street art are indeed works of artistic craftsmanship and can be freely exploited by postcard makers, photographers (like Wikimedians in general), and others who commercially exploit the works. The court ruling does seem to define the parameters of which of the utilitarian works are works of artistic craftsmanship and which are not. While a user said that there are numerous postcards showing copyrighted murals being sold, it goes against the fifth part of COM:PRP. Also, his claim that a court case may finalize the bounds of Australian FoP is risky; perhaps a mural artist vs. Wikimedia Foundation because we are allowing commercially-licensed images of a certain Australian mural without the artist's licensing permission. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. According to section 65 of the copyright law, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship in a public place may be copied in two-dimensional form: painting, drawing, photograph, video etc. An implied point is that a 2D copy of a 3D work cannot be seen as a replacement for the original. A 2D copy of a 2D work could. This source defines work of artistic craftsmanship as: "material that possesses an artistic quality, were created as a result of the creators craftsmanship and are not mass produced item are an artistic work. This may include embroidery, tapestry, needlework and other crafts, as well as handmade ceramics, handmade jewellery and crafted furniture." The list does not include murals and grafitti. The Copyright Council is clear: "Copyright automatically protects most works of street art as artistic works where those works: have resulted from some skill and effort; are not simply copied from something else; and are recorded in material form (e.g. stencils, murals, graffiti, posters, yarn bombing, stick-ups or tags)." This photograph of a mural and all similar Australian steeet art copyright violations should be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think I understand. So they define murals as 2D art, not craftsmanship? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is common to the laws of many countries. A 2 dimensional picture of a building, sculpture or other 3 dimensional work is no substitute for the work itself. But a high quality 2D reproduction of a 2D work may well be seen as a substitute, and may greatly reduce the value of the author's copyright. The mural artist can therefore charge for the right to reproduce their work, just as an artist who paints on canvas, board or paper can. The "artistic craftsmanship" concept is also common. It is something handmade using traditional techniques like weaving, potting or woodworking, and has both functional and artistic value. Copyright may not last as long, and 2D reproduction is generally allowed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Aymatth2@Ikan Kekek even the website of Wikimedia Australia chapter admits that murals can only be used as incidental (de minimis) objects in films that can be shared here (like .webm videos), but those cannot be used as main subjects of videos, moreover, murals should not be present in commercially-licensed images unless there is a prior CC licensing clearances from the painters. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Governador Jorginho Mello - Foto Eduardo Valente - GOVSC-7.jpg[edit]

No permission from the author (Eduardo Valente) A1Cafel (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm author and I allow the use Eduardocordinivalente (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eduardocordinivalente can you send a permission from eduardo.valente@sgg.sc.gov.br to permissions-commonswikimedia.org
Thanks! Emha (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David Croix de Guerre Letter.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: another fake own work, dated 1946

Alphonse Juin died in 1967, this will become PD in France in 2038. If we consider this a 1946 publication, it would be public domain in the US in 2042, but if we consider this unpublished until the upload, then it would become PD in 2038. Converted to DR for discussion and easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Abzeronow, I have a couple questions. If I take a photo of this document and upload it, then won't it fall under my own copyright as the person taking the photo, and so wouldn't it then be possible for me to upload it to the page? Secondly, is there any way of me using this as a reference on the article? If so, could you let me know how please? Thanks a lot Kai110ux (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kai110ux, under countries with Sweat of the Brow like the UK, you would gain an additional copyright, and if this was public domain but unpublished in the EU, you'd get a 25-year publication right. In the United States, where Wikimedia's servers are, you wouldn't get a copyright by scanning because it would be a slavish reproduction of the original under w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., also see COM:PD-Art. And so the question goes to the original copyright: is this a work of Juin's authorship (you can see that he signed it, and it references him as the head of the army) or is this a work of the French government which may be expired because it's been more than 70 years? To your second question, offline documents can be referenced in English Wikipedia. I don't know the details of how to reference this particular document, but it can be referenced. Abzeronow (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Konstantin Skorobogatov in Heavenly Slug.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by FlorianH76 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license, non free source

The film appears to be covered by the license since it is a 1945 Soviet Russian film created by a legal entity (Lenfilm). It is a still from that film. Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:How heterosexual couples have met, data from 2009 and 2017.png[edit]

The graph and description are from this article, which is published under the old PNAS license. The old PNAS license is incompatible with COM:L, since it does not allow republication and creation of derivative works by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will note that there is an exemption in the license terms that refers to educational use and non-commercial of graphs. For avoidance of confusion (the uploader is a WikiEd student), the licensing policy doesn't accept these sorts of narrow carve-outs. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should be recreated with a different style using the same data. Yann (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the possible exception of the text on the bottom, it's a clear {{PD-chart}} pass. Change the license, crop, revdel and keep. Buidhe (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Siratus beauii (P. Fischer & Bernardi, 1857) - BioLib.cz.jpg[edit]

The original author of the image appears to have got the copyright wrong (other images by the same author with copyright) Mário NET (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alfa-romeo-logo.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Marchjuly as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: url=https://www.alfaromeo.com/%7C1=Almost certainly not "own work" and no indication is has been otherwise released as licensed. This logo is quite old. Does a recent rendition create a new copyright? We have many logos on cars, even on close-up views: Category:Alfa Romeo logos. Yann (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Raphael Palermo (talk · contribs)[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boa tarde. São fotos para enriquecer artigos, por favor não excluir. São fotos de arquivo. Raphael Palermo (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tais fotos não possuem pessoas vivas, e todas são de acervo guardado por mim de personalidades históricas. Raphael Palermo (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's missing in your remarks is any claim that you shot these photos. Explain why Commons can host them. Who took the photos and when? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 28 December 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.

File:Samet Kuş .jpg[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Samet Kuş .jpg[edit]

Tarafımca yanlışlıkla yüklenmiştir. Sametkus (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 25[edit]

File:Peter Mathieson Signature.png[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2023 (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) 23:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FletchWWChan.png[edit]

Appears to be a screenshot or extracted from a bigger file, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose any dubious claim, please explain? most headshots extracted from bigger files and it does not a reason to remove any files. Hoising (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peter Mathieson Signature.jpg[edit]

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Oppose, as he made the work in Hong Kong rather than UK, please refer to the source. -- Hoising (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IronGargoyle: Do we have examples of what is considered "extremely simple" in this context? The sentence you quoted is open to significant variations in interpretation. I'd read that myself before my !vote and counted at least 6 separate lines in the signature (more than "a line or two"). If we have precedent of where we draw the line (no pun intended) on the complexity of UK signatures, I'd be happy to stand corrected. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:59, 2 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) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:蘇嘉全signature.svg[edit]

Per COM:SIG Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Bourse (métro Paris) quai Levallois par Cramos.JPG[edit]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose Station de métro ultra standard comme il en existe des centaines identiques, surtout depuis le "renouveau du métro" des années 2000. Pourquoi cette photo serait-elle à supprimer ? Il n'y a aucune oeuvre architecturale spécifique à protéger sur cette photo. Comme l'a déjà dit Poudou99 (talk · contribs), on est là dans ce qu'on appelle le principe de minimis, car dans cette photo il n'y a pas vraiment d'éléments architecturaux notables qui seraient protégés par le droit d'auteur de l'architecte de la station. Il n'y a que des éléments fonctionnels. Ce n'est pas de l'art. Cramos78 (talk) 11:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per nomination. The advertisement is quite prominent to consider it de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fresco of Baba Buddha from a Nirmala Akhara in Punjab.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Redtigerxyz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The photograph of a fresco. It is copyrighted https://shastarvidiya.org/notice.html#copyright Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redtigerxyz - This photograph image of a historical fresco painting is considered a slavish reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork. It's not copyrightable as a result and thus, regardless of what the website claims, it does not have copyright protection. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/newsroom.consilium.europa.eu[edit]

The copyright page of the European Council seems to imply a no-derivative restriction, which is not accepted on Commons, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Dussopt incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2023"

A1Cafel (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright page states "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source of the material, unless otherwise stated and that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted." I took that to mean I could use images from the Council website since it is a fantastic source of high-quality, up-to-date images of European politicians, and uploaded them, always acknowledging the Council as the original source and linking to the original page. So I apologize if I indeed violated a copyright, but as I understood it, I don't see how the images cannot be used on Wikimedia projects. Procrastineur49 (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with User:Procratineur's views that this is a valuable source for images of European politicians, and that in my view the licence allows derivative works (provided "that the original meaning or message of the content is not distorted" - which I interpret as a caveat to respect certain personality rights - which is the case for many, if not most pictures of living people on Commons anyway). So I don't think they need to be deleted from Commons. --Zinneke (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per @Procrastineur49 and @Zinneke. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ridderorde medaille.jpg[edit]

Bad quality photo, article it was used on has been deleted Mbch331 (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment. I see that the article on nl:Edward Horace van der Sloot has been deleted. I cannot see context on the medal however since the article has been deleted. Is it possible the award is notable even if the awardee is not? IronGargoyle (talk)|

File:Jamal Verblyd.jpg[edit]

Copyvio, scan of unknown book, not own work -- Tomasina (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This recipe is located in one cookbook International Cuisine - presented by California Home Economics Teachers in a modified form from my image. The image in Wikimedia is my own, made in one of the Microsoft programs. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spasiboxharapaham, is the cookbook still under copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, no, this recipe cannot be copyrighted, since the recipes located in cookbooks are not copyrighted. Also, this image was made by me and is not a scan of any book. I would like to add that the image is for informational purposes only and is one of the proofs that this dish exists. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's obviously a scan of an acid-darkened page. If it's a scan of a newspaper article, that doesn't change its status. You should be open about what it's a scan of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I remember that this recipe was run in the New York Times. Is this a scan of that page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek,I don't think it was published in the New York Times. I think this image is a modified image of the recipe of the cookbook International Cuisine - California Home Economics Teachers( California Management Services), subsequently edited by me. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's a derivative work of a copyrighted cookbook. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A derivative work on a recipe from a cookbook. As far as I know, recipes are not covered by copyright. Therefore, I cannot determine how much this image is my own work, I would be grateful if you would explain to me why this image is nominated for deletion. Spasiboxharapaham (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait for the closing admin. Maybe the page is below COM:TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1940 06 15 Soviet C5 B3 tankai Kaune.IH2704A.png[edit]

Copyright violation? Uploader claims "own work" but I doubt that because the photo was taken in 1940. There was no reaction upon my question on File talk to provide more information. JopkeB (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sheikh Tonmoy Bagerhat-2 Mp.jpg[edit]

politician propaganda.. possibly press photo Ahachri (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. Decent photo of a notable political figure; I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of own work. Omphalographer (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kudapatana Village Road.jpg[edit]

Picture does not seem to be useful. Also, the given category (temple) is wrong. No temple is found in picture. Ahachri (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Evald Friedrich Keskpaik.jpg[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 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.

File:All indian cine workers association.png[edit]

flickr washing --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Minorax: per Special:Diff/523367652 the Flicker uploader, Flickr user 191616345@N02, was named "aicwaofficial". Leaning  Keep. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: per en:Suresh Shyamlal Gupta, the current owner of the flickr stream is the founder of the Aicwa, so it can be safely assumed he is allowed to license their logo with CCBYSA. --Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:All indian cine workers association.png[edit]

flickr washing] --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't have an opinion about this deletion request, except that it's problematic to keep requesting deletion for the same reason. I hope the decision this time satisfies you, and we don't have a third deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mario Biondi (R) interviews Gianni Versace.jpg[edit]

Per the template warning, post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in the United States. QuestFour (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Italy it is definitely public domain. It has been published (made "public") on the italian weekly magazine "Amica" in December 1990 to illustrate an interview by me to the famous stylist. No photographer cited. And I have scanned and posted it here. So I do not know. Anyway I see that it is used only in Italy and Romania. Is it possible to restrict its use to "only outside USA"? Otherwise, I repeat, I do not know. Act according to the law. Thanks
˜˜˜ Mario Biondi writer (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo simply being in the magazine does not make it in the public domain. Unless there is corroboration that its author (photographer, or whoever owns its copyright) has made it in the PD, it is only that per the Italian 20-years-after-creation law, which does not apply in the US to photos created after 1975 per the above. QuestFour (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Auw bei Prüm, St.Peter und Paul.2.jpg[edit]

No correct permission 2A01:599:807:9D85:9487:F2B2:570A:24F6 17:51, 25 December 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.

File:Tour_Eiffel_top.jpg[edit]

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in France. There are no Freedom of Panorama exemptions in France, which means that they cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal purposes. However, French jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". -- Grcampbell (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As per previous deletion request: True that the picture is taken at night, and shows part of the lighting scheme which actually can't be photographed. But this picture is a closeup and displays only less than 5% of the whole lighting scheme... - Benh (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we just ignore the law as it is a teeny weeny bitty of the subject? The subject of the image is the lighting at the top of the eiffel tower at night. If you only want to show the top of the eiffel tower, you do not need to show an image with the light effects. In this case, the lighting is not "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject", it IS the subject. --Grcampbell (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • We who? You? Of course you can. Somehow you did it for three or four years. Yes, I know, crusades need long preparations ;)). As for the subject, delete. Good catch. No French lightbulbs on commons, period. NVO (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't ignore anything, I'm looking at it from different way, and no one can prove me wrong on the points I raise. the lighting is not the subject. part of the lighting is part of the subject, which is not the same. I also read somewhere that SETF claim such rights only to prevent abusive uses of the tower's image. I don't believe it is the case here. Don't push it the other way and delete as soon as you have tiny doubts. - Benh (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:PRP --Grcampbell (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Issue isn't how much of the whole tower's lighting is shown, it's how much of the image it constitutes and whether it was incidental or intentional. If you need a picture of the top of the tower, take it during the day. – Adrignola talk 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored: No copyright for simple lighting. Yann (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP France there is no freedom of panorama for Eiffel tower night pictures. In my opinion the photo was correctly deleted and incorrectly (without discussion) undeleted. This is not a simple lighting. Taivo (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/Eiffel Tower at night. Apparently only the particular light show in 1989 was copyrighted and normal lighting was not.
Also, since this is currently the POTD of Chinese Wikipedia right now, is there a Speedy Keep #6 applied here? S5A-0043Talk 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:V. ker címere.jpg[edit]

Lower quality and resolution duplicate file of File:Coa Hungary Town Budapest 5th big.svg. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 21:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep
    • It’s not a duplicate. It’s an independent rendering of the same blazon (different colors, different drawings of the gates, the tails of the griffins etc.).
    • It’s four years older. External sites may have linked to or embedded the JPEG file between 2008 and 2012 due to lack of better alternative; a deletion would break those sites, without any demonstrated advantage. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 26[edit]

File:Grazia 13.jpg[edit]

No permission; post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in the United States per PD-Italy. QuestFour (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gastronomía Embera.jpg[edit]

la foto tiene dueño y no soy yo 190.102.56.160 01:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estoy esperando que me respondan,,, quiero eliminar esta foto 190.102.56.160 01:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Espera, espera. 186.172.203.249 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Eo circle blue letter-r ARQ.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). There is presently no license tag, but this is a trivially simple logo more or less everywhere except the U.K., and I think it's under COM:TOO. As such, I'm declining the speedy and sending to DR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paombong.png[edit]

The file won't even update on Wikimedia Commons, as this file is already placed in Wikipedia, but the file's changes won't even appear on Wikipedia. Ethanbulaon (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Herb and Sarge.jpg[edit]

Likely copyright violation. Appears to be a photograph (the uploader's?) of another photograph which was taken decades ago (the subject died in the 90s). Likely a photograph of some archived photograph owned by someone other than the uploader. Dan Leonard (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This photo (the original, hard copy photo, not the jpg) is in possession of one of the descendants of Herb Kramer. This photo was from his personal effects. It is now in the possession of his daughter Katherine. Berwin (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ty-400.jpg[edit]

no author given. No EXIF-data. And no FOP in Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Impru20 as no permission (No permission since) Theklan (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The license of the image can be seen clearly in the website of the political party this candidate represents: EH Bildu. The license is cc-by-sa (not specificed 3.0 or 4.0) as stated in the footer. Now I can't go back, because the website is poorly designed and doesn't have an archive button, but the image authorship and license is clear from them. Theklan (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image itself is visible here: https://ehbildu.eus/albisteak/eh-bilduren-mahai-politikoak-pello-otxandiano-proposatu-du-lehendakarigai-izateko Theklan (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The website's legal note states that "Sólo para uso personal y privado se permite descargar los contenidos, copiar o imprimir cualquier página de esta web. Queda prohibido reproducir, transmitir, modificar o suprimir la información, contenido o advertencias de esta web sin la previa autorización por escrito de EUSKAL HERRIA BILDU." (translates as: "Only for personal and private use it is permitted to download the contents, copy or print any page of this website. It is prohibited to reproduce, transmit, modify or delete the information, content or warnings on this website without the prior written authorization of EUSKAL HERRIA BILDU."). It is not clear what does the footer mean, but it is in clear contradiction with the website's specific legal advice and should be interpreted restrictively. Where can we find than this image in particular has a cc-by-sa license? Because that's not made clear from the link you provide nor from the website itself. Impru20 (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be noted that a derivative work from this file, File:Pello Otxandiano (cropped).jpg, was deleted a couple days ago due to it indeed not having permission. Impru20 (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fasadetegning Baroda.jpg[edit]

Upload comment (Uploaded while editing "Jens Dunker" on no.wikipedia.org) and File:Bilde Baroda kirke.png on no:w:Jens Dunker suggest this is an architectural drawing by Jens Dunker, who died in 1981. According to COM:Norway, this work will remain in copyright until 2052. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Абхазия- Гагра- 2014-06-23 11-12.jpg[edit]

low quality, multiple other view of Gagra already exist Alaexis (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:تعزیه خوانی در فدیشه.webp[edit]

Unlicensed {{User|POS78}} talk 09:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You can see this statement on the link provided for the image. Ehsanbasafa (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ehsanbasafa This picture is not for Mehr news agency. There is nothing to prove that it was taken by the photographers of this news agency. {{User|POS78}} talk 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Villa de Arriaga 11.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo; actual age of the components of the image need to be confirmed; not clearly eligible for speedy deletion  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vladimír Mařík.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jan Myšák as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.top-expo.cz/smart-city/smart-city-2017/tee-2017/ A 2017 page cited as the source, yet we have a 2012 image, possible that we are the soure of their image  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wali Kota Ternate Tauhid Soleman.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 0x0a as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © 2023 ternatekota.go.id. All right reserved. Hak cipta Diskomsandi.|source=https://ternatekota.go.id/; source cited as noted, and cited as exempt  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to notes in Template:PD-IDGov, images taken from Indonesian government websites with copyright sign are considered to be copyrighted. 0x0a (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Once published by government websites, they're in the public domain. Indonesia is unitary state, which means the central government law is binding on its entire region and local government. In this case, Ternate government is not exempt from the copyright law because they use public funds to create this image (their "All Righs Reserved" claim can be easily ruled out by the court). Afif Brika1 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bupati Maluku Barat Daya Benyamin Thomas Noach.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 0x0a as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © Sejak 2018 Copyright Maluku Barat Daya News. All Rights reserved.|source=https://news.malukubaratdayakab.go.id/; cited as government published and exempt  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to notes in Template:PD-IDGov, images taken from Indonesian government websites with copyright sign are considered to be copyrighted. 0x0a (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Once published by government websites, they're in the public domain. Indonesia is unitary state, which means the central government law is binding on its entire region and local government. In this case, Maluku Barat Daya government is not exempt from the copyright law because they use public funds to create this image (their "All Righs Reserved" claim can be easily ruled out by the court). Afif Brika1 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bernard Schorderet, "Orée", 1957.jpg[edit]

As the artist died in 2011, this 2017 upload cannot be own work. VRT-permission from heir is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am the artist heir and I have permission to publish this image. Please remove the deletion request. 2A02:A03F:6487:DF00:BD2F:7D07:5B27:8D09 10:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the reasoning does not make sense. The work of art is property of my family, regardless of lineage. As such, I can take a picture of it and publish it, this is the definition of "own work". 2A02:A03F:6487:DF00:BD2F:7D07:5B27:8D09 11:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(sorry I was not logged in. Both messages above are from me). Blackberu (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please open COM:VRT page (French version) and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to Wikimedia permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Taivo (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Franckmarchay, Ilrescator (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible F10

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Juan S. Gonzalez, NSC Senior Director.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. Yann (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm inclined to vote keep as its typical of Government official photos but I cannot find a source to confirm Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chinese-Urdu Collaboration.tif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Minorax as no permission (No permission since)

The file format is en:tiff and based on the EXIF data, it was probably created by the uploader. It also appears to be a proposed logo for the meta:Chinese-Urdu Community Collaboration project and it is in scope. SCP-2000 13:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I would first be thankful for the assistance of User:SCP-2000 in the response to my pleading in the instant messaging channel as I cannot use the "Challenge" function described in Commons:But it's my own work!. It might possibly be the most ridiculous speedy deletion I have ever seen. That file is a TIFF file with all drawing layers and sized 1.7MB where there should be no reason to exclude it as an original file. I uploaded the original file and released it per CC BY-SA 4.0. I can see no ground to suspect at all. --だ☆ぜ (Dasze) 14:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NCL-004652770 關羽.pdf[edit]

May be written by Qingge Zhao (Q65051438) (1914-1999) Midleading (talk) 14:42, 26 December 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.

File:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

Is this logo simple enough to not meet the COM:TOO#Norway rules? Note to self that en:File:Color Line logo.svg will need some updating if this is kept or deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: I don't think nominating such files for deletion is the best course of action if the nominator does not take any position themselves. If you are unsure, just leave it please. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Color Line logo.svg[edit]

The juxtaposition, colorization and varying lengths of the wave patterns are clearly a result of creative choices. Asav | Talk 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Norwegian IP-register have a registered trademark here covering the grapical parts, and for the words "Color Line" as wordmark here. If there was no originality in the marks it would not be anything for IP-protection. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe this logo is simple enough to meet both COM:TOO#Norway and TOO in USA. The fact that there is a registered trademark does not mean that the file is copyrightable, and it does not mean that we can not have it on commons. I have added the {{Trademark}} template to this file. Tholme (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that this is a registered trademark in Norway does imply that the graphical pattern is complex enough to be copyrighed. Same applies to the words. If generic, simple or not defended, there would be a risk of beeing unable to register or loose registration. The Commons file is a mix of two copyrighted trademarks. It is in that respect not _a_ trademark. Andrez1 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Postcards of Hochsauerlandkreis[edit]

These four files, apparently showing older German postcards, were uploaded without naming an author or a source other than just "old postcard" or "old postcard before World War II". So while three of them are said to be from 1939 (or earlier), the fourth could be even much later, like the 1950s or the 1960s.

The license tags used for the uploads, {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, are not correct. Not-PD-US-URAA is not allowed for new files uploaded after 1 March 2012. And PD-Germany-§134-KUG does not apply because the photographs were not "published before 1966 by a German legal entity under public law without indicating an author" (or in the very unlikely case that they were, there is no evidence at all to support it).

1939 or the 1950s/1060s is much too late for {{PD-old-assumed}}, and while some people like to claim quickly that such photos are "anonymous" or there was "no author disclosure" or something like that, we cannot even determine if that is actually the case without knowing when and how they were published first. So without any information about first publication or even just the year in which they were taken we cannot determine their copyright status, and the files should be deleted.

Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Es handelt sich um Postkarten die ich kaufte. Bei Wikipedia sind Tausende Postkarten unter {{PD-old-assumed}} veröffentlicht. Dort ist die Sachlage genauso wie bei diesen. Willst Du sie alle löschen? Der Verlag Fotohandlung W. Vieth Hachen, von dem die Postkarten gedruckt wurden, gibt es nicht mehr. Zumindest sind im Internet nur einige Postkarten der Firma zu finden.--Falkmart (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dass du sie gekauft hast, hat keinen Einfluss auf die urheberrechtliche Bewertung, und dass es den Verlag nicht mehr gibt, auch nicht. PD-old-assumed ist für Werke, die mindestens 120 Jahre alt sind, und das ist hier wie oben geschrieben nicht der Fall. --Rosenzweig τ 15:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kis Ferenc arcképe sírjáról, 2009.jpg[edit]

FoP does not apply to photographs in Hungary. I think, the original photo may remain by COM:DM Regasterios (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ALIN2021.jpg[edit]

Appears to be a studio portrait, looks professional, also this is the user's only uploads, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. A "dubious" DR. "Looks professional" is not a valid reason to delete photographs on Commons. Quality photos on Commons are valued. There are many other photos with clear reasons for a Deletion Request, but this is not one of them. --Ooligan (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See COM:MYWORK #4, the image looks very professional, such as a studio portrait, book cover, movie poster, etc. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the link,
"It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." --Ooligan (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alin抱歉我不抱歉.tif[edit]

Appears to be a studio portrait, looks professional, also this is the user's only uploads, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep. A "dubious" DR. "Looks professional" is not a valid reason to delete photographs on Commons. Quality photos on Commons are valued. There are many other photos with clear reasons for a Deletion Request, but this is not one of them. --Ooligan (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See COM:MYWORK #4, the image looks very professional, such as a studio portrait, book cover, movie poster, etc. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the link,
"It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." --Ooligan (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1948 Archbold Cape York Expedition December 8, 1947 to December 4, 1948 (IA 1948archboldcap00brasa).pdf[edit]

A 1948 item cannot be a pre 1928 publication, Furthermore such items at IA are under an incompatible NC clause. I didn't see an obvious notice in the first few pages however. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  •  Comment. There is no copyright notice, but is this actually a 1948 publication? It was made in 1948, but these are just typed up field notes. You can see hand corrections at various parts of the manuscript. I don't know that this was ever distributed in a meaningful way until it was digitized. The author died in the 1970s, so it doesn't meet the US unpublished PMA threshold of 1954. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete. I think that these field notes would qualify as a work made for hire for the Museum (which funded the expedition), in which case they are copyrighted until the earlier of 95 years from publication (which would be 2017, when they were uploaded to BHL under an incompatible CC license) or 120 years from creation (1948), and thus until 1948+120+1=2069. If the writer of the notes is considered to be the copyright holder, then the copyright expires in 2042 (as he died in 1971). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/31

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12&oldid=834922745"