Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
15 January 2024
17 January 2024
Deletion requests on 16 January 2024

January 16[edit]

Files found with Special:Search/Sally Magnusson[edit]

Likely license laundering. Source is a Flickr account with only one image, this one.

Günther Frager (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dübendorf Luftaufnahme von Westen 2011.tif[edit]

Das Foto wurde von Anidaat hochgeladen, der für dieses Foto über keine Urheberrechte verfügt. Es stammt von Benjamin Müller und wurde auf das Bildarchiv der ETH-Bibliothek Zürich hochgeladen. Plutowiki (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Von der ETH mit einer Creative-Commons-Lizenz versehen, die auch korrekt angegeben ist. --Rosenzweig τ 07:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Suncoast Casino, Durban[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 50 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Лакский знак.jpg[edit]

Нет источников Vendettaaa (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files uploaded by Victoria the Victorious (talk · contribs)[edit]

paintings by unstated artists, wrong own work claim, legal status can’t be established. User had uploaded similar paintings by living artists.

Polarlys (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

according to this article which I had used as an argument for the deletetion of File:Portrait of King Rama VIII.jpg and File:Portrait of King Rama IX.jpg stated that portraits of Rama I to Rama VII has been painted and on display there before 1960 (...เพื่อนำไปประดิษฐานร่วมกับพระสาทิสลักษณ์บรูพกษัตริย์รัชกาลที่ 1-7 ที่มีอยู่ก่อนแล้วในพระที่นั่งจักรีมหาปราสาท...) furthermore This facebook post by "Book of Depserin" an nonprofit organizations dedicate to preserving primary sources about Debsirin School stated that these portraits were originally commissioned by Rama V (r. 1868-1910) (...รัชกาลที่ 5 จึงทรงโปรดให้รวบรวมหาพระบรมฉายาลักษณ์ พระฉายาลักษณ์และภาพถ่ายส่งไปเขียนในยุโรป) it's not know who painted these portraits because there are no signature visble but it is presume that the painter(s) were Italian. (...เนื่องจากพระบรมสาทิสลักษณ์ และพระสาทิสลักษณ์เหล่านี้ไม่มีลายเซ็นของจิตรกร จึงไม่ทราบแน่ชัดว่าเป็นผลงานของใคร แต่สันนิษฐานว่าเป็นจิตรกรชาวอิตาเลียน...) portraits of monarchs who reigned after Rama V are presumably commissioned by themselves during their respective reign (with the exception of Rama VIII, whose portrait were commissioned posthumously by his successor in 1960)

In short, these images are duplicate of:

--ชาวไทย (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by 6eeWikiUser (talk · contribs)[edit]

Dubious claim of own work. File:Jean De Dieu Uwihanganye.jpg appears to be cropped from linkedin - https://sg.linkedin.com/in/jean-de-dieu-uwihanganye-0956a0172 File:Michael Wallis-Brown.jpg appears to be a flip of https://www.crunchbase.com/person/michael-wallis-brown File:Tamika Lamison122.jpg has author name in exif

Most of the files have a black border indicating it was cropped from somewhere and most have have exif. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Please see the note on the TP

Dear Gbawden (A), hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for recognizing that some of files I uploaded have dubious claim of own work. Firstly, after briefly reading and understanding Commons:But it's my own work!, I deeply apologize that there are some ignorant and unintentional copyright possibilities I created in the past. In way of correcting my mistakes I aim to do positive and constructive edits in updating the summaries of all corresponding files by declaring the correct ownership. See recent changes on File:Aimable_Bayingana.jpg, If this can make the situation any better, be kind enough to let me know. Thank you so much again

File:Culture Connect Africa logo.jpg[edit]

Complex logo, not own work Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Gbawden. What do you mean complex logo, not own work.
It is my work and there is no justification that it isn’t my work. If you can provide further information
Best, B.Korlah (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Keno Veith im Jahr 2024.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) philipp.foell M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Der Fotograf hat der Veröffentlichung zugestimmt. Hallerlöwe (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hallerlöwe: The photographer needs to submit permission per COM:VRT. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sop-resize-400-מזרחי-יחזקאל.jpg[edit]

Needs an author if uploader is claiming life plus 70. Schierbecker (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was fixed? I don't see an author. Schierbecker (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Even though it's tagged as PD-Israel, that doesn't demonstrate that it's PD in the US, where the span of copyright is measured off the death of the author. C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Centre ville de Fianarantsoa.jpg[edit]

Téléversé par erreur, licence incompatible Privatemajory (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

These images show photo's of Roel Oostra, and are uploaded by user Roel Oostra. These photos are not selfies. To publish these photos on Commons, permission would be needed from the photographers. Please closely follow the procedure on VRT to show you have permission from the copyright holder/photographer to publish the image or media file on Commons with a free license. If successful, the images can be undeleted. Regarding the film poster, this probably is copyrighted by the film company, therefore that image should be deleted as wel.

Ellywa (talk) 10:53, 16 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:Alrasheed hail.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by حاتم العتيبي as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: هذا الملف بحث أصيل يحوي معلومات مضللة، مثل وجود مدينة عرعر على الخريطة وعرعر حديثة الانشاء تم تاسيسها عام 1950، وكذالك تم وضع مدينة تبوك ضمن الخريطة، وهي مدينة تابعة للحجاز للدولة العثمانية حينها، وليس لإمارة آل رشيد، وأيضاً تم وضع جزء كبير من أقليم الأحساء داخل الخريطة، وأقليم الأحساء برمته كان تابع للدولة العثمانية من حدود الكويت حتى حدود قطر تحت مسمى ولاية البصرة عندما استحوذ عليها مدحت باشا عام 1870 في حملته المعروفة ووضع الكويت والأحساء وقطر تحت الحماية العثمانية، لذالك كيف تصل إمارة آل رشيد لجنوب وشمال الأحساء وقطر؟ وهو نفوذ عثماني بحت، حيث ان إمارة آل رشيد لم تطل يوماً على بحر الخليج العربي، ولم يكن لها منفذ أو ميناء عليه بحكم تبعيته للدولة العثمانية كاملاً، وكذالك جنوب نجد الأفلاج ووادي الدواسر لم يكن تابع للإمارة، وايضاً الخريطة تبين مجاورة حدود إمارة آل رشيد لأقليم عسير، وهذا خطأ فادح، حيث لم تشترك حدود الإمارة يوماً بحدود عسير ولايوجد مصدر واحد يذكر جميع الملاحظات التي ذكرتها بالأعلى، لذالك الخريطة فيها تضليل كبير جداً، حيث ضمت أراضي لم تكن تحت نفوذ الإمارة، ووضع مدن حديثة الانشاء على الخريطة، ولم تكن هذا المدن حينها موجودة، لذالك العمل كان شخصي لم يستند إلى أدلة وفيه أخطاء فادحة.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as image is still in use. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alrasheed hail.jpg[edit]

معلومات غير صحيحة ولايوجد لها سند او مصدر تاريخي مثل هذه الصفحات تقلل من موثوقية ويكيبيديا ويصبح الموقع مصدر معلومات لايعتمد عليه ولا يتوقف على ذلك بل يحمي المعلومات الخاطئة والمضللة من الحذف او التعديل استاذ مبارك (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Lilou Lemaire novembre 2022.jpg[edit]

suite à une operation de feminisation de mon visage, je ne souhaite plus que cette operation apparaisse sur la page et sur internet, car cela peu me porter prejudice ayant changer de genre. merci pour votre comprehension 2001:861:8C95:B8C0:8170:7733:46F8:5C2D 11:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

suite à une operation de feminisation de mon visage, je ne souhaite plus que cette operation apparaisse sur la page et sur internet, car cela peu me porter prejudice ayant changer de genre. merci pour votre comprehension Liloulemaire (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:الشهيد سعود الطيطي.jpg[edit]

صورة مخالفة Mohammed Qays (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Maison Dochain.jpg[edit]

mauvaise publicité pour l'hotel hebergé dans ce batiment 212.224.228.56 13:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Je ne vois pas comment et pourquoi une photo récente de cet immeuble classé et historiquement appelé la maison Dochain peut être une mauvaise publicité pour l'hôtel actuel. Eventuellement, on pourrait renommer la photo ː le Manoir - ancienne maison Dochain. Rebexho (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Dionysius Miller (talk · contribs)[edit]

Not sure how old is the seal.

0x0a (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy, in regards to the Millvale seal and banner I sent in a request to use them to the copyright holder (Millvale borough council) and received permissions Dionysius Miller (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did they indicate that the seal is available under CC0? If they did, can you forward the reply to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org"? Thank you. 0x0a (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Die Ewigkeit von Kinderträumen ist ein flüchtiger Moment VII.jpg[edit]

copyvio artist Marc Frising is still alive Bahnmoeller (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veröffentlichung durch Künstler Marc Frising autorisiert.Reited (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Reited: In diesem Fall brauchen wir eine Bestätigung durch eine direkt vom Urheber (= Künstler) geschicke E-Mail. Details, nötiger Wortlaut, Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 09:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
an welche Email Adresse?06:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Reited (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wie geschrieben: Steht in COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke. Habe es an Marc Frising weitergeleitet.Reited (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bitte löschen. Vom Künstler kommt ein anderes Bild.Reited (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Possible depiction of LHS 1140 b landscape with black grass and red starlight.jpg[edit]

Totally fake image of LHS 1140 b made by an AI generator. Although it's being used in a Russian language Wikipedia article, it should be deleted anyway since the usage is clearly not in good faith and the image isn't reasonably educational either. Both of which are required for any possible usage to matter. Adamant1 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Instead of deleting, the file title and description could be changed. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep With the info from the uploader given below (who I think argues for a Keep too), I now think the file should be kept. This info means the image makes more sense and the many examples of comparable kept images (lots more in their categories) are quite clear in regards to whether or not this should be kept. (And whether or not it should be used is a different question.) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not "totally fake". File description clearly states that the image is AI-generated, and not "real" photo from the planet. As for the content, I'll cite the description of possible vegetation on this planet from a reliable source. «Plant life on LHS 1140b would be very different from what we know on Earth because of the radiation - if we assume plant life can exist on this planet; the radiation will completely change the photosynthesis process. “There is a lot of interesting work talking about how photosynthesis might work for plants on planets orbiting M-dwarfs,” explains Dittmann to All About Space. “Since there isn’t a lot of optical photons hitting the surface, chlorophyll might not work efficiently and maybe planets would need to find another way to get the job done.” So instead of the bright sky overlooking a nice green field on Earth, similar to the classic Microsoft Windows XP background picture, you would instead see a dimly-lit sky over a black field of grass, looking more like something out of a horror movie" (Cavendish L. Is this planet our new home? (англ.) // All About Space. — 2017. — Iss. 66. — P. 52-53). The image more or less accurately depicts "a dimly-lit sky over a black field of grass" and is not substantially different from other "artist impression" depictions of alien landscapes that are all over the place here on Commons. --Agra (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per Agra, this is a reasonable piece of hypothetical exoplanet art that is surprisingly close to real scientific speculation. Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete. All current speculations about possible life on exoplanets are too unreliable. Commons is for educational content, not for artwork. All the mentioned "artist impressions" should be deleted as well. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You know a bunch of those are by NASA or the IAU; also, based on your logic we should delete this and this as well. This too, because Commons is “not for artwork” and it’s just a crazy inaccurate vision of the night sky. Dronebogus (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An incorrect analogy. Photo of Van Gogh painting is entirely educational content, because it educates about a notable artwork. NASA and IAU are sufficiently reliable sources. At the same time, we have hundreds of totally fake images which just mislead readers and should be deleted. The image in question is partially based on an acceptable source, but, in my opinion, to a small degree, and doesn't contain information which is impossible to express in a short text. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just to throw it out there, I don't really have an issue with the image that is sourced to ESO since it doesn't show details of the plants surface. So there isn't really anything potentially misleading about it per say. I don't think you can say that the planet probably looks like it does in this image simply because someone put some random words that sound extraterrestrial like "black unearthly vegetation" into a prompt though. We don't know what words the AI generator decided to ignore, over or under emphases, or what it's inspiration was. For all we know it could have generated the image based on only a couple of the words in the prompt and fan art of mars from DeviantArt.
  • It's ludicrous to act like if someone puts a couple of words into a prompt having to do with an exoplanet (or really anything else) that the result is inherently accurate though. That's not how AI art generators work. At the end of the day AI generated images aren't even consistent from one image to the next. Let alone from one generator to the next. But images of the planet directly from ESO and NASA probably will be. Or if not at it will be because of a change in the scentific understand of said planet, not because someone pushed a button and the numbers went burr. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's ludicrous to think that if someone plugs some random values into Terragen, then the result is somehow accurate. It's equally ludicrous to think if someone uses software like Celestia, then the result is somehow accurate. The same with Photoshop or any other image editing software. ALL exoplanet images, including those from ESO and NASA, are software-generated. If the result fits the description in reliable sources, then it doesn't matter how it was generated. You don't get consistent results from AIs, that's true, but you don't get consistent results from people either. If you ask two persons to draw "a dimly-lit sky with a red star over a black field of grass" you'll probably get very different results. Agra (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    …and the ESO image is just a screenshot of proprietary software sold on Steam and GOG (en:Space Engine). Just like many, many others. That's exactly 'someone pushed a button and the numbers went burr'. Are these images even free? Agra (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there is a consensus to delete any "artistic impression" astronomical image that does not come from reliable source (or, at least, most of them), then I don't mind deleting this image as well. But if hundreds of images like this are acceptable, this one should be too. AI art is not in any way worse than pictures some random Joe gets by plugging some random values into en:Terragen. Agra (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Agra: Be my guest and nominate other "artistic impressions" of astronomical images for deletion. I could really care less and would probably vote to delete them myself, but their current existence on the project has nothing do with the merits of this particular image being hosted on Commons or not. It's not like people couldn't make the same argument in reverse if this image is deleted but the one you linked to is ever nominated for deletion either. So the whole thing is just a circular non-argument. And if your just going to chalk this up to bias against AI artwork or whatever, I happen to have an interest in the area and there's rule that people can't nominate images related to a particular subject that they have an interest in for deletion. So it would be good if you stopped with the strawmen. It gets super tiring having to counter the same baseless claims that people are just bias towards AI artwork ad nauseum every time it comes up. -Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I never made any claims about your or someone else's bias. That's irrelevant. The relevant thing is that if we have thousands of similar images that are used in many different wikis, then it's a POLICY question that must be discussed project-wide, not in a DR for a single image. Agra (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comment that AI art is not in any way worse than pictures some random Joe or that I should be nominating similar artwork for deletion along with this image kind of insinuates this has something to do with bias against AI artwork. Regardless, the existence of similar images being used on other projects isn't relevant to the merits of keeping this image or not. Like I've said, be my guest and nominate the images for deletion or start a discussion about it on the relevant talk of the policy you think needs to be changed, but your that's not my issue and has nothing to do with this. The image isn't going to be kept just because there's similar images on here. I'm not going to retract this or start a project-wide discussion about it just because you don't think the deletion request is legitimate either. Especially since your reason for thinking that clearly isn't valid to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's one perfectly solid and valid reason for keeping this image: COM:INUSE. The policy explicitly states that "a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough". And "it should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope". You may participate in discussion in Russian Wikipedia, if it is decided that the image should not be used in article, your arguments here may be considered in favor of deletion. But you can't overrule that project decision to use the image by starting a DR here. Agra (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    COM:INUSE also says "any use that is not made in good faith does not count" and I've given plenty of reason's why I don't think the usage is valid. All of you which you seem to be ignoring in favoring of Wikilawyering. I said your free to start a project-wide discussion if you think there needs to be a better consensus about it. Again, I could really care less, but there's really nothing to debate here if your not going to ignore why I said I think the image should be deleted or treat me like I should be discussing something that your the one who thinks need clarification. You could probably argue that it would be worth getting what constitutes a "good faithed use" clarified, but there's already a conversation about it on the Village Pump that seems to be either inclusive or favor my interpretation of it. And I'm not going to start yet another conversation just because you can't be bothered to either participate in the one that already exists or start a new one yourself. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In that conversation I see someone making the same point as me: "if something is in use on any major Wikipedia, we have to defer to that 100%". Russian Wikipedia is one of the major ones. So, if you think that usage is not valid, go there and argue there. There are also cases when file is used "for the sole purpose of preventing its deletion on Commons" or used "just to make a point", but this is clearly not the case here, as the image was already in use six months before this DR and not to make a point. Agra (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Very much agree. Note that you didn't use {{vk}} in your comment above which may be necessary or important given the strain-to-dismissal that this clear policy is currently under. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's rather hyperbolic to act like the policy is somehow getting thrown out just because of a couple DRs. Especially since all of them have involved coherent reasons why the policy shouldn't apply in those particular cases. Your free to disagree with said reasons, but it's ridiculous to act like the nominations are somehow completely ignoring the policy or an attempt at getting rid of it when they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, you are completely ignoring the policy on this DR (can't say anything about the others). You make ridiculous accusations of the image being used "clearly not in good faith". Do you have anything to prove that when I added this image to Russian Wikipedia article six months ago, along with a sizable amount of text, I was not acting in good faith? Do you think Russian Wikipedia community cannot decide whether they need the image in the article or not? Why do you think that this issue should be discussed on Commons and not on Russian Wikipedia? There's a big and active community with thousands of users. There are many active administrators and Arbitration Committee. There's a discussion open about this image on the talk page of relevant article. Go there and make your case. Just don't try to accuse me there of acting "clearly not in good faith", that's not going to end well. Agra (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there a project-wide consensus for inadmissibility of such artworks? There are hundreds if not thousands of them, and they are widely used across multiple wikis. Agra (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep. Look to categories of «X in art» and you can found way more controverisal pieces of «art». This image, instead, displays, how landscape of this planet may be look like. Like reconstructions of Dinosaurus or ancient towns. If this image less-or-more accurate illustrates text of article, it's a good reason for existance of it. Tucvbif (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Balasubramanian(Babuji).jpg[edit]

probably copyrighted by Youth Service Organization Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leonard muir 1.jpg[edit]

Certainly not a 2022 photo of someone who died in 1982. I doubt uploader has any authority to grant license; no apparent factual source Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This photograph and Leonard_muir 2.jpg were obtained from a family tree on Ancestry.com with the permission of the uploader there (Louise Koopman) whose personal photos they were from their family album. I have a message trail on Ancestry giving me permission to use them. How do I document that here? Brwynog (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leonard Rae Moir 2.jpg[edit]

False claims, dubious license, no actual source Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Syrian Refugee camp wedding.jpg[edit]

Copyvio. (image taken from CNN, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solight_Design) Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still, wouldn't the image probably be owned by the company, rather than the photographer? I can also see there was a previous file by the same uploader that was deleted as a copyright violation. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to Wikipedia's article on iReport, copyrights were retained by the contributors (though I'm sure CNN obtained perpetual broadcast rights). It would be an easy mistake to make if you didn't know the ins and outs of the iReport system and just noticed the CNN logo in the corner. It would be easy to assume this was a blatant copyright violation. In the deleted file, I'm actually more concerned with the fact that she doesn't seem to be holding the camera in that particular image (though it could be a tripod I suppose). I would assume that she was the one holding the camera in most of the pictures though. It says on her website that she shoots most of her work. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the distortion wouldn't be a valid reason for deletion either since the file's in use. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:SVG Heart-flags of Eurovision (Germany)[edit]

Out of project scope, similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:EuroAlemania (1935-1945).svg: Germany never participated in the contest using one of these flags, only with the regular black-red-gold tricolor. As far as I saw, none of these are used in a project, except for Flag heart symbols of Eurovision here at Commons. Finally, while not as offensive as the swastika, simply replacing it with the Iron Cross and its military connotations is still in bad taste and out of scope.

Rosenzweig τ 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Eurovision heart-flags. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per COM:INUSE. I believe most files are not used outside of Commons. This is especially true for flags representing historical countries. But maybe that's reason enough to still keep them. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Joan Amades.jpg[edit]

The person appearing in this image is not Joan Amades. This portrait was cropped from a group picture that does show Joan Amades typing in a typewriter while this unnamed man takes notes. 90.162.167.124 17:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Sorry I will fix it. Maybe other user can do it. I am being harassed in wiki. Thanks 88.4.17.206 04:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ФК Бирлик лого.png[edit]

Я удаляю потому что не хочу чтобы RinatKazbbb (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Wikipedia logo lantern-2017 High Quality Wallpaper 1366x768.jpg[edit]

Uncredited duplicate of File:Pumpkipedia-47.jpg. Waldyrious (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2013 Indian Grand Prix Sebastian Vettel celebrates in front of the grandstand and pays thanks to the RB9 (1) - Kopya.jpg[edit]

yanlış yükledim Düşünen insan 1989 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Female Nude by Theo van Doesburg.jpg[edit]

low quality scan. Can be replaced by File:Naakt, Theo van Doesburg, 1904.webp. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Donald Tusk KPRM.jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Tusk KPRM (cropped).jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Tusk KPRM (cropped 2).jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Tusk KPRM (cropped 3).jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Tusk KPRM (cropped 4).jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Donald Tusk KPRM HQ.jpg[edit]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Premier_Donald_Tusk_KPRM.jpg Max19582 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wappen der Verbindung.jpg[edit]

Not relevant anymore Zapolovskyj (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Lithographic series of Hetmans of Ukraine[edit]

All these images are a series of lithographs (estampe) painted around 1990-1992 by the Creative and Production Association "Khudozhnyk" (Kyiv, Ukraine) for sale to schools, libraries, etc. All nominated images are widely distributed on the Internet and on various non-authoritative sites are often erroneously dated from the 16th to the 20th centuries. Probably because of this, different users downloaded them by mistake (I also downloaded 2 of them). Although obviously the style (frame, colors, technique) is the same, so it's a single series. Unfortunately, I did not find the authors and years of creation of these 5 images. However, due to the fact that none of the sources indicated in the images are authoritative, I suggest comparing the nominated images with similar portraits dated 1990-1992 on sites for the sale of used goods:

In addition, I found an image on the website Ukrinform (this is a state information agency in Ukraine), where there is a similar portrait and it is listed as "lithography, 1990, Vasyl Skakandii":

All this indicates that the images were created between 1990-1992 and their authors are either still alive or recently deceased, so the files cannot be placed under PD-Art. --Seva Seva (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Recup TVs Full HD - Téléviseurs - LG!!!!!.webm[edit]

The source YouTube video is down, and the archived version show "Video Unavailable". Also, the video is a review of a TV-set, so it has little educational value. Günther Frager (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Play Doh Stop Motion Dissney Princess Sofia Dress Up - Animation Cartoons For Kids.webm[edit]

The source YouTube video is down and the archived versions show the video is unavailable. Thus, it is imposible to perform a license review to determine whether it was published under CC-BY or not. Günther Frager (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Copyright holds Heliodoro Ruipérez https://www.academia.edu/113059779/Munigua_reconstruida_a%C3%B1o_MMXXIII_Hip%C3%B3tesis_arqueol%C3%B3gica - no hint or proof, that Salawikiweb would be Heliodoro Ruipérez or that the Uploader has the right to upload the images.

Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Marcus, I have seen your alarms about intellectual property. I am writing to inform you that I am Heliodoro Ruiperez and my name on Wikipedia is "salawikiweb". I hope this clarification solves the problem.
Kind regards
Heliodoro Ruiperez
hruiperez@gmail.com Salawikiweb (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, could you please send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org , so that we have this in our system? I will then da all the rest what's needed. I would be glad, if we would have those images here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Markus, I just sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org indicating that Salawikiweb (on Wikipedia) = Heliodoro Ruipérez (in real life)
Regards.
Heliodoro Ruiperez Salawikiweb (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Working on it. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't send a new email for each file. Let's continue in Ticket:2024012810004585 only. I've contacted the author itself. Let's see if he replies. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rambling 'Round Radio Row - Vitaphone 1447.ogv[edit]

At least one of the underlying songs in this, Music Hath Charms, is still under copyright. I can't make assertions as to the other works, but this should be considered for full deletion until 2028 when all compositions being featured would also be free of copyright. Or we should mute those sections until 2028. SDudley (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Devant le Chateau de Sohan incendié par les Allemands en 1944.jpg[edit]

Ma maman figure sur cette photo, elle est encore vivante et ne souhaite plus y figurer. C'est moi qui ai téléversé cette photo pa rerreur Philcotof (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Don Norman Design Awards.png[edit]

Their logo has been updated without "s" (Not Awards but Award) Miyoccino (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/16&oldid=849714497"