Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/23

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
22 January 2024
24 January 2024
Deletion requests on 23 January 2024

January 23[edit]

File:Даргинский флаг.svg[edit]

Нет источников. Все эти флаги придуманные в социальных сетях не имеюь юридической силы и ни кем не признанные 212.154.56.32 01:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:John Hubley Portrait from 1941.jpg[edit]

No publication info to support license. Says that it was a family photo, not publicity photo, so no reason to assume it was published in 1941. Photo was previously uploaded as File:John Hubley.jpg, which was deleted after email to VRTS was insufficient. dave pape (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this photograph was never copyrighted or registered. I am the owner of this image and the friend of the Hubley family who uploaded it. When I uploaded it, I was not as familiar as I am now with Wikipedia's usage tags, my apologies. The family has it dated as 1941, as it was shortly after his first wedding. BakedintheHole (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Metroid-Samus-Returns-Logo.png[edit]

Metallic finishes make this above threshold of originality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Abhisit Vejjajiva 2008-03-20.jpg[edit]

Questionable own-work claim. Low resolution, no Exif, angle of Abhisit Vejjajiva 2008-03-20.jpg suggests screenshot of official parliamentary broadcast. Abhisit Vejjajiva 2008-03-20.jpg and Taksin the Great.jpg were uploaded at Flickr right before being uploaded to Commons, which suggests Flickr washing. Paul_012 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:João Ramos Filho, prefeito de Mariana..jpg[edit]

Source not correctly indicated. Impossible to know the author or even when the picture was released. Therefore, impossible to assess if the image is "free" and can be uploaded here. Also, "Jornal Uai" is a newspaper in Brazil, therefore, this picture can very much be a copyvio. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stampede logo.png[edit]

Distressed logo makes it borderline TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:One Piece Film RED Logo.png[edit]

The skull and crossbones as well as the distressed and scratched text make it above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also mass deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics Cmprince (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:One Piece Jolly Roger.svg[edit]

DW of this, which is above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also the mass deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/One Piece graphics Cmprince (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mega Man Table - Photo Walk Chicago September 2, 2013-4897.jpg[edit]

Violation of Commons:Fan art, too accurate to the original sprite. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Moschea Hassan II 2.jpg[edit]

Is this the reupload of deleted file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moschea Hassan II.jpg? (As the uploader is the same uploader) If not, then still not OK as showing interior architecture of a copyrighted architectural work. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment They are not the same image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy OK. Still, the interior architecture of the mosque is still shown. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lindsay Lohan 2013.jpg[edit]

It is tagged as "public domain" as the work of a US government employee. However, there is no actual evidence a US government employee took that photo, and it seems unlikely that one did. The image was sourced from a (since deleted) blog post on a US government website – the Internet archive has preserved it – however, just because a US government website uses a photo, does not automatically make the photo public domain – it is only public domain if a US government employee took the photo in the course of their official duties. Possibly, the author of the text of the blog post is a US government employee–although that is not certain, since "Sara Bellum" is a pseudonym, and NIDA's page about her says she is written by a "team of NIDA scientists, science writers, educators, and teens" – "NIDA scientists" would be US government employees, but "teens" probably aren't, and we don't know who in the team wrote this blog post. In any event, even if the text of the blog post is public domain, the image of Lindsay Lohan would not be public domain unless a US government employee actually took it. We don't know the source of this image, but it seems unlikely that it was taken by any US government employee in the course of their official duties, it seems much more likely it was taken by a commercial photographer, and used by the US government (presumably by permission), and hence would be copyrighted. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

based on evidence  Delete SDudley (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Mohamed VI Turm[edit]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Morocco. The w:en:Mohammed VI Tower was completed just last year (2023) and authored by architects w:en:Rafael de La-Hoz Castanys and Hakim Benjelloun. No commercial Creative Commons licensing permission from the architects, violation of architectural copyrights.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Lindsay Lohan 2.jpg[edit]

This file is tagged as GFDL-1.2/CC-SA-3.0-Unported licensed by English Wikipedia user RadioKirk–who has not edited since 2007. However, the image description says "taken 13 December 2002 in Beverly Hills, California, by Michael Lohan using RadioKirk's camera" – as far as I am aware, copyright belongs to the photographer, not the owner of the camera, so if Michael Lohan (Lindsay Lohan's father) took a picture of her using RadioKirk's camera, copyright to that would belong to Michael Lohan, not RadioKirk–and RadioKirk releasing it under GFDL/CC-SA would be invalid, since you (generally) can't license something when the copyright belongs to somebody else. Now, it is possible Michael Lohan may have assigned the copyright to RadioKirk, or granted RadioKirk a license broad enough to allow this–but we don't know that's the case–it seems just as likely (possibly more likely) that RadioKirk uploaded this under a misunderstanding of how copyright law works (e.g. my camera=my copyright). Hence, I'm thinking the validity of the licensing of this image is dubious, and it probably should be deleted. (I suppose if someone contacted Michael Lohan, and asked him to grant permission, and he granted that permission, it could remain, but I personally have no plans to attempt to contact him–and it is scarcely worth keeping, as such a low quality image anyway.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Grand Theatre of Rabat[edit]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Morocco. The landmark here is copyrighted; the author (architect Zaha Hadid) died in 2016.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:MHV Suzuki Cappuccino 01.jpg[edit]

An editor requested deletion: "can you please take off this photo from here plese! as this is my car." Photo seems redundant and low quality so it likely is not much of a loss Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This photo I took on a street in Valletta (Malta). There was no permission necessary as no persons can be seen on the photo. There is no "right of picture" for a car! --MartinHansV (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Foto Bakov17.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vital Sign.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bloque revolucionario de masas San Salvador 1970s.jpg[edit]

not PD, from 1970s PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:.1969 Bajo enorme presión política, el presidente Fidel Sánchez Hernández reúne a unos 500 oficiales del ejércitoSV en Casa Presidencial y les insinúa que, en pocas horas, estallará un conflicto bélico contra Honduras.jpg[edit]

not an own work, not PD, from 1969 PizzaKing13 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portraifoto von Friedrich Hell.jpg[edit]

The photo, which looks like it was scanned from some publication, shows an Austrian painter who died in 1957. The photographer is said to be not known. To be able to (perhaps) determine the copyright status of the photo, we would need a proper source and date. Else the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle (1957 is much too late to assume that the photo must be in the public domain regardless). Rosenzweig τ 09:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Tineye and Google Image found no active copyright claim or named creator. We do not use the 1947 date, he is not 88 in the image, he looks about 70. We estimate dates for images all the time, they did not come with exif data prior to digital cameras. {{PD-1996}} would apply. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with your claims about what "we" supposedly do. That's maybe what you wish that we do. I also disagree that he "is not 88" in the image, people can look younger, it varies from person to person. Google/Tineye searches are not sufficient to find photos that old and obviously scanned from somewhere, even if Tineye or Google boast that they search dozens of billions of images, there are still much more which they don't find, especially before ca. the 2000s. And even if the photo were from 1939 and out of copyright in Austria (which we don't know), it would still be protected in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file", you have not provided actionable evidence, just fear, uncertainty and doubt, that the person may be older than they look. Every image we host prior to exif data, has an estimated date of creation. The definition of due diligence to meet the legal burden of proof, is searching 15 billion images. You cannot prove a negative, if I searched every single image in the galaxy looking for an active copyright claim or an attributed author, you could argue that the image may exist in another galaxy that I haven't looked at yet. The provisions of the EU license allow a claw back from the public domain should the image ever be found to have an active copyright claimant. --RAN (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So no answer to the fact that a 1939 Austrian photo would still be protected in the US? Just boilerplate text? --Rosenzweig τ 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Eckehard Rothenberg (Astronom).jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Frank-Michael Arndt M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frank Michael Arndt is a photographer who has been employed at Zeiss Grossplanetarium Berlin. Occasionally, he also made portraits of the employees. This photograph is used on the minor planet-website introducing the name of the astronomer after whom the asteroid is named. Therefore, I trust that the source website and the wikipedia are allowed to use the photograph (authorized by depicted person and photographer). LittleAstronomer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete There is no free license on the source web site, so the photo is presumably under copyright without a free license and not ok for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LittleAstronomer: Wenn der Fotograf Frank-Michael Arndt damit einverstanden ist, dass dieses Foto hier unter der beim Hochladen gewählten freien Lizenz verbreitet wird, möge er das bitte durch eine per E-Mail direkt von ihm an Wikimedia Commons geschickte Genehmigung bestätigen. Für Details, den Wortlaut und die E-Mail-Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. Wenn eine solche Genehmigung kommt und akzeptiert wird, können wir die Datei vermutlich behalten. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bin überzeugt, FMA hat dieses Bild im Rahmen seiner Dienstverpflichtung gemacht und daher die Nutzungsrechte abgetreten. allerdings ist die Webseite, auf der das Bild gefunden wurde in der Tat dubios... daher habe ich mich inzwischen um ein anderes Bild gekümmert und mir ist egal, ob dieses hier gelöscht wird. ich selbst kann das nicht (weiß nicht, wie's geht), sonst hätte ich es gleich ersetzt statt ein neues hochzuladen. LittleAstronomer (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auch wenn die Nutzungsrechte abgetreten wurden, gibt es einen Rechteinhaber, dessen Zustimmung benötigt wird. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Malaysia.png[edit]

{{Delh}} UnpoeticNad (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete No evidence the coat of arms has changed. This image is inaccurate in the quarters for Sabah and Sarawak. 71.239.86.150 22:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Fake CoA, no such CoA ever exist in the Federation of Malaysia. 2405:3800:85F:C312:C41C:D2FF:FE24:770C 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Ankara University[edit]

Media published on Unsplash after 4 June 2017 are not available under CC-Zero and do not comply with Commons licensing policy. See Unsplash

0x0a (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Global reach muegge.cc 2007-01-26.JPG[edit]

What is this file about? What is muegge.cc? Is it about Uwe Muegge (in LinkedIn)? Then I think it is a personal file and should be deleted for that reason. The uploader, User:Ronhjones, sadly passed away, so we cannot ask him/her. The author made a contribution to EN-WP for the last time in 2008 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Autoterm). If we do not know what it is about, then how can this file be reused? JopkeB (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it is also copyright violation. The image is made with Google Analytics, and I guess that is copyrighted. --JopkeB (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Images by Jamal T.M uploaded by Netha Hussain[edit]

Unpublished work are still protected by copyright, needs permission from Jamal T.M

A1Cafel (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Minister Infrastruktury Dariusz Klimczak powołał z dniem 11 stycznia 2024 roku Joannę Kopczyńską na stanowisko Prezesa Państwowego Gospodarstwa Wodnego Wody Polskie..jpg[edit]

Zdjęcie pobrane ze strony ministerstwa, bez dokładnej licencji i opisania. Mateusz Gieryga (talk) 11:26, 23 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:60-OISE-Mareuil-sur-Ourcq-30F-2001.jpg[edit]

nous ne souhaitons pas qu'elle soit utilisée à des fins commerciales Leon Zanella (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - license is irrevocable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:60-OISE-Mareuil-sur-Ourcq-30F-2001.jpg[edit]

painted in 2001, therfore artist died in less than 70 years ago : not in public domain Zen 38 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bai Lu at iQIYI Scream Night 2023.png[edit]

Copyright violation Jjpachano (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

"Date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it."

Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Rogel Voy a escribir en español, espero sepas disculparme. Las dos primeras el link dice con claridad absoluta, en el primer renglón, que las fotos son de 1992 (hace ya más de 20 años de eso, si las cuentas no me fallan. [1]

La tercera, en los comentarios se aclara que la foto es de 1973, no hay que explayarse demasiado al respecto.

Con respecto a las dos últimas. Las elecciones de 1989 fue la única ocasión en la que Eduardo Angeloz fue candidato presidencial, y la última vez que Carlos Menem compartió fórmula con Eduardo Duhalde (la tarima lo dice "Menem-Duhalde"), y 1989 hace ya 30 años (el mismo link lo dice). Las fotos son de los cierres de campañas de ambas fuerzas el 12 de mayo de 1989, lo dice el mismo link y no cuesta tanto verlo. En ambas fotos se cita al medio Telám, argentino, como fuente de las fotos y, por lo tanto, aplicanse las leyes de copyright argentinas (25 años de la publicación). No necesito más evidencia que esa, las leyes de derechos de autor en Argentina son claras al respecto.--FelipeRev (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that some of them are part of a stock from a photo agency does not mean they have been published one day. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Para las dos últimas fotos aplica perfectamente, ya que la "agencia" en cuestión cita al medio de comunicación en el que fueron publicadas (Telám), como fuente.--FelipeRev (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 13:29, 9 December 2019 (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 FelipeRev (talk · contribs)[edit]

Permission should be asked for specific version of Creative Commons license.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recibí autorización expresa para utilizar esas imágenes en la misma cuenta de Facebook donde fueron publicadas. Lean los comentarios. En caso de ser requerido, puedo pedir al dueño que envíe una autorización expresa.--FelipeRev (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't know Spanish :-( Please read w:es:Licencias Creative Commons to understand ambiguity of original permission. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EugeneZelenko I said: I received express authorization to use those images in the same Facebook account where they were published. Read the comments. If required, I can ask the owner to send an express authorization. The photographs are, however, quite old, before 1960. I would prefer someone who understands Spanish to review it (it is not an aggression or offense, I say it so that he can understand what the link says). Regards and sorry :)--FelipeRev (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I could believe Google Translate you asked permission for licencia "Creative Commons". If you didn't read Spanish article yet, you could read shorter Commons:Licensing: there are Creative Commons licenses not allowed on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EugeneZelenko I already sent another comment to the owner of the image specifying the license. Soon we will have your answer.--FelipeRev (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an answer--FelipeRev (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: Photographer permission needed. — Racconish 💬 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

better version of this photo exists, e.g. File:Chen Duxiu.jpg File:Chen Duxiu4.jpg. no need to crop a photo of a poster that printed this photo... notice how the eyebrow is different from the original, probably due to scanning and printing and scanning... over and over.

RZuo (talk) 13:02, 23 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:Fabián Andrade Narváez.jpg[edit]

Por requerimiento del autor Cardinalabgs (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fabián Andrade Narváez.jpg[edit]

Descatualizado Cardinalabgs (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Bessa Myftiu IMG 2852.jpg[edit]

Privacy rights. Personal photo, published without the consent of the portrayed person. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support agents can see Ticket:2024012110004311 about it. Mussklprozz (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a question of privacy: the depicted person was advertised as being present at the fair, and was promoting her works. Furthermore, she is looking straight into the camera and aware she is being photographed. I do not necessarily object to deleting the images (there are several), but it would be on courtesy grounds. Rama (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: what does "personal photo" mean? I am the author of these images, they have not been provided by the subject. Rama (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPS2: See File:Bessa Myftiu Wikipedia II.jpg and related Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bessa Myftiu Wikipedia II.jpg. Rama (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it is a personal portrait, and Bessa Myftiu claims in her email to the support team that she did not give you permission to publish it. The issue is right of personality, not copyright. Mussklprozz (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that neither Bessa Myftiu, nor yourself, are aware of the implications of what you are saying.
I do not need permission to publish this portrait. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Because we live in societies and one person's freedom ends where another's begins, there are limits to this right, such as privacy; but there can be no expectation of privacy when someone is advertising their presence at a book fair to publicise their products. I would not even have been able to put a name on these images if there had not been a name tag or book right next to the subject.
Furthermore, it is implausible that the requester suddenly finds my portrait to be a problem, 13 years after it was published; and, by coincidence, just as an account with her name is trying to publish a professionally-made portrait (which is ok), put it on her own biography (which is quite borderline), in possible violation of the professional's copyright (which is definitely not). This is transparently a power move against me to force the use of the subject's favourite image, and I do not take kindly to the method with which this is visited upon me.
As it is formulated, the request is an unreasonable infringement on my freedom of expression. I am willing to remove images upon polite request, as a courtesy; I am, however, unwilling to renounce my fundamental rights upon being insulted or threatened, which is what the accusation of privacy violation amounts to. Rama (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rama Thanks for your argument. The issue is two-sided. I agree with you that I dislike is not an argument to delete an image of a notable person presenting in public. However, if you zoom in that person with large aperture, such there is only a near portrait of a face with bokeh around, imo the public context vanishes, the image gets a private character, and the person should be asked. – Personally I hope that Bessa Myftiu can solve the copyright issue with the newer photo and get a photographer's permission, such that this photo can be used in her article. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Mussklprozz for taking my argument into consideration.
It so happens that the present case is almost exactly what is cited as an exemption to privacy protection by the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (emphasis added) [2]:

Before an image is published, consent must be obtained from the people shown in it unless an overriding public or private interest justifies publication. This interest must be assessed conservatively, however, especially in the case of images of individuals (e.g. when reporting on public events such as sporting events or concerts that are of particular significance, or in media reports in compliance with the journalistic duty of care). If there is any doubt, consent should be obtained.

Again, it is not so much the deletion itself that I object to; I am and remain open to acceding to it as a courtesy. It is the stated rational that I find unacceptable. Rama (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. This image is not about the event. It is about the person. I do not doubt that it was taken at the Geneva bookfare, but with the blurred background it could have been taken anywhere. The last sentence of the legal text applies: When in doubt .... – Anyway, I will not defend the delete request any further. Have a good night! --Mussklprozz (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:German Drummer Christin Neddens (photo credits by gerhard kühne).jpg[edit]

(c) all rights reserved ZimskoSonce (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jakub Stolarczyk.png[edit]

© 2003-2024 ZOS, Lda. - All rights reserved. ZimskoSonce (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the origin and read what it says below the photo. I'll read it for you: "When this photo was uploaded, the user agreed that it either belonged to him/her, or that he was authorised by the author of the photo to use it, or even that the photo is of public domain. If that information is not correct, please inform us." Was posted 2 years ago. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, you say that the copyright belongs to ZOS and you do not show any source. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen that ZOS is copyright of the website, not the photo. The photo is in the public domain, clarified by the same website, which declares that the person who publishes it is the author or responsible for affirming it as public domain, therefore it should not be deleted. Elpvnketo (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Non-free, if you want a free image of Stolarczyk, travel on Leicester matches, home or away and take shoots. Otherwise, please don't upload non-free images of Stolarczyk from websites.Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a free image,go to the website and read. One thing is the Copyright about website, another one when the image was from an user that say its Public Domain. Elpvnketo (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Unicervantes-bogota.jpg[edit]

Todos los derechos reservados UNICERVANTES© 2023. Bogotá, Colombia source: https://carrerasuniversitarias.unicervantes.edu.co/gracias/ ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Pic is authorised by Skytg24 and is free to share — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teltx (talk • contribs) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stranoskytg24.jpg[edit]

Sky TG 24 channel screenshot ZimskoSonce (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:VICTOR JOYA.jpg[edit]

No está anexado a algun artículo aún Deralmadrid (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm[edit]

OOS digital fantasy woman. (Compliments on your work, but IMO not realistically useful for Commons.) Relationship to pre-Columbian sculpture is minimal at best. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thanks on the compliments. I based the body proportions and shape to the pre-contact statue known as Venus of Tamtoc, including the sacred scarifications. The original statue is nude. There is relationship based on all that except the head and feet.
Would a video of the comparison of the dimensions be accepted? The original documentary I did about her is in YouTube. Should I upload the entire documentary?
I understand your preoccupation, although unlike Wikipedia I thought Wikimedia was not about gathering consensus around an image’s claim —- or sources for said claims.
If a painting is said to portray, say Joan of Arc, and she wouldn’t fit into the image of someone’s idea of Joan of Arc… would that painting also be deleted? I ask sincerely, because I’ve been uploading paintings and drawings as well. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep did you even read the description? This is a recreation of an ancient statue, not a “digital fantasy woman”. It would be nice to have a comparison image of the actual statue, but if there’s a concern here it’s accuracy rather than “it’s porn lol” Dronebogus (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I certainly did read the description before making this nomination. I am familiar with the pre-Columbian statue (and you can be as well by doing a search for photos), after which you can make up your own mind as to if this can legitimately be considered an educational archaeological reconstruction or more of a digital fantasy woman with a few details vaguely influenced by the pre-Columbian art. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It appears to be an accurate recreation. I mostly object to your characterization of it as an “OOS fantasy woman”, which in this context (a good faith contribution To an in-scope topic) is a vague non-rationale that also seems like you’re insinuating a sexual ulterior motive as a reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Aero Minor II 1947.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt that the picture was free in France in 1996 (point 3 of the license), since it was taken in 1948 and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France states life of author + 70 years. That seems not possible. --Druschba 4 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hotchkiss Type 686.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Darracq 1901.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it free in France in 1996 (point 3 of PD-1996)? That would require death of the author + 70 years at that time, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France. Otherwise PD-1996 does not apply from what I understand. According to Commons:Copyright rules#When the photographer is unknown that would not be a safe, valid assumption for a picture taken in 1901, when 1996 is the date in question.
Template:PD-old-assumed might apply for pictures taken before 1904 in general and also in this specific case. Problem is, that a seperate license tag for US-PD ist required in combination with PD-old-assumed, and I'm currently unable to find any valid for a magazine published outside the US in 1947. See also Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#General rules point 5. Template:PD-US-unpublished would work nicely, but applies only if the picture was not published until 2003, which is obviously not the case. All the other usual PD-US-old-whatever-licenses seem to refer to the publishing date and not to the date of creation, looping back to 1947 (the only publication date we currently know), therefore PD-1996 and therefore back to question one.
I am fine with PD-old-assumed, if we find any matching US-PD-tag. --Druschba 4 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chevrolet Nr. 20.000.000.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mildé-Kriéger.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Latil H 2 A.I.Y.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SOMUA Typ JL 15.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gobron-Brillié 1903.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:La Locomotrice.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dolo.jpg[edit]

External source and author, obviously wrong license, no permission. Druschba 4 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Лопатиский, Юрий.jpg[edit]

1949 photograph according to uk:Файл:Юрій Лопатинський.jpg. Public domain in Ukraine (became so in 2000 and again in 2020) but this was not public domain there in 1996 so URAA issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nuova Sant'Agnese.jpg[edit]

Immagine senza dati Exif, caricata con una licenza non corretta (dichiara di esserne l'autore ma anche che non lo è). Si richiede gentilmente l'autorizzazione scritta dell'autore, contattare un Volunteer Response Team (VRT), grazie. Threecharlie (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Adidas Arena.jpg[edit]

I cannot find on the source link that the image or the website content is licensed under CC0. Günther Frager (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hala Sportowa Police.jpg[edit]

I cannot find on the source link that the image or the website content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Günther Frager (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pers afbeelding SOS Drone Team NL.jpg[edit]

copyright schending. Dit is duidelijk een screenshot, geen zelfgeschoten foto Saschaporsche (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedankt voor de feedback, de foto is aangepast. Timmiiy (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LOT logo.png[edit]

Inside the letter O of the logo we can see a rather clear graphical representation of a plane, which is not - obviously a "simple geometric shape" and thus it should be considered whether this alone qualifies the whole file for copyrights infringement. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:اکبر کنعانی در جوانی.jpg[edit]

عدم اهمیت موضوع، عدم مشهوریت Fisaghores1099 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:اکبر کنعانی در جوانی.jpg[edit]

عدم مشهوریت، تلاش برای تخریب چهره Fisaghores1099 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Type C Jetcar.jpg[edit]

Unlike own work. Profesional photo that has a watermark from "Eslam Ghaly". Günther Frager (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mikimatsubara.jpg[edit]

nicked from Insta; bogus license Wutsje 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Es dominio público James Anthoony (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Notes about the Model T car (26833569306).jpg[edit]

No FOP in Canada for 2D works, and the text appears to be complex enough for a copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Uncovering the face of Hamas spokesman Abu Obaida.jpg[edit]

Although the current source of the picture claims it was made by IDF Spokesperson's Unit, this is probably not the case: the photograph of Aby Obaida with uncovered face first appeared in 2017 without any statement about its authorship, and Palestinian sources insisted that this picture is not correct [3]. We cannot keep this photo without deeper research about its origins. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 — not a reliable source (see WP:RS)
Also, there are other reliable sources who claim that it is Abu Obaida in the photo, and the photo was taken by the IDF Spokeperson's Unit: 2 3 4 TheLup (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can believe that the Arab source is not reliable while Israeli sources are reliable. The problem is that the Arab website had this photograph in 2017 while all Israeli sources you provide are of 2023. We could admit the discrepancy between Arab and Israeli sources about who is pictured and mention it in the description of the picture; but we cannot ignore the fact that the photograph itself was made we don't know when by we don't know whom (and in 2023 was only distributed by IDF spokesperson). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a matter of whether the source is Arabic or Israeli. There is a clear explanation in WP:RS:
Such [questionable] sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. TheLup (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Агапкин во время службы в царской армии.jpg[edit]

The picture was borrowed from an obscure website and has no reliable sources. It's unclear who is pictured but definitely not Vasily Agapkin as far as he had not been awarded with the awards we can see on the chest of this guy. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are absolutely right! This is not him. It is true, this photo was photo-copied from the Agapkin daughter's family photo-album many years ago, along with real Agapkin and his relatives pictures. This officer is a kind of composer's fiends of that time or his distant kins. And among the other copied real photos this particular photo was then "identified" as showing Vasily Agapkin in parade uniform of Russian tsar army years.... But this is wrong!
I know what I am saying. I am myself grand-grand-son of V.I.Agapkin, and has had and has now full access to the mentioned family archive.
Thanx!
Alexander 195.96.66.115 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amitsignature.JPG[edit]

India protects signatures with copyright so we can't host this here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ethnolingusitic map of ukraine.png[edit]

Doesn't have any sources. Seems made up. Correct map is on Wikipedia as File:UaFirstNationality2001-Fr.jpg 

Riwnodennyk (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nice 1941Georges-Dunan.jpg[edit]

I had marked this file, uploaded by User:Charenton in 2019 as "own work" from that year with a CC license (but described as showing someone in 1941), as missing a source because it was obviously scanned from some publication, including a caption Georges Dunan à Nice vers 1941. Coll. J.-P. Weber. User:Kasskass has since added a 1941-01-01 date (I doubt that the "January 1st" part is true given that the man shown is wearing a bath robe outside), a source reneedunan.over-blog.com, a claim that the author is anonymous, and a PD-anon-70-EU tag. While [4] indeed has the photo, the same scan complete with caption, that is obviously not the original source, which is still missing, and we cannot determine if there was a credit in the original source or not.

The uploader had added, just before, Photo donnée par A de Mytho de Nice à JPW. Where does that information come from? Is it from the original source? And if that amount of detail is known, shouldn't the photographer be known as well? A de Mytho is apparently French writer fr:Annie de Mytho (1899–1999). Is she the photographer? If yes, the photograph is still protected in France until the end of 2069. Even if she is not, the photo could have acquired a US copyright because of the URAA, depending on its "publication" history.

To sum it up, the "anonymous author" claim is a bit too tidy in my eyes, considering that there is apparently more information available than we are given. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be either under a free license or in the public domain in both France and the US. Rosenzweig τ 21:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha l'enquêteur Sherlock Rosenzweig a encore frappé. À grand renfort d'interprétation comme toujours...
Cette photographie est de temps en temps reproduites dans des articles consacrés à Renée Dunan (ex: art de 2000 de Claudine Brécourt-Villars ds Histoires littéraires). Évidemment que la précision du 1er janvier est arbitraire, on ne connaît pas la date exacte.
Cette illustration est une copie d'une photographie prise en 1941 dont l'auteur est anonyme. De là à affirmer que, parce qu'Annie de Mytho l'aurait donné à J-P Weber, elle en serait l'autrice... Cette photographie prise en 1941 est dans le domaine public (70 ans quand l'auteur est anonyme), donc la copie est recevable sur Commons.
Inutile de broder plus en l'absence d'informations fiables.
Cordialement, Kasskass (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So when and where was this photograph published first? --Rosenzweig τ 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pavo con chifles y tamal verde en Takeras Criollo en Yapatera.jpg[edit]

La calidad de la imagen no es óptima y no puede ser empleada enciclopédicamente, además, ya hay otras fotos del mismo plato Yhhue91 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Amélie de Leuchtenberg - Impératrice du Brésil.png[edit]

per https://twitter.com/courtjeweller/status/1749820007150985360 this is not from the 19th Century, would be late 1920s at the earliest. Would need to know the actual provenance of the painting to host this here. Abzeronow (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete Is it AI generated? I cannot find it anywhere on the Internet and the attribution doesn't appear to be real. --RAN (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The tiara and other jewelry in this painting are accurate depictions of the Norwegian emerald parure, which the author of that Twitter thread has written about at some length [5]. It's unlikely (although not impossible) that an AI-generated painting would be able to match their appearance this precisely. Omphalographer (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/23&oldid=848347083"