Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/03/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
out of com:PS Hanooz 02:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Wutsje. --Rosenzweig τ 09:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
{{speedy delete|1=Clear copyright violation}} Rejoy2003(talk) 06:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
車のナンバーを削除して、画像を修正処理をしてなかったからです。 Takaosan fukujuso (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 09:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
no evidence of freely available license Evaders99 (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted, copyright violation. --✗plicit 11:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
no evidence of freely available license Evaders99 (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted, copyright violation. --✗plicit 11:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ArticleAmazon as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: duplicado. Duplicate of what file? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: Scaled-down duplicate of File:Iglesia Matris de Nauta.png I think.--A1Cafel (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: F8. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
error in transparency of background layer SurinameCentral (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- this was by accident. please do not delete the file SurinameCentral (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: deletion request was withdrawn by nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 15:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted. Unused and low quality so any use is pretty much impossible. Per {{Nopenis}} --D-Kuru (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
two pages of raw text, out of project scope Achim55 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedy delete Copyvio: https://vit.ac.in/sites/default/files/site/B.Tech_IT_2019-2020.pdf Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) Speedily deleted Copyvio. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Nonsense Bundeshorst (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Test or nonsense by another Android app user who could not resist. --Achim55 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I was just testing the editor, this is just a temporary image I used for testing Chiaand (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational value Drakosh (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Fitindia. --Rosenzweig τ 06:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
double upload by commons app, duplicate of: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mur_graniczny.jpg Ivanbranco (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
The link and the title are not correct. I'll upload an other version Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
wrong title or wrong Qr code and impossibility to change the file correctly or créate a new page... Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact 22:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 06:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy delete COM:F10 A09 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination --D-Kuru (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be really clear whether the drawing is (per the file description) by Oskar Kokoschka, or by the author of the book, Oskar's brother Bohuslav Kokoschka, but as Oskar died in 1980 and Bohuslav in 1976, it is protected by copyright in Germany (where the book was published) until 2046 or 2050 (70 years after the artist's death). {{PD-1923}} isn't sufficient, as it isn't a U.S. work and Commons requires works to be free in the source country as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- habe gerade um schnellöschung gebeten, war eines meiner ersten uploads und dachte damsl, die 70 jahre gelten überhaupt für publiziert, egal wo. inzwischen weiß ich es besser. danke für den hinweis auf diesen uraltfile--Donna Gedenk (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted, will be undeleted in 2050. I close the request speedily, because uploader nominated the file for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Túrelio. --Rosenzweig τ 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
copyright promotional image - Newsen https://m.newsen.com/news_view.php?uid=202303031031385510 Evaders99 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Polarlys. --Rosenzweig τ 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
"Own work" is almost certainly false, so I see no reason to believe the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Where did this actually come from, what is the evidence that it is fre-licensed? Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Own work" is almost certainly false, so I see no reason to believe the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Where did this actually come from, what is the evidence that it is fre-licensed? Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Image taken from the Shanghai Museum website (https://www.shanghaimuseum.net/mu/frontend/pg/article/id/CI00000536) and uploaded to Commons with a CC 2.5 license, but nothing on the museum website indicates that the image is licensed as CC2.5 or is suitably licensed for use on Commons. BabelStone (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This sculpture (is that the right word?) doesn't fall within freedom of panorama for the US, if Disneyland even counts as a public place, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it is in a public place. It isn't a sculpture, its a working vehicle that drives around and is used for meet-and-greet photo ops. Supermanfan1979 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- That makes it even less likely to be legal, because freedom of panorama only applies to permanent structures. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep Not a reason for deletion. Amend the description and if necessary alter the file name. The same applies to the following deletion requests filed for the same reason. --Rosenzweig τ 09:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)- Keep Same. We are an encyclopaedia, why would we delete something simply because it is no longer in use? Find out the date of introduction and date of removal and add them to the file name, similar to what I did with File:UA road sign 4.1 (1991–2021).svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted from British Columbia road sign catalogue <https://gov.bc.ca/trafficsigns> Denelson83 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:CA-BC road sign R-122-3.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo courtesy of Paul Pedone, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo courtesy Dot Ward, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo Courtesy of Arlington Public Schools, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo Courtesy of Arlington Public Schools, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate nom. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo Courtesy of Arlington Public Schools, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo Courtesy of Arlington Public Schools, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo Courtesy of Arlington Public Schools, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photos courtesy of South Carolina Peach Council, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo courtesy FFA, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo courtesy of Ken Miracle, not a work from the US Department of Agriculture, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
You must have a photography permit to take photos. The photography permission is not mentioned. 117.104.231.10 06:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Not a concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the statue of Genghis Khan, not Modu Chanyu. Okusulay (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- The photo shows the sculpture of Modu Chanyu in Ulaanbaatar. The map bears the inscription "Xiongnu Empire" ("Хүннүгийн эзэнт улс" in mongolian), not Mongol Empire. KoizumiBS (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- And that's not a deletion reason, anyway. Why would anyone want to delete an image, just because they think the description - which they can edit - is wrong? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The photo does come from National Weather Service's website, but the photo was taken by Trent Bolser. Bolser is a private citizen stormchaser, not an agent acting in some official government capacity, and the full photo on the NWS website has an explicit copyright notice. I can't find any evidence of permission to release the photo under CC0, and I would recommend deleting this file in light of COM:PRP as lacking evidence of permission for release under a free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep — The image is also stored on the NWS Web servers (https://www.weather.gov/images/oax/Archives/20140616/twin_tornadoes.jpg). The US federal government specifically states, “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information.” (Noting I bolded and italicized part of the statement which is not bolded in the quote). The exact caption on the NWS webpage is “Pilger and Pilger east Tornado (Trent Bosler)”. It does not specifically say the image is not public domain. According to that disclaimed notice, the image must be a public domain image to be on their web servers & the web page does not specifically state anything about it not being public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's a copyright notice in the bottom right of the linked photograph (i.e. © Trent Bolser 2014), so it is the case that the photo is specifically noted otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The NWS disclaimer said “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise…” That indicates the web page will state it is noted otherwise. It does not. Therefore, it falls under the public domain category. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The web page includes the full photograph—a photograph that includes that very same copyright notice I mentioned above—so the web page does state that the photo is copyrighted. I do not believe it reasonable to conclude that an explicit and watermarked notice that a particular photograph is copyrighted by a third party would fail to qualify as the website having specifically noted otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well that is your opinion. I will note, you are opening Pandora’s box (IMO) with all the recent deletion nominations you did. But, we shall see what the community decides. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The web page includes the full photograph—a photograph that includes that very same copyright notice I mentioned above—so the web page does state that the photo is copyrighted. I do not believe it reasonable to conclude that an explicit and watermarked notice that a particular photograph is copyrighted by a third party would fail to qualify as the website having specifically noted otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The NWS disclaimer said “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise…” That indicates the web page will state it is noted otherwise. It does not. Therefore, it falls under the public domain category. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 | Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons. |
This file was initially tagged by Red-tailed hawk as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from National Weather Service's website, but the image was produced by Tom Stolze and was taken with permission from his facebook. This is not a work of the U.S. Federal Government, so it is not in the public domain, and this is not own work. Does {{PD-NWS}} apply? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete With respect to that template, which says as stated at https://www.weather.gov/lmk/photo_submission_information: the linked page no longer exists and cannot be presumed to apply to recent uploads or to uploads made not using that form. That linked page is relevant only to the Louisville, Kentucky office (note the url and the structure of the NWS website more generally). It's unclear to me when it exactly stopped existing (the last archive.org pull of that page without it being dead is from a week before this tornado occurred). Other NWS offices are granted only permission to use the photo, so I don't think that the portion of the template about external photos being hosted is actually all that sound for anything that was submitted to another office. Also, the photo explicitly notes that the photo was taken via Facebook (some NWS offices allow direct social media submission of storm photos), and the relevant NWS office is that of St. Louis, Missouri, so I don't presume the copyright holder actually had to use the form cited in the (out-of-date-at-best) template to submit the photograph.
- The current terms of use say that The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise. Alas, this photo has an explicit copyright notice on it; it would appear that this means that it is not actually presumed in the public domain on the basis of the ToS statement. As such, we have no reasonable basis to assume that this photograph is in the public domain, and the photograph should be deleted per COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Very confused on what Red-tailed hawk & King of Hearts are talking about. Per NWS policy, every image on a weather.gov page is released into public domain UNLESS explicitly stated it isn’t. In this case, the image does NOT say it is not public domain. Therefore, this is a public domain image on a NWS page. Deleting this should require a larger discussion than a simple deletion discussion. Deletion of this would mean over 1,000 images on weather.gov pages would be eligible for deletion, which basically nullifies {{PD-NWS}}. I encourage the deletion nominator to withdraw the deletion nomination and open a larger discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Where is this 'NWS policy' that states NWS-hosted but not NWS-created images are public domain unless stated otherwise? All @Red-tailed hawk seems to be pointing out is that the PD-NWS template appears to have been (A) the going practice for only one Weather Forecast office of many and (B) deprecated now even for that one office. Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. I will not be withdrawing this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- On the National Weather Service's main site's disclaimer page I see this:
- "Use of Third-Party Data and Products: Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. This does not imply an endorsement of the third-party data/products or their provider by NOAA/National Weather Service. Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." Penitentes (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. I will not be withdrawing this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image has a copyright notice. Either a photograph is in the public domain or it is copyrighted; it is plainly obvious that a copyright notice indicates that the file is not in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- And, for what it's worth regarding a larger discussion, I have opened up a thread at VP/C. A larger discussion is needed to correct the existing error in the template. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Storm chasers generally do that in order to show who the owner is for that image. Legit the exact same thing exists for File:The Storm Prediction Center’s Severe Weather Outlook for March 24, 2023.jpg. SPC created the image, but put their logo on it. If putting logo’s/copyright notices on an image eliminates the public domain function, then again, thousands of images are in violation (not just in weather images). The fact the image itself exists on a weather.gov page indicates it WAS uploaded to the page and/or the government was given specific permission to publish it on their page as a public domain image. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image that you are linking to does have a logo on it, but it's also lacking any sort of copyright symbol or other claim of copyright. I'm confused as to why the mere addition of a U.S. government logo in the photo you're referencing is being conflated with a pretty explicit watermark in the source for this photograph that says © Tom Stolze. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image is also stored on the NWS Web servers (https://www.weather.gov/images/lsx/TomStolze_FB_IMG_1634004043014.jpg). It doesn’t matter that there is a copyright symbol on it. The US federal government specifically states, “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information.” (Noting I bolded and italicized part of the statement which is not bolded in the quote). The exact caption on the NWS webpage is “ Photo of the tornado as it began to touch down near Wrights, IL. Credit: Tom Stolze (via Facebook)”. It does not specifically say the image is not public domain. According to that disclaimed notice, the image must be a public domain image to be on their web servers & the web page does not specifically state anything about it not being public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- That copyright symbol is a very explicit indicator that the image is copyrighted (i.e. not in the public domain). I don't know what else there is to say or do here except to allow people besides us to weigh in. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image is also stored on the NWS Web servers (https://www.weather.gov/images/lsx/TomStolze_FB_IMG_1634004043014.jpg). It doesn’t matter that there is a copyright symbol on it. The US federal government specifically states, “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material. You also cannot present information of your own in a way that makes it appear to be official government information.” (Noting I bolded and italicized part of the statement which is not bolded in the quote). The exact caption on the NWS webpage is “ Photo of the tornado as it began to touch down near Wrights, IL. Credit: Tom Stolze (via Facebook)”. It does not specifically say the image is not public domain. According to that disclaimed notice, the image must be a public domain image to be on their web servers & the web page does not specifically state anything about it not being public domain. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The image that you are linking to does have a logo on it, but it's also lacking any sort of copyright symbol or other claim of copyright. I'm confused as to why the mere addition of a U.S. government logo in the photo you're referencing is being conflated with a pretty explicit watermark in the source for this photograph that says © Tom Stolze. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Storm chasers generally do that in order to show who the owner is for that image. Legit the exact same thing exists for File:The Storm Prediction Center’s Severe Weather Outlook for March 24, 2023.jpg. SPC created the image, but put their logo on it. If putting logo’s/copyright notices on an image eliminates the public domain function, then again, thousands of images are in violation (not just in weather images). The fact the image itself exists on a weather.gov page indicates it WAS uploaded to the page and/or the government was given specific permission to publish it on their page as a public domain image. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Where is this 'NWS policy' that states NWS-hosted but not NWS-created images are public domain unless stated otherwise? All @Red-tailed hawk seems to be pointing out is that the PD-NWS template appears to have been (A) the going practice for only one Weather Forecast office of many and (B) deprecated now even for that one office. Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, in particular due to the "watermark in the source for this photograph that says © Tom Stolze". —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploader requested, image licence incorrect Prosperosity (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Uploader requested, image licence incorrect Prosperosity (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Per COM:CUR Oman A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there any (even potential) educational use for these "alternative" flags? Unless someone can plausibly come up with one, these files should be deleted as out of project scope.
- File:State of Sicily.png
- File:Italy alt.png
- File:Republic of florence.png
- File:Croatia alt.png
- File:Serbiaalt.png
- File:Hungaryalt.png
- File:Austriaalt.png
- File:Slovakia alt.png
- File:Flag Of Saxony.png
- File:Czechia.png
- File:France alt.png
- File:Germany United By Bavaria.png
- File:Benelux free state.png
- File:Rhineland.png
- File:Denmarkalt.png
- File:Germany alt.png
- File:Grand Dutchy of Carpathia.png
- File:Lithuania alt.png
- File:Poland alt.png
- File:West prussia.png
- File:Norway e.png
- File:Sweden alt.png
- File:Byzantium (2).png
- File:Byzantium.png
- File:Bulgaria alt.png
- File:Romania alt.png
- File:Ukraine alt.png
- File:Belarus.png
- File:East prussia (konigsberg).png
- File:Estonia.png
- File:Karelia.png
- File:New Catalonian Flag.png
- File:Spain alt.png
- File:Portugal alt.png
- File:Morocco alt.png
- File:Algeria alt.png
- File:Tunisia alt.png
- File:Libya alt.png
- File:Egypt alt.png
- File:Cyprus alt.png
- File:Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd (Alternate).png
- File:Jordan alt.png
- File:Palestine alt.png
- File:Lebanon alt.png
- File:Syria alt.png
- File:Kuwait alt.png
- File:Iraq alt.png
- File:Turkey alt.png
- File:Georgia alt.png
- File:Armeniaalt.png
- File:Azerbaijan alt.png
- File:Iran alt.png
- File:Turkmenistan alt.png
- File:Uzbekistan alt.png
- File:Mongolia alt.png
- File:Kazakhstan Alt.png
- File:Alternate Russian Flag.png
Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Once more: Is there any (even potential) educational use for these "alternative" flags (and one fictitious banknote)? Unless someone can plausibly come up with one, these files should be deleted as out of project scope.
- File:France redesign.png
- File:2023 03 19 0rn Kleki.png
- File:Genoa.png
- File:The flag of Azure.png
- File:Grand Empire of Switzerland 2nd flag.png
- File:Alps Danubian confederation.png
- File:Remade flag of Catalonia.png
- File:Flag of The United States of Brittany.png
- File:England alt.png
- File:Scotland at.png
- File:Northern Ireland V.2.png
- File:Iceland.png
- File:Exiled Enosis (Crete and Cyprus).png
- File:Calabria.png
Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Argentinian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
no author given no metadata no permission Hoyanova (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 07.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 08.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 13.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 14.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 09.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:HK SW 上環 Sheung Wan 安泰街 On Tai Street 康威花園 Hongway Garden 北園酒家 North Garden Restaurant menu January 2023 Px3 10.jpg
[edit]Copyrighted menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian coin is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
A copyrighted Australian banknote is depicted. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a Creative Commons license at the source. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a Creative Commons license at the source. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The cover image is copyrighted Trade (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Trade, I suggest the image to be saved but as a cropped version which I will do it right now. Dandarmkd (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Trade (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
out of Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
"Own work" and 2023 date is impossible if this is what it claims to be. There is a fair chance that this is in the public domain, but it needs to be accurately attributed and dated. Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:DW of artwork by living artist Marjetica Potrc. If you are or represent Marjetica Potrc (or the copyright holder of the art), please contact COM:VRT. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Image metadata suggests that this was captured with a phone camera, but zooming in on the image reveals an artefact that's associated with taking a photo of a pixelated display (i.e. this is a photograph of an image displayed by some sort of monitor). As such, own work is unclear, and this should be deleted in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Permission was granted in response to this Twitter thread, but permission was Do you mind if I use a screenshot of the Clarksville tornado from your video on the wikipedia page for the November 4th tornado outbreak?. COM:LICENSING is specific that Use by Wikimedia only is not a sufficiently free license for the project. This could possibly be uploaded on EnWiki as non-free content with the Non-free with permission template, but it cannot be hosted on Commons with the current license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from a Tweet. There is no evidence of permission in the replies, and I can't find any Tweets that grant this to a CC0 license. As such, this should be deleted for lacking evidence of permission in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload. Considering nature of the photo, own work is unlikely. Probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
out of project scope Didym (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unusable poor quality, not educational George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
out of com:PS (not to be confused with Mehrzad Marashi) Hanooz 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Banknotes of Burundi are not unprotected works. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
File:5AKgB-9lflrJth3958Kryp24q5kqxVuEJDK57XOTYjZwNrxiN2q-7j46ZEoTWljdTg8yS7oEWEQxHSXuIAXFzfcAbcEWfAKtvYcbREeWvDemfndu1ltEB9WkJeEq4hmXlQXU6vWoWjMx9zJ00Vm4CgQQdzIuDNzS8WPfQZ1RBH8HTlq2KOi3ycyoQlMY-UdRp-KIUFDs.png
[edit]All other photos uploaded by this user turned out to be copyvios. Given that and considering the strange file name, this one is probably a copyvio too. It should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly show to really be "own work" as claimed. Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Goodreads is owned by Amazon which typically doesn't license under a free license, and the metadata says "All rights reserved by Daniloferrera.com" and indicates this was from Facebook or Instagram. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Early 1970s Chilean photograph. Chile is 70 PMA so this is too young to be public domain there. Abzeronow (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 03:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope and likely copyright issues
- File:1 vypusk 1957 god.jpg
- File:Fok2.png
- File:Kazakov2.jpg
- File:Portret utkin.jpg
- File:Direktor tehnikuma Mitrofanov.jpg
- File:Sidorov evgenii valentinovich.jpg
- File:Sklyarov 1.jpg
- File:Muhina vk.jpg
- File:Brening.jpg
- File:3korp.png
- File:1korp.png
- File:Logozamt.png
Юрий Д.К 05:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps by Alfred Goldammer
[edit]Stamps of Germany are copyright until at least 70 years after the death artist. At least unless their copyright status was renewed by the URAA in the meantime. Although I'll leave that up to the closing administrator to decide. Either way, assuming the term is 70+ PMA these stamps would be copyrighted until at least 2041 since the artist died in 1971.
- File:Alliierte Besetzung 1947 963 Heinrich von Stephan.jpg
- File:Alliierte Besetzung 1947 964 Heinrich von Stephan.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 42 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 43 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 44 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 45 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 47 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 48 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 49 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 51 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 54 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 57 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 58 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 59 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 60 Berliner Bauten.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 68 Währungsgeschädigte.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 69 Währungsgeschädigte.jpg
- File:DBPB 1949 70 Währungsgeschädigte.jpg
- File:DBPB 1953 106 Gedächtniskirche.jpg
- File:DBPB 1953 107 Gedächtniskirche.jpg
- File:DBPB 1953 108 Gedächtniskirche.jpg
- File:DBPB 1953 109 Gedächtniskirche.jpg
- File:DBPB 1956 150 Berliner Stadtbilder.jpg
- File:DBPB 1956 153 Berliner Stadtbilder.jpg
- File:DBPB 1957 159 Spandau.jpg
- File:DE-SBZ-Berlin 1948 MiNr0200A pm B002.jpg
- File:Deutsche Post - 1 Deutsche Mark.jpg
- File:Kolonnaden am Kleistpark - Berliner Bauten (Briefmarkenserie).jpg
- File:OPD BLN 1945 1 Berliner Bär durchstochen 2.jpg
- File:OPD BLN 1945 1 Berliner Bär durchstochen.jpg
- File:OPD BLN 1945 1 Berliner Bär gezähnt.jpg
- File:OPD BLN 1945 3A Berliner Bär.jpg
- File:OPD BLN 1945 7A Eiche.jpg
- File:Rathenau-Briefmark.jpg
- File:SBZ 1948 200A Berliner Bär gezähnt.jpg
- File:SBZ 1948 200B Berliner Bär durchstochen.jpg
- File:SBZ 1948 202A Berliner Bär.jpg
- File:SBZ 1948 206A Eiche.jpg
- File:Stamp 1947 AllBesGA MiNr0963a pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamp 1948 SBZBerBrb MiNr0202A pm B002.jpg
- File:Stamps of Germany (Berlin) 1949, MiNr Block 1.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Personal photos. our of com:PS.
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi (cyber project).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(worldskils).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(microsoft family).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi microsoft.jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(wro2019korea).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(wro2019USA).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(wro2019China).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(airport).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(paris).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(wro2019).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein(wro 2019).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi(world robot olympiad 2016).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi (world robot olympiad 2019).jpg
- File:Conference (Smart Wheelchair Presentation).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi (Firacup).jpg
- File:Mohammadhossein ebadi (working on nao robots).jpg
Hanooz 11:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rohoalah.shekari (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of com:PS and copyrighted documents.
- File:شرکت مهندسی پزشکی.jpg
- File:صفحه پنجم.jpg
- File:صفحه چهارم.jpg
- File:صفحه سوم شناسنامه.jpg
- File:سوپیشینه.jpg
- File:شناسنامه.jpg
- File:عکس شخصی 1990.jpg
Hanooz 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The uploader has a history of copyright violation and can't be trusted. Unless they send permission via VRT we can't host these images per com:PCP.
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و مجید مظفری.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و مهران مدیری.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و عزت الله انتظامی.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و محمدعلی کشاورز.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و شبنم قلی خانی.jpg
- File:فاطمه گودرزی و نسیم ادبی.jpg
- File:حسین پناهی و ژاله صامتی.png
- File:سریال یحیی و گلابتون.png
- File:سریال هوش سیاه 2.jpg
- File:سید محمد هاشمی (حقوقدان).jpg
- File:گودرز افتخار جهرمی حقوقدان.jpg
- File:نسرین مقانلو و اصغر آبگون.jpg
- File:میرطاهر مظلومی و اصغر آبگون.jpg
- File:اصغر آبگون و علی انصاریان.jpg
- File:محسن عبدلی.jpg
- File:ندا قاسمی.png
- File:Falahatpishe.jpg
- File:Amin va adib boroumanad.jpg
- File:Saran gebhaye meli1381.jpg
- File:Mazre sibzamini.jpg
- File:Nokodasht entezamiiii.jpg
- File:Amin va sabzevari.jpg
- File:Bahrami. amin. farshad.jpg
- File:Hosin ahi. moshfegh kashani.jpg
- File:Falsafe amin.jpg
- File:Jalase ketab. niche.jpg
- File:Hafezshenasi.jpg
- File:Angoman adbi iran.jpg
- File:Rahim zahtab fard.jpg
- File:Saranhezbeiran.jpg
- File:Amin dar banaye ghotb shah.jpg
- File:Kor entezami.jpg
- File:Entezami va delkesh.jpg
- File:Ghidratolah.entezamii.jpg
- File:Javad karachi.jpg
- File:Prof.amin2.jpg
- File:Azaye gebhaye melli.jpg
- File:Bozorgdash gafari langrudi.jpg
- File:Terminalkaviani.jpg
- File:Sarkarostovar1.jpg
- File:Parandzahedi.jpg
- File:Ezat va ghodrat entezami.jpg
- File:Purtorab.mostafa.jpg
- File:Baradaranentezami.jpg
- File:Aminoshariee.jpg
- File:Sayed Hassan Amin in 2019.jpg
- File:Aminsharie.jpg
- File:Ezat.jamee.jpg
- File:Prof.amin.jpg
- File:Deldadegan.jpg
- File:Pantea mehdinia.jpg
- File:Arme bargehonar.jpg
- File:Gebhe meli iran 2.jpg
- File:Jebhe meli iran.jpg
- File:Heze mostaghel va etedairan.jpg
- File:Aiireza dabagh.jpg
- File:Sarzamin honar.jpg
- File:Shaname. amin.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-03-13 19-25-56کتایون کارایی.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-03-06 10-02-35قدرتعلی حشمتیان.jpg
- File:Sayed Hassan Amin in 2017.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-02-23 21-47-48 احسان قدمی.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-02-20 19-46-12 علی ططری.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-02-17 02-36-32 حزب مستقل.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-02-08 22-53-17 حزب مستقل و اعتدال ایران.jpg
- File:Photo 2018-02-03 17-56-19 قدرتعلی حشمتیان.jpg
Hanooz 13:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am a journalist and I have taken these photos over the years. With respect خاچی (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem so User_talk:خاچی#You_may_be_blocked_soon. Hanooz 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by I dream of horses as no permission (No permission since). "Own work" and 2023 date is impossible if this is what it claims to be. There is a fair chance that this is in the public domain, but it needs to be accurately attributed and dated. Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, lacking info needed to determine source & copyright status. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by I dream of horses as no permission (No permission since). "Own work" and 2023 date is impossible if this is what it claims to be. There is a fair chance that this is in the public domain, but it needs to be accurately attributed and dated. Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a case of PD-text to me. We won't get rid of the widespread wrong understanding of "own work" here with deletions. -- Herbert Ortner (:talk) 10:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: No actual source, was used in declined sandbox article, no evident in scope import. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
These images are either unused or used in a hoax article on the English Wikipedia.
Whpq (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Unvalid source provided. Brunnaiz (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no indication of free licensed status. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ArticleAmazon as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: baja calidad de imagen. Too old for G7, converting to DR. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I request the deletion of this image and all its versions because I myself uploaded it in very low quality. ArticleAmazon (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- solicito la eliminacion de las vesiones anteriores por que es de baja calidad, la actual esta bein. se puede hacer eso alguien puede responderme? 138.84.38.224 02:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- La imagen actual déjenlo, borrar solo los duplicados, pueden hacer eso?? ArticleAmazon (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: Issue seems resolved per image page. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ovruni as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Image resized from this other one, the website does not indicate this license. Previous DR was kept. Yann (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fitindia. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Advertisement? Trade (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination OOS. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Fake and offensive copy of file:Annabelle Wallis 2017.jpg, vandall user André Koehne TALK TO ME 01:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
More fake image of valdall user. This is copyrighted image from https://www.thedefensepost.com/2018/04/13/opinion-mattis-america-defending-syria-oilfields/ 2018 page André Koehne TALK TO ME 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Because this file is not the person depicting the real name, It was uploaded by mistake, Kindly delete it Wanderer kanishk (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Because this file is not the person depicting the real name, It was uploaded by mistake, Kindly delete it Wanderer kanishk (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Because this file is not the person depicting the real name, It was uploaded by mistake, Kindly delete it Wanderer kanishk (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader request; unused. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
These three low-resolution pics seem like copied from the net, e.g. higher resolution version of one of them was published on this site in 2009. So they are unlikely "own work". NitinMlk (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This pic was first published by this website on 20 January 2005 and is clearly marked as © fightnews.com. It was again published by the same copyrighted site on 2 May 2006 and on 1 Feb 2007. Then the exact version was uploaded to English Wikipedia on 11 December 2007, which was transferred to the Commons on 6 March 2008. So this not only seems like a clear copyvio but also the uploader's claim of taking it "a year ago" is false. NitinMlk (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not their own work, as it is a cropped version of the following copyrighted painting: [1]. Note that it is a very common practice by South Asians on social media to create ahistorical paintings or sketches to promote members of their Caste or ethnic group, although the painting in question was created to promote Hindu and Sikh unity by depicting a member of the Hindu priestly caste killing a Muslim opponent. NitinMlk (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely own work 175.106.50.148 07:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Audrey Tang from the Ministry of Digital Affairs (original).jpg", as this picture is used on more pages the Community Tech Bot will inform local communities. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep According to the Government Website Open Information Announcement which is stated on the website of the Ministry of Digital Affairs, all of moda's publicly posted information and materials that are protected under copyright provisions are published under the Public Domain Dedication. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: per TKsdik8900. This (smaller) photo is licensed under CC-Zero. The bigger (original and not cropped) one may not be licensed, but this one is different. S099001 (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of the NSDAP (1920–1945).svg. Fry1989 eh? 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 17:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kurt Eigler
[edit]Follow up to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Kurt Eigler. Essentially works by Kurt Eigler are copyrighted until at least 2,060.
- File:Avicenna GDR-stamp 1952 (cropped).png
- File:Avicenna GDR-stamp 1952 (flipped).png
- File:DDR-Briefmarke Frieden 1950 6 Pf.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, except for File:DDR-Briefmarke Frieden 1950 6 Pf.JPG, which was added to this DR, but not properly nominated and is also a work of Gerhard Martens and not Eigler. The stamp the Avicenna portrait was taken from, File:GDR-stamp Avicenna 1952 Mi. 314.JPG, is a 1952 East German stamp which did not name the artist. So it is in the PD in Germany since 2023, but not in the US, where it is still protected until the end of 2047. The files can therefore be restored in 2048. --Rosenzweig τ 13:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Aksel Jørgensen
[edit]These images clearly aren't the uploaders own work as claimed and the artist died in 1957. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027, if not later because of their copyright status being renewed by the URAA. I think they were. Although I'll leave it up to the closing administrator to decide if they want to go with that or the normal copyright term.
- File:Aksel Jorgensen, Mrs. Jørgensen, 1907, Trout Gallery Dickinson College.tif
- File:Aksel Jørgensen ,Pigernes Minde, 1907, Arbeitermusum Kopenhagen..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Adam Oehlschlaeger Nordens Guder, illustration, 1928.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Adam Oehlschlaeger Nordens Guder, ornament, 1928.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Adam Oehlschlaeger Nordens Guder, page 1. , 1928.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Adam Oehlschlaeger Nordens Guder, two men, 1928.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Adam Oehlschlaeger Nordens Guder,cover sheet, 1928.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, At Drachmann's grave, 1908, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Chr. Tetzen-Lund med familie, 1912, Kunsten Museum of Modern Art Aalborg.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, City view of Copenhagen, ca. 1905, Trapholt Museum..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, den spedalske, Taksigelseskirken, 1925- 1927.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Drachmann at the Punsch-Fest in Lorry , 1910, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Drachmann's urn passe the honorary arch, 1908, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Family picture, 1914, Museum Jorn Silkeborg.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Holger Drachmann's funeral, 1908, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, honorary arch at Holger Drachmann's funeral, 1908, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Loke og Jaette , 1913, private collection Germany.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, S-S Kong Haakon's arrival, 1908, Skagens Kunstmuseum.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Self-portrait ,ca.1919, Trapholt Museum..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Self-portrait, 1912, Museum Jorn Silkeborg.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Study to Drachmannkroen 1911, Museum Jorn Silkeborg..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Study to Drachmannkroen, 1909, Museum Jorn Silkeborg..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, Udsigt over tagene på Gl. Mønt. 1907. Københavns Museum.tif
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, woodcut, Julestemning, 1909..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, woodcut, portrait of the painter Vilhelm Wils, 1908..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, woodcut, på gaden - regnvejr, 1909.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, woodcut, Tav`et, 1909..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen, woodcut, To personer - Kvinde på skødet - En skål. 1908..jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen,woodcut, forfattern Jens Petersen, 1908.jpg
- File:Aksel Jørgensen. Udsigt over tagene på Gl. Mønt. 1907. Københavns Museum.tif
- File:The bathing boys, 1908, Aksel Jørgensen, National Gallery Oslo.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I rarely agree with you but this is a clear case. Delete and undelete in 2028. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The URAA agreement extended copyrights to 70 years pma for those that had less than 70 years pma prior to the agreement, so 2028 is correct. --RAN (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Restored per ticket permission, which btw. was present before this deletion request was started. --Krd 21:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Morocco. Architect Michel Pinseau died in 1999 A1Cafel (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment Delete then. No problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No FoP in Morocco. Architect Michel Pinseau died in 1999 A1Cafel (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro A1Cafel (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Luxembourg A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Luxembourg A1Cafel (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
COM:ADVERT. he is not wikimedia contributor. eien20 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Picture of an old photograph (COM:DW). We don't have the name of the original photographer. Probably not free. Titlutin (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/محمد ادریسی
[edit]This seems like an abuse of the project for self-promotion. Photographs of some non-notable person taken with different camera models, uploaded by different accounts are both out of scope and possible copyvios.
- File:محمد ادریسی محرم.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی راهیان نور.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی نماز جماعت.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی شمال.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی حوزه مجازی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی یادداشت ها.jpg
- File:سخنرانی حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی قم.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی حوزه علمیه.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی اردو فرهنگی مساجد.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و دوستان.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی یادواره شهدا.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی راه مردم.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی گفتگو و مناظره.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی خبرگزاری تابناک اصفهان.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی در جوانی.jpg
- File:سخنرانی حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی قم مقدسه.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی باغ های نطنز.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی روزنامه عصر اصفهان.jpg
- File:دکتر سید محمد ساداتی نژاد و سید محمد ساداتی نژاد و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی دکترمحمد رضا مجیدی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی جلسات هم اندیشی با اصحاب رسانه.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی در حوزه علمیه،دانشنامه ویکی پدیا،حوزه.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی در مدرسه علمیه آیت الله امامی کاشانی.jpg
- File:درجمع دوستان حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:Tnewsحجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی نویسنده کتاب نقد و استدلال ها؛.jpg
- File:سخنرانی حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام حسن زاده و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:جلسه آموزش و پرورش حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام بی آزار تهرانی و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و دکتر قدیری ابیانه دکترای علوم استراتژیک با گرایش مدیریت استراتژیک، معمار پایه یک و عضو نظام مهندسی، مدی.jpg
- File:محمد ادریسی عاشورا.jpg
- File:آیت الله امامت کاشانی .حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین مهدی ماندگاری و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:آیت الله زاده مدنی کاشانی و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:استاد حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و من.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی محمد ادریسی شاعران عکس دسته جمعی فرهنگ و هنر.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی دکتر محمد مهدی عبدخدایی حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی دکتر محمد مهدی عبد خدایی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی نطنز.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی (2).jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی در عصر اصفهان.jpg
- File:یادداشت و خبر و مصاحبه حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی خبرگزاری ایرنا روزنامه ایران.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و حجت الاسلام سرلک.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی نویسنده و محقق حوزوی حجت الاسلام و المسلمین دکتر شیخ محمد ادریسی نویسنده و محقق حوزوی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی درحال سخنرانی درباره شهادت.jpg
- File:مصاحبه و گفتگو با خبرگزاری ایرنا حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام والمسلمین محمد ادریسی حوزه علمیه امام خمینی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی سخنران و نویسنده.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و حجت الاسلام نیما ارزانی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی و حجت الاسلام آقا تهرانی.jpg
- File:عکس حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی ,آیت الله قاسمی،آیت الله سید موسوی.jpg
- File:محمد ادریسی و سید سعید حسینی،حجت الاسلام والمسلمین سید سعید حسینی به نمایندگی ولی فقیه در کاشان، حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی و حجه الاسلام والمسلمین محمد محققی و حجت الاسلام علی اسفندیار.jpg
- File:آیت الله اسلامی تبار و حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی خبرگزاری تسنیم.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام ادریسی محمد.jpg
- File:سیستان و بلوچستان و کاشان آیت الله عباسعلی سلیمانی و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی آیت الله سلیمانی.jpg
- File:مدیرعامل پیشین خبرگزاری و سردبیر روزنامه سردبیر روزنامه حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی موسسه فرهنگی مطبوعاتی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.png
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی سردبیر روزنامه و حجت الاسلام احسان تیموری سردبیر روزنامه حجت الاسلام معتمدی ارشاد.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:ماجرای طرح ازدواج اجباری چیست؟ + جزئیات و واکنشها - حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی جنجالی طراح نظریه جنجالی ازدواج اجباری.jpg
- File:آیت الله محمد حسن انصاری و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی مناظرات و تحلیل های شیعه حوزوی و دانشگاهی منطق فلسفه و کلام و علوم انسانی ویکی پدیا دانشنامه آزاد.jpg
- File:بازدید از ورزشگاه حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:جلسه با دوستان حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی شاعر یکی بود یکی نیست بابا رفت بابا نیست ایران همیشه می گفت سردار داده یادم معنای خوب تکلیف.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام اسماعیلی و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:پویش من و حاج آقا.jpg
- File:دکتر قدیری ابیانه و حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:اردوی راهیان نور همراه با حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:بیوگرافی و حقایقی از زندگی حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:شلمچه اردو جوانان و نوجوانان به همراه حجت الاسلام محمد ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام و المسلمین محمد ادریس سخنرانی.jpg
- File:ساداتی نژاد.jpg
- File:حجت الاسلام محمدادریسی.jpg
- File:ادریسی.jpg
- File:حجة الإسلام الشيخ محمد الإدريسي في إيران.jpg
HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
out of scope fictional sports team
- File:Siège social de The Magic Hand Porn F.C.png
- File:Logo actuel de The Magic Hand Porn F.C.png
- File:Costume super-héroïne The Magic Hand (croquis).jpg
- File:Des joueuses de The Magic Hand Porn F.C. à l'entraînement.png
- File:Kit Maillots 2021-2022.png
- File:Historique maillots.png
- File:Cummy.png
- File:The Magic Hand logo 2018.jpg
- File:The Magic Hand Porn F.C. historique logos.png
Vera (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Photograph of artwork. See French laws on freedom of panorama. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Modern primat as no permission (No permission since) Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I think this should be discussed, because the only match on TinEye was "First found on Jan 26, 2023", so it could be a copy of this file, uploaded 8 September 2021, and not vice versa, and the matches on Google Images are only on Wikimedia. So why do you think this remark by the uploader is not also made in their capacity as the photographer? "This view is from the Southern Sealdah Railway Station Side. It was captured just before the evening."
If you have proof that this photo was stolen, please provide it. Otherwise, I think we should keep the photo.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)- Yes, please keep the photo! HridoyKundu (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it was nominated for deletion? @Modern primat for what no permission? HridoyKundu (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org , and follow the instructions. check your page. @HridoyKundu
- ""If you have proof that this photo was stolen"" i simply cant see this file is free licensed. no metadata, low resolution. @Ikan Kekek ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't be confused, both I'mHriday and
- HridoyKundu are same. See here in my page history HridoyKundu (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek marking files with "no permission" is not a speedydelete reason. it is just "file is need a prove that it has free licensed or has given permission to use it". so, im marking again with "no permission". ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 09:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hey! It's from my phone gallery and unfortunately I delete every image after uploading to the Wikimedia to keep my phone space clean. HridoyKundu (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- there is any proof except your phone memory? if not, i hope it is not to hard to take photo again in that place. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Modern primat, I didn't delete any tag; I just challenged it in order to have a regular deletion requests thread. If the effect of that was to cause the deletion of the tag, why not just use this deletion requests thread to discuss the file? If HridoyKundu took the photo, it has permission from them, so as I said, the claim you're making is that they are lying when they claim it's their "own work." HridoyKundu, did you shoot this photo yourself? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- (...) I don't have infinite time like you to go to the station and take that photo again and again. It's far from me. I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg & Eleta Kingsley.jpg recently from my gallery. Can you proof that it not belongs to me? Just ask intellectual Wikipedia admin through my mail. I will give them proof. I can't disclose my personal info on public. HridoyKundu (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you have proof, then the COM:VRT folks are the ones to e-mail confidentially. Normally you don't need to do that for photos that haven't been published elsewhere. –LPfi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu. You have uploaded File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg just recently. Is there any chance that you still have the original photograph? Since this file seems to be cropped, I want to ask you to upload an uncropped version with metadata. Is that possible for you? HeminKurdistan (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- HridoyKundu, you should address this, because not addressing it damages your credibility and the reliability of your claims that all the photos you uploaded are your own work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I was not answering or replying to any comments just because to avoid any further conflicts. I was replying with suitable infos on email to wiki admin officials. But it has gone far.
- This user @Modern primat is misusing his wiki power. Dear admins @LPfi @Kritzolina don't you think it needs to be stopped? I just noticed all my of uploaded photos are again asked for verification as it has missing evidence of permission. What? I already proved and given permission when those were uploaded.
- I already said as soon as I uploaded to wiki I delete photos immediately to clean my phone's space. But as you need proof my ownership on those images, you can check it's proof simply by doing image search by image search engines like Google lens or tineye or Bing image search or something else if you know. You will not find any other images and if you do so you won't find that before my published date. Hope it clears!
- Lastly, Don't you think it isn't the way to prevent vandalism? Instead, it's simply discouraging users like me to upload photos further on wiki. That user not only asking my credibility and discouraging me and wasting ours time but also giving user like me personal attack. HridoyKundu (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, It's really not possible and practical to verify my ownership and permission again and again on every files I uploaded on wikimedia like File:Belgharia Railway Station.png | File:Barasat Junction railway station.png See all here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/HridoyKundu&ilshowall=1 Please do something about it! HridoyKundu (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ""misusing his wiki power"" ok ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- HridoyKundu, being indignant instead of addressing requests and comments does not make your argument stronger; rather, on the contrary. You should address HeminKurdistan's request in this thread, not privately, where no-one but them can see the answer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ""misusing his wiki power"" ok ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu Do you mean me by saying "That user"? HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HeminKurdistan Anywhere am I mentioned you? No, you aren't meant for that or any of this!
- @Ikan Kekek I already did on email but no action or reply come in the past 24 hours. That's why I put here.
- @LPfi @Kritzolina Dear admins, just waive off the Confirm Copyright Ownership notice like on this (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belgharia_Railway_Station.png) from mine all uploaded images on wikimedia. That's it!
- And everyone please don't reply on this. Instead of argument just solve this issue and close the discussion here.
- Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate your refusing to discuss things publicly. If you are too indignant to discuss things publicly, maybe you lack the right temperament or attitude to participate collaboratively on a wiki. But to get back to a specific: whether you actually shot File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg or not would influence my view of whether your "own work" claims are reliable in general. Asking for an uncropped version with metadata was a very polite way of challenging you to give evidence of your authorship of that photo. And you decline to do that because? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu Would you please answer my question? HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HeminKurdistan 1) I think you didn't go through the image properly. Just look at the info of that image Summary>Permission I verified it through email by VRT.
- 2)I don't appreciate your refusing to discuss things publicly - Discussion is only made when there's anything to solve. Here that's already solved regarding that two images File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg & File:Sealdah Station.jpg verifying by VRTs
- 3)maybe you lack the right temperament or attitude - Maybe but seriously I don't know how to explain someone more friendly than this.
- 4) And you decline to do that because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC) - No absolutely no. Wikipedia and its subsidiaries is for all and a public thing is all about transparency. We all have the rights to ask questions. So there should be no partiality. I was declining not because of the discussion but the discussion was going out of the box and irrelevant. It was turning into who is right and who is one whose side instead of what is right
- 5) very polite way of challenging you to give evidence of your authorship of that photo - As I already said transperency should have on wiki. And I really appreciate the work of the user: Modern Primat here. But there should have limit! He was not only asking about the authorship of those two photos but all of my photos.
- Based on nothing! Isn't this the insult of my credibility and too transparency? Imagine, you have 1000+ photos uploaded on wiki (many actually have more than this). And I ask you to prove your authorship one by one. Where you already proved that before your uploading, you have to do that again just because I asked. So simply asking: Will you do that?
- 6) I asked to stop the discussion just because to stop the toxicity. As time passes, more users are evolving by becoming this side or that side. So, instead of solving this simple thing, it's getting more toxic.
- That's why I ask the wiki admins attention. Because they are well and enough experienced to handle this types of situation more peacefully.
- Lastly, don't ask me to add this string or that code to image. I really understand less about those things and know the very basic of wiki.
- Thanks, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu This is not an answer to my question, but no problem. I have another question: If I can upload an uncropped version of File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, the photograph you claim you took, what will you do and what do you expect us to do (if that happens)? That's a pretty straight question and I expect you to answer honestly and directly. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, It's really not possible and practical to verify my ownership and permission again and again on every files I uploaded on wikimedia like File:Belgharia Railway Station.png | File:Barasat Junction railway station.png See all here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/HridoyKundu&ilshowall=1 Please do something about it! HridoyKundu (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- HridoyKundu, you should address this, because not addressing it damages your credibility and the reliability of your claims that all the photos you uploaded are your own work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- (...) I don't have infinite time like you to go to the station and take that photo again and again. It's far from me. I uploaded Sealdah Station.jpg & Eleta Kingsley.jpg recently from my gallery. Can you proof that it not belongs to me? Just ask intellectual Wikipedia admin through my mail. I will give them proof. I can't disclose my personal info on public. HridoyKundu (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Modern primat: The file is not low resolution. Although many modern cameras can take photos with bigger resolution, some cameras (and smart phones) don't, and often the extra pixels are just noise. Also, there is no rule telling Exif has to be included or kept. There needs to be some other reason not to trust the uploader to add permission missing templates. Although they are not speedy deletion templates, they give the uploader just a week to react. For a file uploaded more than a year ago, that's quite close to a speedy. I removed the {{No permission since}} – when a DR has been started there is no need for it, and it shouldn't be in the no permission categories. –LPfi (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
It does look like at least this photo is good, as VRT approved it. So we can close this thread as a-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, at any rate.- ok, Keep. all you have to do just contact VRT and follow instructions, not call people "fool" @HridoyKundu. and i cant still believe there is people insulting and just walk away like nothing happend. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Because User:HridoyKundu has stopped participating in this discussion and does not answer my questions despite having made several edits after them, I have no other way to judge based on what I have found out. The file File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, which as been (unfortunately) confirmed via VRT system, is a copyright violation and the reason User:HridoyKundu has neglected my request to upload an uncropped version with metadata to prove their authorship is because of this. This is the uncropped version of this file. If this was an own work by User:HridoyKundu, how could I find an uncropped version? Because it is a screenshot taken from a video of a football match. It is available on youtube here at 01:35, and it seems File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg has been digitally altered so that its quality is improved. Because of that, no search engine was able to find that. I see this as a proof that User:HridoyKundu is being dishonest with the community. So, I don't believe them saying "I delete every image after uploading to the Wikimedia" and see all of their uploads as copyright violations and I would recommend the admin who reads this to Delete this file (as well as others uploaded by this user). Pinging @Modern primat@LPfi@Ikan Kekek who were involved in this discussion. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your finding would be a good reason to start this request and if there were no further evidence, it should be deleted as a copyright violation. However, when VRT has been involved, any doubts about the file's status should involve asking them. For all that I know, HridoyKundu could be the original cameraman (or there may be any other arrangement I cannot guess). We need to ask the VRT team if we want to know. Now, this discussion is confused, as File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg hasn't been nominated for deletion, only the station image. –LPfi (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be a separate deletion request for that file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see this as a proof that User:HridoyKundu is being dishonest with the community... Pardon me a dishonesty?
- I already answered about it and I think you need more clarification. Actually, 01:35 that video already answered your questions. Let's deep down one by one:
- 1) Why it's cropped? If you are asked to get a photo pinpointing a person from a group of moving people you must crop. Because there will always unnecessary things in that photo that is insignificant and confusing to readers if that exist. So, to pinpoint that person only, I have to crop. Also if you watch football closely you will see advertisements and sponsors around the field and showing that on image is trademark violation as far as I know. In short, it was cropped to remove other persons than himself, ads and sponsors, unnecessary things.
- 2) Digitally altered? Yes, it was due to remove blurriness. As the object was moving constantly it's impossible to get a steady or static photo.
- 3) upload an uncropped version with metadata: I already said in my previous replies, I understand less about those codes, metadatas and things like this. So, literally it goes above my head what he wants to explain or know by the term with metadata. And in this answer at point 1) I said why it's not possible to upload uncropped version.
- 4) matching: When we have doing, seeing a universal thing it will always match. How? Let's assume a Mosque or Mandir or Church, a person A and a person B get a same photo at the same time from the same place of that Mosque or Mandir or Church. So does that mean person A violating copyright of person B? or vise versa? No! That's the same thing happened here. As the event is public, you shouldn't be shocked that many person get a same photo of person in the field. Because they all get that at the same time.
- 5) So, I don't believe them saying "I delete every image after uploading to the Wikimedia": Umm..I don't know you believe or not but I do. Yes, it's 100% true I delete them all after uploading. Because I no longer need that photos as they became unnecessary to me so I delete to save my phone's space and also I believe wikimedia as trustworthy so in accident if I need that near future I can again download. So, what's the point to keep them in my phone? HridoyKundu (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you understand what "own work" means? You claim that File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg is your "own work," but now you admit it is a still from a video uploaded to YouTube by T Sports. Are you T Sports? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @HridoyKundu You claimed that these files can be proved to be your own work "simply by doing image search" and because we "will not find any other images and if you do so you won't find that before my published date". Now the source of your file is unearthed. What do you expect others to think? HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- To @HeminKurdistan and the closing admin: please take a look on what the uploader has posted on my talk page Special:Diff/747702707#Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?. The crux is: Sorry, as I have a major confusion and made a mistake on this. Then please consider deleting these files that I uploaded including: File:Belgharia Railway Station.png, File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, File:Sealdah Station.jpg, File:TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, File:Habra Railway Station.png, File:Agarpara Railway Station.png, File:Barahat railway station.jpg Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, glad they understand that now. How about apologizing for calling Modern primat a fool? Did HirdoyKundu ever apologize for that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did (see the full conversation here) quoting "Dear administrators, I didn't want to show any types of personal attack on anyone. He/she was asking the same question again and again not understanding my point. Still I am sorry if I really did and promised to keep my behaviour restrained." HridoyKundu (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's not much of an apology. Admitting they were right to question you would be a start. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did (see the full conversation here) quoting "Dear administrators, I didn't want to show any types of personal attack on anyone. He/she was asking the same question again and again not understanding my point. Still I am sorry if I really did and promised to keep my behaviour restrained." HridoyKundu (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, glad they understand that now. How about apologizing for calling Modern primat a fool? Did HirdoyKundu ever apologize for that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- To @HeminKurdistan and the closing admin: please take a look on what the uploader has posted on my talk page Special:Diff/747702707#Is modification on image and uploaded it on wiki violates copyright?. The crux is: Sorry, as I have a major confusion and made a mistake on this. Then please consider deleting these files that I uploaded including: File:Belgharia Railway Station.png, File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, File:Sealdah Station.jpg, File:TEMPERATURE DANGER ZONE.jpg, File:Habra Railway Station.png, File:Agarpara Railway Station.png, File:Barahat railway station.jpg Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your finding would be a good reason to start this request and if there were no further evidence, it should be deleted as a copyright violation. However, when VRT has been involved, any doubts about the file's status should involve asking them. For all that I know, HridoyKundu could be the original cameraman (or there may be any other arrangement I cannot guess). We need to ask the VRT team if we want to know. Now, this discussion is confused, as File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg hasn't been nominated for deletion, only the station image. –LPfi (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because User:HridoyKundu has stopped participating in this discussion and does not answer my questions despite having made several edits after them, I have no other way to judge based on what I have found out. The file File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg, which as been (unfortunately) confirmed via VRT system, is a copyright violation and the reason User:HridoyKundu has neglected my request to upload an uncropped version with metadata to prove their authorship is because of this. This is the uncropped version of this file. If this was an own work by User:HridoyKundu, how could I find an uncropped version? Because it is a screenshot taken from a video of a football match. It is available on youtube here at 01:35, and it seems File:Eleta Kingsley.jpg has been digitally altered so that its quality is improved. Because of that, no search engine was able to find that. I see this as a proof that User:HridoyKundu is being dishonest with the community. So, I don't believe them saying "I delete every image after uploading to the Wikimedia" and see all of their uploads as copyright violations and I would recommend the admin who reads this to
- Modern primat, I didn't delete any tag; I just challenged it in order to have a regular deletion requests thread. If the effect of that was to cause the deletion of the tag, why not just use this deletion requests thread to discuss the file? If HridoyKundu took the photo, it has permission from them, so as I said, the claim you're making is that they are lying when they claim it's their "own work." HridoyKundu, did you shoot this photo yourself? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- there is any proof except your phone memory? if not, i hope it is not to hard to take photo again in that place. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hey! It's from my phone gallery and unfortunately I delete every image after uploading to the Wikimedia to keep my phone space clean. HridoyKundu (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per this discussion with the uploader. Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, photo by STEFAN SAPPERT M2k~dewiki (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The photographer Sappert has permitted the use of this image, as long as his name is mentioned. FelixOskar (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, insufficient permission, needs COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yellowrosse (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of com:PS
Hanooz 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possibly a published image, it has been retouched PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- This image is used all over the internet and on social media (when using google lens) but was only recently uploaded. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, taken from FB. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope for wikimedia projects. Used on a speedy deleted page. Nahid Hossain (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use. not-notable guy, used only in draft Drakosh (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Most likely not own work, too little data to prove PD A09 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not own work, photo of a photo, too little data to prove {{PD-Romania}} A09 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, too little data to prove PD A09 (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Historical photo missing essential data and permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
no author no metadata no permission Hoyanova (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
per en:User talk:JosephGordonLevity Leonel Sohns 10:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant to File:Criminal age.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: Album cover, The subject of the photograph is marked as the author, No proven notability https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=189443997155942&set=a.141161845317491 CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? This is a photo of a photo made by a camera that did not exist in 1996. The right part of the photo has been changed in File:ShriNareshMehta.jpg. See the date 2022 feb 24 19:21 in the metadata. Different dates are given in the description: 1996-05-31 and 1996-01-31. Wouter (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
La subí y no sé si realmente podía hacerlo. Crls9011 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and likely DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I want a put a better picture. Better shot and better quality Benjamin Bernat (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Just go ahead and upload your photo with a new name (this filename is meaningless anyway). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Borrar el archivo si no es necesario. 186.175.123.144 12:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not the work of the Flickr user. It’s a press agency photo: https://www.diepresse.com/3834105/eduard-schewardnadse-der-tueroeffner-der-sojwetunion Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sunnysingh211 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before upload (e.g., File:Parkplaza ludhiana.png here in 2009; File:Fortune classic ludhiana.png here in 2010 (direct more complete version), etc.)
- File:Feroze gandhi market.png
- File:Mcdonalds.png
- File:Fortune classic ludhiana.png
- File:West end mall ludhiana.png
- File:Parkplaza ludhiana.png
Эlcobbola talk 13:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright? Does the user have the copyright of for example the main foto on the cover of this journal? Wouter (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replaced by Centrum van Broca en van Wernicke.png ChristiaanPR (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, supersded by File:Centrum van Broca en van Wernicke.png. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Advertisement. The same applies for File:Pmp1 001-converted page-0001.jpg. Wouter (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No complete EXIF, looks like a stock photo. Probably not own work as claimed. kyykaarme (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, screengrab. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
this version has some transparency errors SurinameCentral (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
unsharp version of File:ISS066-E-187571 - View of Earth.jpg — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Zafer (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Zafer (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Unused suspicious photo, out of project Zafer (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal fantasy files
Enyavar (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No proven notability, Usage of Commons as personal storage CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
ja:駆除ザウルスにおける宣伝行為を目的とした画像 USSR-Slav (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- こちらは駆除ザウルスのキャラクターロゴです。検索ユーザーが駆除ザウルスのロゴを認識出来る為、駆除ザウルスのロゴ情報を提供する事はユーザービリティの向上として有益と考えるのですが、百科事典として対象の視覚的情報を追加で掲載する事に不利益があるのでしょうか？
- 有ると無いとではユーザー的に有った方が良いと思うのですが、無い方がユーザービリティが優れているとしたら、その理由はどういった物でしょうか？ Wikker2023 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:TOO Japan. I think this logo crosses the threshold of originality enough not to be considered {{PD-logo}}. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: not free enough (above TOO), no proof of cc license. --Yasu (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- An article was written about him in the Hebrew Wikipedia for a reasonable fee that he owns the copyright. אייל (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with אייל. The article was written for payment by W:Israeli Labor Party whose CEO appears in the photo, he probably gave the photo to the writer of the article / the photographer who took the photo on behalf of the party. 2A10:8012:7:A6A1:AD48:26DD:1B1E:F828 08:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will try to get VRT approval soon —מקף⁻‽ (Hyphen) 12:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023041910006444 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 11:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:ניר רוזן מנכ"ל מפלגת העבודה.jpg” under ticket:2023041910006444. -- Geagea (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per VRT. -- Geagea (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted 2D work. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DesignGuru118 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are uploaded claiming they are "own work" but many appear on Heller Furniture's web site. See this note from the account on enwiki which identifies these as images from Heller. Verification of licence through COM:VRT would be required. Note that many of the images include EXIF identifying the copyright holder as "Jim Bastardo Photography" so it is not clear that permission from Heller Furniture would be sufficient.
- File:Heller Gehry Collection by pool.tif
- File:Heller Gehry Sofa Silver.tif
- File:Heller Gehry Left Twist Cube Silver by Pool.tif
- File:Heller Gehry Easy Chair Yellow on dock.tif
- File:Heller Gehry Left Twist Cube Silver.tif
- File:Heller Bellini Chair Patio.tif
- File:Heller Bellini Chair Gray.tif
- File:Heller Vignelli 60" Benches Green.tif
- File:Heller Vignelli Rocker Red.tif
- File:Heller Vignelli Bench Yellow.tif
- File:Heller Vignelli Cube White.tif
- File:Heller, Vignelli Cubes (White and Yellow).tif
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware).jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) White 4.jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) Neutrals.jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) White 3.jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) White 2.jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) White 1.jpg
- File:Vignelli Rainbow Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) Rainbow.jpg
- File:Vignelli Dinnerware for Heller (Hellerware) Rainbow 2.jpg
Whpq (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Re: Vignelli Dinnerware photos, please see Talk page discussion here. [NB: the EXIF identifying the copyright holder as "Jim Bastardo Photography" is not in the files of the dinnerware.] Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've tried to solicit a response from the editor who uploaded these files (at my request) to no avail.
- Another possibility might be to contact the Vignelli Center at RIT directly. I would imagine that they would be able to clarify rights for these images (and perhaps even help get a VRT Ticket for them). In my view, it would be a loss to Wikipedia if the images are deleted for lack of proper attribution (for reference, please see Lella and Massimo Vignelli articles on Wikipedia).
- Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- PS: Also see [Talk page] of Heller article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl3phact0 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- It may be worth trying to contact the company Heller directly. If they were made aware of this discussion, and if someone were to explain to them how Commons licensing works, they might consider sending a note to VRT granting usage rights. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've tried to solicit a response from the uploader, thus far to no avail. I may just email the company. How much time do we have here? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Still working on this. Please be patient. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've tried to solicit a response from the uploader, thus far to no avail. I may just email the company. How much time do we have here? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- It may be worth trying to contact the company Heller directly. If they were made aware of this discussion, and if someone were to explain to them how Commons licensing works, they might consider sending a note to VRT granting usage rights. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The owner of the copyright changed the copyright to all rights reserved Abdullah6446 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The CC license was confirmed and is irrevocable. --Rosenzweig τ 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Also bleibt das Bild hier obwohl der Eigentümer des Urheberrechts die Lizenz zu alle Rechte vorbehalten geändert hat? Ich versuche gerade die Bilder zu löschen, weil mir die Meldung "Genehmigung des Urheberrechts fehlt" bei einem der Bilder erschienen ist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthdium_punctatum,_male,_dorsal_view.jpg) und auf meiner Diskussionsseite (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abdullah6446#c-INaturalistReviewBot-20230326060700-File_tagging_File%3AAnthdium_punctatum%2C_male%2C_dorsal_view.jpg) Abdullah6446 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Zum Zeitpunkt des Uploads hier hatte auch diese Datei bei iNaturalist eine CC-BY-4.0-Lizenz, siehe Internet Archive. Ich habe das mit der passenden Vorlage dokumentiert, damit sollte alles ok sein. --Rosenzweig τ 11:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)- Ich muss mich korrigieren: Die "Observation"-Seite für die genannte Datei bei iNaturalist hatte und hat nach wie vor die CC-Lizenz, die Seite für jenes spezfifische Foto hat Stand heute aber keine. Und das Internet Archive hat die Foto-Seite leider nicht archiviert, weil in der Bildbeschreibung als Quelle die Observation-Seite angegeben war. Deswegen ist auch der Review-Bot erst Monate später angesprungen. Ich habe jene Datei daher gelöscht, weil kein Beleg für die CC-Lizenz vorliegt. Hier hingegen wurde als Quelle die Foto-Seite angegeben, der Review-Bot hat die Lizenz gleich bestätigt, und das Internet Archive hat de Foto-Seite archiviert [2]. --Rosenzweig τ 12:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Two other files:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anthdium punctatum, Male, lateral view.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anthdium punctatum, Male, frontal view.jpg
--Polarlys (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- License review in place. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not Ana de Castro Egas, but probably Gesina ter Borch. This painting is Woman writing a letter by Gerard ter Borch (see File:Gerard ter Borch - Woman Writing a Letter - 797 - Mauritshuis.jpg). gobonobo + c 14:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This file was made by an anonymous photographer in 1903, hired by the uploader's ancestor (see User talk:Venomgwar#File:Moses Nelson Baker.jpg). They don't know whether it was published. If it was published, it was before 1928 and is in the PD. If it wasn't, which I think is more probable, it doesn't enter the PD until next year. It's worth noting it has been on commons for 6 months and is used on multiple Wikipedias. Not really sure what to do here. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio due to placement of copyrighted material within the ad (the Flintstones, Perry Mason and McHale's Navy images), even if no specific copyright was affixed to the image. I uploaded the image and am requesting deletion after a reassessment with a fellow editor. Nathan Obral (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio due to a misunderstanding of when the source material was published; a reassessment has determined it was a promotional flier published in 1992 for an event with a date specific to that year. I uploaded the image and am requesting deletion after said reassessment with a fellow editor. Nathan Obral (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The file is on Flickr under CC BY 2.0, but that license almost certainly is not granted by the creator of the flyer (it's clearly from whoever took the photo of the flyer itself, but that doesn't suffice in the USA). There's "1992" written on it and the shows advertised were on Saturday, June 13. As it turns out, there was a Saturday, June 13 in 1992, and the previous one was in 1987. The show was at "The Magic Bag", and the first time that the place was mentioned in a newspaper published in Michigan that is indexed on Newspapers.com appears to be 1991. As such, that's probably a copyrighted flyer from 1992, and we can't host it on Commons without a valid free license. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of scope fetish videos of no encyclopedic use or educational value.
- File:A Nudist Man Masturbates with Moaning and Squirming While Wearing Only Strappy Sandals.ogv
- File:A Nudist Man Masturbates with Moaning and Squirming While Wearing Only Strappy Sandals - Full Version.ogv
- File:A Man Publicly Submits to a Life of Naked Service and Obedience.ogv
firefly ( t · c ) 09:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Oddman47
[edit]- Oddman47 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Same reason as before. It looks like this user uses Commons as his private nudism collection. This deletion request applies to ALL of his images. --D-Kuru (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Recently deleted by the same user: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Man Wearing Only White Ankle Socks and Sandals Assumes A Sexually-Inviting Submissive Pose.jpg --D-Kuru (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the user’s talk page shows that files by this user are routinely deleted as out of scope, with the keeps being largely arbitrary. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Basically a whole lot of thinly veiled exhibitionism that’s been allowed to stay for too long. The non-exhibitionist images are just personal photos with nothing notable about them
- File:A Naked Man at a Party Shows Off His Erection for the Camera.jpg
- File:Decorated shaved male genitals.jpg
- File:A Contemplative Moment During an Extended Nude Photo Session.jpg
- File:Displayed Naked Outdoors in a Lawn Chair - 2.jpg
- File:Displayed Naked Outdoors in a Lawn Chair - 1.jpg
- File:Bare Feet with Slave Chain and Tags.jpg
- File:A Nudist Man Poses on a Log After Skinnydipping.jpg
- File:At the Coast Wearing a Skirt, Tank Top, and Strappy Sandals.jpg
- File:Cool Hiking In The Woods Naked Wearing Only White Ankle Socks And Sandals.jpg
- File:Nudist Man Practicing Yoga by a Lake.jpg
- File:Chained naked and humiliated in the woods.jpg
- File:Nudist Man with Vibrator Butt Plug Inserted.jpg
- File:Naked in thePapasan and Aroused Looking at Feet.jpg
- File:Embarrased Nudist Earlier.jpg
- File:Feels Good to be Naked on the Back Porch.jpg
- File:Nudist Man Reading a Book with his Legs Spread Wide.jpg
- File:Man Wearing Only White Ankle Socks and Sandals with Legs Spread and a Partial Erection.jpg
- File:Nudist Man Drinking Coffee from a Mug with his Legs Spread Apart.jpg
- File:Daydreaming Nudist 3.jpg
- File:Daydreaming Nudist 2.jpg
- File:Daydreaming Nudist 1.jpg
- File:Lust for Sandwich.jpg
- File:Dressed for a Party in a Costume Hat with Socks and Sandals.jpg
- File:Cleaning House Wearing a Short White Skirt with Socks and Sandals.jpg
- File:Heading Out On The Bike.jpg
- File:Bare Feet and Leg of a Man Lounging on a Couch.jpg
- File:Experimental ED Treatment with Additional Magnets.jpg
- File:A Nudist Man Brushing His Hair.jpg
- File:Sleeping Nudist Man.jpg
- File:Embarrassed Nudist.jpg
- File:Cool Weather Calls For Socks And Sandals.jpg
- File:Experimental ED Treatment with Magnets.jpg
- File:Autoerotic Saturday Night.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator and NOTHOST or whatever the guideline is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
COM:NUDITY and out of scope
- File:Nudist Man Reading A Book And Lying On His Back.jpg
- File:Man in bed with morning wood and wearing only white ankle socks.jpg
- File:Nudist Man Reading A Book - Alternate.jpg
- File:Nudist Man Reading A Book.jpg
- File:Ankle Socks in Bed.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + three more not listed for the same reason. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Because this file is not the person depicting the real name, It was uploaded by mistake, Kindly delete it Wanderer kanishk (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. As per uploader's request. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg Wcam (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: See Special:Diff/248357629. --Techyan（Talk） 14:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Kept: The rationale used for deletion was overruled in undeletation request. Keeping this file too. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg. The image is obviously NOT originally created by Georg Denda, the "author" the page claimed. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg was already deleted as per precautionary principle. Teetrition (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Chinese FOP does not apply to faithful photographic reproductions of 2D works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: Sorry to ping you but there's a same picture as the picture you've deleted. This DR has been nominated for 2 months. Teetrition (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per my previous decision found at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 12:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Interior architecture, authored by w:de:Walter Maria Förderer. Swiss freedom of panorama does not extend to interior artworks and architecture. But take note the sculptural and graphical pieces inside the church may be in public domain because according to w:fr:Église Saint-Nicolas (Hérémence) many of the fixtures and furnitures were reused from the old church (therefore photos of such fixtures need individual review).
- File:Hérémence, église Saint-Nicolas 14.jpg
- File:Hérémence, église Saint-Nicolas 8.jpg
- File:Hérémence-église-intérieur-03.jpg
- File:Hérémence-église-intérieur-04.jpg
- File:Hérémence-église-intérieur-05.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Förderer's architecture is very expressive and interesting, I'm quite fascinated by it and therefore think it's quite sad that we have to delete these photos, but I can only agree with JWilz12345's reasoning - as Förderer died in 2006, this is protected until the end of 2076 (if we by then still have the same copyright term...). --Gestumblindi (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Switzerland has no FoP for interior spaces. Its architect was Walter Förderer who died in 2006. Switzerland knows a standard of life + 70 years. I suggest to undelete in 2077.
Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Prego di cancellare questo reindirizzamento errato, perché utenti poco riflessivi continuano a cadere nello stesso errore di prima. Non serve rinonimare le immagini se poi rimane come reindirizzamento il titolo sbagliato. Beaest (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
For the record: File has been moved to File:Ritratto di Gentiluomo, Bartolomeo Veneto.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim55 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JosSal1011971 (talk · contribs)
[edit]This file was initially tagged by SeanJ 2007 as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO?
- File:EasyRockDavaoNewLogo.png
- File:EasyRockCebuNewLogo.png
- File:947EnergyFMCebu.jpg
- File:883EnergyFMDavao.jpg
- File:1079WinRadioCDONewLogo.jpg
- File:107.9WinRadioIloiloNewLogo.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: below TOO. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Images from Bollywood Hungama are allowed under {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} only when they are posted under "Parties and events" and were taken in India Frankie talk 14:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - this image is not filed under the parties and events, and looks to be a posed studio publicity shot instead. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
File:دره-نوردی-کوهنوردان-دانشگاه-علوم-پزشکی-کرمانشاه-در-دره-قورانی-نوخان-منطقه-پاوه-جوانرود.jpg
[edit]This file was initially tagged by Hanooz as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Is in use by fawiki (no idea if a meaningful sense). DaB. (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot that's in use. I guess Persian Wikipedia is in trouble. I've seen many cases of personal photos, advertisements, and spam added to its articles. Hanooz 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: still COM:INUSE. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep. To me, this doesn't look like a holiday snap-shot in a private album but like the work of a local photographer, who sold repros (prints) of his photo to interested parties. I think this qualifies as being published and thus {{PD-anon-70-CZ}} can be applied. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per VPP consensus. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep. To me, this doesn't look like a holiday snap-shot in a private album but like the work of a local photographer, who sold repros (prints) of his photo to interested parties. I think this qualifies as being published and thus {{PD-anon-70-CZ}} can be applied. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier than in the book. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per VPP consensus. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep. To me, this doesn't look like a holiday snap-shot in a private album but like the work of a local photographer, who sold repros (prints) of his photo to interested parties. I think this qualifies as being published and thus {{PD-anon-70-CZ}} can be applied. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per VPP consensus. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Narrow gauge locomotive at the Normandy refinery in Le Havre, the first refinery of the C.F.R.jpg
[edit]This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. Uoijm77 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is a publication? Only a photo that is printed with the halftone method in a book? Or also a set of photographs that a professional photographer sells to a number of people and companies, such as the people shown on the photo, the managers of the company and the local newspaper. If the photo is stored in an archive or if it is added to a formal album that is distributed to some colleagues to celebrate a certain event such as the inaugration of a refinery? I think the latter is the case on this occasion. This doesn't look like a private snapshot of one of the construction workers but it seems to be the work of a professional photographer who published a batch of 10-25 repros (i.e. not prints) and sold them to interested parties and stored them in his archive to exploit further selling opportunities. Thus, please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- No evidence to indicate that the photo was published earlier. Conjuring reality is pointless Uoijm77 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per VPP consensus. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Above COM:TOO USA A09 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Author requests deletion through improper forums, see Special:Undelete and Special:Permalink/744085274. Requesting a DR for them. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cc @Taivo: it seems you may oppose deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Free licenses are irrevocable. The photo has obvious educational value, there is freedom of panorama in Turkey. Author did not give any good reason for deletion and I cannot say a good reason as well. Taivo (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Unsourced flag + used wrongly on entire wikipedia. Should be deleted. Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- So no copyright issues? Shadow4dark (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- "used wrongly on entire wikipedia".... According to whom? Nobody. A real reason to delete it? None. Useless complain. GenoV84 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Useless complain? Why because people use it wrongly. So it should stay here on entire wikipedia because certain users like it? Beshogur (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Shadow4dark: I don't think there is a copyright issue with this fictional flag. It is color changed version of the supposed Göktürk flag, which is another fictional flag created during 80s coup era. Beshogur (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- "used wrongly on entire wikipedia".... According to whom? Nobody. A real reason to delete it? None. Useless complain. GenoV84 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
copyright violation Riad Salih (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; TinEye says this was cropped from a photo published in the New York Times in 2017 (2 years before upload). —holly {chat} 20:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Inferior version of File:Logo of the XFL.svg with JPEG artifacts IagoQnsi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DDMS123 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia. Polarlys (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Date (see discussion) and author wrong, no details on publication given, when > 100 years old likely in the PD. --Polarlys (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely PD, but unused anywhere and of doubtful educational value, so I'm deleting it for being out of scope. —holly {chat} 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This image is the incorrect image of the species. SommelierKO (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if the link changed Josue but here's the new page link to a public domain image with the correct species depicted. The hammer shape of the coral heads in the photo currently uploaded implies it is likely an image of an -ancora subspecies and not Paradivisa.
- https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/euphyllia-paradivisa-coral SommelierKO (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Even if it's the correct species, it's a copyright violation, as I found the original photo at http://www.sealifebase.ca/photos/PicturesSummary.php?ID=46650&what=species. —holly {chat} 20:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Implausible license. This is a reasonably complex logo in a country whose system is based on UK law and likely copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing to say except that someone on Wikipedia@Discord said to upload it and that it fits the geometrical logo category (PD-textlogo). Mtonna257 (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mtonna257: Commons requires that the content it hosts be 100% free or within the public domain in the US (where the Commons servers) are located and it its country of first publication/country of origin. When it comes to logos, the threshold of originality applied by different countries can often vary quite a lot. The US, for example, has a relatively high threshold of originality compared to many other countries, while the UK has a relatively low threshold of originality. Where Malta's (most likely the country of first publication) threshold of originality falls, however, isn't clear per COM:Malta. Given Malta's historic ties to the UK, it's not unreasonable to assume that many of Malta's intellectual property laws are closer to those of the UK than the US. What you were told on Discord isn't necessarily completely wrong, but it might only be in reference to US copyright law. Unless it can be clearly shown that this is within the public domain according to Maltese copyright law, Commons probably can't keep it per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre: How would you assess this per COM:TOO US? I agree that this is most likely too complex for Commons per COM:TOO UK, but COM:Malta is unclear on which side of US–UK TOO divide Malta falls on. Historically, I think Malta's TOO is probably closer to the UK's, but can't say for sure. The reason I'm asking about the US's TOO is because the same file was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content; that's OK so to speak, but if this logo is "PD-logo" under US copyright law, the non-free file can be relicensed as en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. If not, the local file would also most likely need to be deleted because it's current use doesn't really comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I think that would work with en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then I'll fix the license to show the US one. You can delete this from here.
- But I still this that the logo's not that complex to be honest. I'll leave it to you guys. Mtonna257 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 20:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Logo debería ser subido como un archivo separado y no sobre la imagen de otro logo. 186.175.123.144 11:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Nom is asking for a split, so this DR doesn't make sense. ✗plicit 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 21:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
File:Governor Bobby Jindal Joins Local Officials, Restaurant Owners to Rally for Louisiana’s Seafood Industry.jpg
[edit]Photos courtesy of Louisiana Governor’s Office, not a work from Louisiana GOHSEP, thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep GOHSEP stands for "Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness". Even assuming for the sake of argument that "Governor’s Office" refers to the "Office of the Governor", and not the "Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness", we can assume that the Louisiana Office of the Governor allows the use of the photo under the given license given the clear relatedness of the offices. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Mdaniels5757. "The Director of GOHSEP is appointed by the Governor as the Homeland Security Advisor (HSA) and acts on behalf of the Governor in the event of an emergency or disaster." From: [3]. --Ooligan (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 21:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
拍攝有版權圖片 not free picture 葉又嘉 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; according to the template, FOP only exists when the author is attributed, which does not appear to be the case here. —holly {chat} 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vanjagenije as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not "own work". The caption reads "AP wire photo" (Associated Press). 1955 photograph, should be checked for copyright renewal. Converting to DR Abzeronow (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: If someone decides to do the research and discovers that {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies, we can undelete it. —holly {chat} 21:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
copyvio no permission see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ttVbgda6s Hoyanova (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hoyanova: - You may use {{Copyvio}} instead? Wikiwerner (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Adolphe Mouron Cassandre
[edit]The French artist "Cassandre", actual name Adolphe Mouron, died in 1968. So these posters are not in the public domain yet in France, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2039.
- File:CASSANDRE Etoile du Nord Pullmann.jpg
- File:Opening decor en affiche-tentoonstelling van A. M. Cassandre in de Rijksacademi, Bestanddeelnr 920-3490.jpg
- File:Tombe Cassandre.jpg
- File:Watch the Fords go by - A.M. Cassandre 37. LCCN2010645851.jpg
- File:Watch the Fords go by - A.M. Cassandre 37. LCCN2010645851.tif
Rosenzweig τ 15:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- About File CASSANDRE Etoile du Nord Pullmann.jpg
- Delete. This seems to be the design by Cassandre of a 1927 poster of Etoile du Nord Pullmann from a private collection in Paris, which we may assume is still under copyright. -- Mdd (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- About File Opening decor en affiche-tentoonstelling van A. M. Cassandre in de Rijksacademi, Bestanddeelnr 920-3490.jpg
- Keep This is a press photo of A.M. Cassandre with one of his works in the back, which is released under CC0 by the Dutch National Archive after the copyrights have been retrieved from the press agency Anefo and the photographer Ron Kroon, who took the photo. This photo is properly released here . -- Mdd (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- The license on the photo is fine, but the question is the derivative work aspect. Could it be an implied license since the artist knowingly posed for the photo? Could be, but that's the only argument to me, and less sure on Dutch law for such things. It's also a hard argument to prove beyond a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- About File Tombe Cassandre.jpg
- Delete. I could be mistake here, but it is hard to believe this is actually the grave of Cassandre. Anyway, there seem to be no FOP in France for this kind of work. -- Mdd (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It is quite surprising that you doubt my research, if you read the inscription you'll see "Mouron" on the grave. You can of course come to the Montparnasse Cemetery and check by yourself. So I'll repost this picture, if you don't mind !
- The only argument would be photographing a larger scene, and the poster happened to be there. But I think the photo is focusing too much on the poster. Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- The only argument would be photographing a larger scene, and the poster happened to be there. But I think the photo is focusing too much on the poster.
- About File Watch the Fords go by - A.M. Cassandre 37. LCCN2010645851.jpg and the tif version
- Keep for now. This file has been released by the American Library of Congress, and I think in this situation the nominator should prove that this release was incorrect or whatever. -- Mdd (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Delete Per Rosenzweig -- Mdd (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdd: Watch the Fords go by was not "released" by the Library of Congress. They explicitely write at [4] “Rights status not evaluated.” And the Dutch National Archive may have released the Anefo press photo as such with a CC0 license tag, but that does not include the painting that is shown. For a press photo, that is not necessary, there are exemptions in copyright laws for news coverage, reporting on current events etc. Here at Wikimedia Commons however, we demand that every file can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, including commercial purposes (Commons:Licensing). For that, the shown artwork needs to be either free or de minimis. Neither is the case here. --Rosenzweig τ 18:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I guess the uplaoder @Fæ: can conform these Library of Congress specifics!? As to the press photo, do you @Rosenzweig: have any prove of your statement, that:
- "...the Dutch National Archive may have released the Anefo press photo as such with a CC0 license tag, but that does not include the painting that is shown."
- I seems to me there is a clear chronology of events:
- The press photographer Ron Kroon / Anefo made the photo of A. M. Cassandre with one of his works in the back in 1967, and hereby created a new image of which he (with Anefo) automatically has the copyright.
- The press photographer/agency owns the copyright of the picture, and can sell it or reproduce it at will, without any restriction.
- This picture is with a whole series donated to the National Archive, who release the image under a CC0 licence.
- Now I am aware of those exemptions in copyright laws for news coverage, reporting on current events etc. I am also aware of a recent remark about a possible false margin in the release of the works of the National Archive made here. But you are pretending, and I have heard it before, that the CC0 license tag is actually just half a license tag or whatever. Is this even possible? If so what does the news agencies, the National archive and the CC organisation think about this bold statement about "half a CC-license."
- Also you must have seen I found the four other photo's from the same series:
_in_,_Bestanddeelnr_920-3492.jpg)
_in_,_Bestanddeelnr_920-3491.jpg)
_in_de_Rijk,_Bestanddeelnr_920-3493.jpg)
- Are according to you all these images released with a "CC0 license tag... that does not include the painting that is shown"...? -- Mdd (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Now I can answer part of my question. I am aware that this argument "CC0 license tag... that does not include the painting that is shown" is used in DR on photo's of paintings such as those two:
-
Portrait of Queen Juliana in a room -
Portrait of Queen Juliana, trimmed version
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Omega_partnership.png){kind=link}
_and_Longines_partnership.png){kind=link}
_killed_Murtaza_Khan._jpg.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![183 File:ניר רוזן מנכ"ל מפלגת העבודה.jpg](#File:ניר_רוזן_מנכ"ל_מפלגת_העבודה.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_Omega_partnership.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Omega_partnership.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1949,_MiNr_Block_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Longines_partnership.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_Longines_partnership.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_killed_Murtaza_Khan._jpg.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_killed_Murtaza_Khan._jpg.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_killed_Murtaza_Khan._jpg.png){kind=link}
_killed_Murtaza_Khan._jpg.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![08:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/26#c-Didym-20230326081900-File:ניר_רוזן_מנכ"ל_מפלגת_העבודה.jpg){kind=link}
![18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/03/26#c-Geagea-20230501181600-File:ניר_רוזן_מנכ"ל_מפלגת_העבודה.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_White_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Neutrals.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_White_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_White_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_White_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rainbow.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Rainbow_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- But here in this DR we talking about press photo's of the opening of the exhibition of A.M. Cassandre, those five photo's. Furthermore, the argument of "CC0 license tag... that does not include the painting that is shown" is an indication of an unacceptable licence, what the National Archive will correct in its own information system. And if I am not mistaken that has already happened. These two photo's are no longer online at the National Archive. But I seriously doubt they will do the same with this one press photo or five photo's, and we shouldn't either. -- Mdd (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Fæ is not active anymore and also uploaded millions of files with bots, he won't be able to help here. And no, I do not have any proof or evidence that the painting's copyright is not included in the CC0 license tag. I do not need to, because the onus (COM:ONUS) to show that this is the case (or not) lies with the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. So in this case, you. And could you could please stop making a lavishly illustrated spectacle out of every deletion request you participate in? This is getting annoying. --Rosenzweig τ 19:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks, one vote changed, and sorry about the spectacle. I am looking for a more permanent solution and might do some further background checks or whatever first. I do believe this given chain of events proofs there is a legal release here. -- Mdd (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- After due consideration I think this Deletion Request and discussion follows Murphy's law, and this started with this irregular nomination or even before. Some of my assessments:
- This nomination started with tree different type of files: three reproductions of posters (two types of posters from two different types of sources); a press photo of the artist and his work; and a photo of a graveyard where a poster might or might not be considered de-minimis
- If it was up to me, these kind of irregular nominations would be outlawed here, classified as unfair governance.
- In the nomination these files are misidentified and or misleadingly described as posters, while officiously they are not just that
- In this nomination there is a one argument given for deletion "not in the public domain yet in France," which is far from enough to judge these different types of files.
- If it was up to me such a deletion request would be ruled out as a mistrial, or maybe the nominator should retracted the irregular parts.
- Murphy's law continues with the claim that "the Dutch National Archive may have released the Anefo press photo as such with a CC0 license tag, but that does not include the painting that is shown," ... as if it is obvious that the National Archive doesn't know how to do their job and the nominator does.
- These kind of statements suggest a kind of implicit or explicit licence laundering, misunderstanding by the National Archive, or whatever...!! Yet printing such allegation publicly is possibly a defamatory allegation towards the National Archive... normally with a high risk of being held accountable for that.
- Now I will stop here for now, because this last item is maybe the most important aspect here. These kind of hidden allegations keep "blowing my mind." I think for years now, Wikipedia is digging its own grave here, and this kind of practice is a disaster waiting to happen. -- Mdd (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mdd: You clearly do not know much about Wikimedia Commons. We routinely delete photos provided by archives if those photos show protected works of art and we don't have a confirmation that the works of art are also under a free license. Some examples:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P104696, Berlin, 3. Freie Berliner Kunstausstellung.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-10537-0001, Plakat der Friedensfahrt 1951.jpg (where the archive explicitly replied they don't hold the rights to the poster shown in the photo)
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00418, Josephine Baker, Gemälde.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00746, Berlin, Plastik in einer Kunstausstellung.jpg
Those are some older examples concerning uploads from the German Federal Archive, but there are more cases. --Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- : Delete per Rosenzweig. The photograph is licensed CC0 but we don't have evidence that the artwork depicted also would be held by the Dutch National Archive, and the painting which is not de minimis would need permission from the heirs of Cassandre to be hosted here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Rosenzweig. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- This comment is just on the Library of Congress ones. When uploaded, it looks like there was a "No known restrictions on publication" statement at the source. That has since been changed. While a French author, it was intended for a U.S. company advertising. The painting is signed, but has no copyright notice. MoMA seems to have a lithograph print of the same work on display. Seems like it was a gift by the designer in 1951.[5] Same thing there, signed but no copyright notice. They do have a copyright notice credited to the artist's estate there, but with a 2023 copyright year for some reason. Harder to say if it was published or not -- seems like it was intended that way, as it uses Ford's marketing slogan from that era. But, not sure we have actual evidence of its use by Ford anywhere. If it was not actually published at the time, maybe it could still be considered a foreign copyright restored by the URAA, but that seems doubtful. MoMA certainly exhibited it in 1971[6] and published it in 1988[7], and likely did both earlier than that too. Per this, it seems like the original use was as a billboard, which rings true, and if so was definitely published in the U.S. and would have lost its copyright. However, it is concerning that the Library of Congress changed their evaluation status, so there is some aspect they are not sure about, so maybe we should be less sure too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; note that I made a cropped File:Opening decor en affiche-tentoonstelling van A. M. Cassandre in de Rijksacademi, Bestanddeelnr 920-3490 (cropped).jpg to keep the artwork as de minimis. —holly {chat} 20:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The picture was taken during the Russian military occupation of the area and there is no indication that the childrens' parents consented to the photo being taken. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: The photographer is an active Commons admin and has not objected to this deletion, so Commons:Photographs of identifiable people seems to apply. —holly {chat} 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Because it is Logo Itzomit (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; possibly above TOO, but it's not used anywhere, so I don't know which country's laws would be applicable. —holly {chat} 20:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Uploader's username and editing behaviour at Wikipedia would strongly suggest a link with the company, but how do we know it's someone with the authority to release the logo under a free licence? I'm not seeing anything about the logo's licensing on their website either. Adam9007 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; this would fall under TOO in the US, but China seems to be far stricter. —holly {chat} 21:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Vietnam since 2023 A1Cafel (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no license mentioned on Wikia (fandom) where the file was taken from: https://animals.fandom.com/wiki/File:1101608726.jpg XenonX3 (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- The page states: Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted. The Terms of use of Wikia state "You may not submit content to the Services that you did not create or that you do not have the right to submit." So we may assume CC-BY-SA applies to this file, unless there is evidence to the contrary. MarcoSwart (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 21:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no permission, copyrighted image, uploaded by locked SEO sock Hoyanova (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. —holly {chat} 21:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
La subí y ahora no sé si realmente podía hacerlo. Crls9011 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused, so courtesy deletion granted. —holly {chat} 21:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blocked Com:Porn spam user 186.175.123.144 12:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
no source no permission no author and privacy violation Hoyanova (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Not used. Also probably out of scope. --Yann (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- also file:Pérez Torres am SDI München.jpg
Small photos without metadata, the user's last remaining uploads among copyright violations. I suspect again copyvio. Book cover is copyrighted as well. Taivo (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC) - Weak keep I can buy that these two photos are "own work". The book cover would be de minimis. And to be fair, the uploader did not claim to be author of the other files which were deleted for being copyvios. —holly {chat} 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as per holly. --Yann (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
