Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/20

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

September 20

Copyright violation: The website where this file comes from says the file is copyrighted ("© 2016 องค์การตลาด กระทรวงมหาดไทย(อต.)"). The organization is over 50 years old, but that does not mean its logo is also over 50 years old. There is no proof about the age of the logo, so the copyright statement on the source website should prevail. Inmylifewellalwaysgoon (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the Market Organization.svg is considered an official insignia because the logo of the Market Organization which subsidiary agency of Ministry of Interior adapted from File:Emblems of Ministry of Interior (Thailand) colored.svg Sigha logo, which is also PD-TH-exempt the emblem from the Royal Gazette, which was announced B.E. 2483 (1940). Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text. Printout of a wiki page. Omphalographer (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text. If you are trying to create an article on Wikipedia, please read en:Help:Your first article. Omphalographer (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: low-quality AI-generated illustration, unused outside an inappropriate edit on idwiki which should be reverted shortly. AI image generators are not experts on cultural topics, and tend to fall back to cliché representations when given broad prompts like "a blend of diverse cultural elements". Omphalographer (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, AI-generated (undisclosed but fairly obvious) "painting" of a subject of whom no reliable pictures are available. Omphalographer (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiaca.png Hector Ossa J. (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albatros-venezuela.png Hector Ossa J. (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo that is unlikely to be the subject's own work — JJMC89(T·C) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted book's cover. ねをなふみそね (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted. Logo is that of a privately run school. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern postage stamps of Australia are clearly copyrighted. Although these stamps might be to simple to qualify for copyright, but I've never all that clear on where the line is and they seem to have original artistic merit if taken as a complete work. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


1971 postage stamps of Australia appear to be in the public domain. There's zero evidence that it would extend to random artwork on postal covers though. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually pictorial cancels like that on, along with these types of postal covers, are created by third parties. In this case there's an amalgamated wireless Ltd stamp next to the one of logo. So its likely their the ones who put it out. Regardless, its pretty doubtful someone directly from NASA came up with the artwork since it was released in Australia and Soyus 11 was a Russian rocket that launched from Kazakhstan. So there's absolutely no reason it would have anything to do with NASA. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Argentina A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP in Indonesia, the building already showed most of the permanent exterior architecture, which is protected by copyright A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:FOP Indonesia. There is no freedom of panorama under the Indonesian Copyright Act No. 28, 2014 (Chapter VI Copyright Limitations, Articles 43-51). JahlilMA (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no element of originality in this building. Ruthven (msg) 21:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in Indonesia, the country has a low TOO, such building is complex enough to be copyrighted A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is just madness! Why delete all the images that have any sculptures or graffiti? Such images from Russia are freely used by media all over the world, including European ones, a court in Russia confirmed that they can be published even on postcards - and only in Wikimedia Commons this strange game continues. Why? RG72 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:RG72: Media use is COM:FAIRUSE, which Commons does not have. In terms of postcards, could you please cite the relevant court language? The important thing on Commons is that any image must be commercially usable, at least in terms of copyright (trademarks and so forth are not enforced by Commons, for whatever reason). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see this wayː [1]. RG72 (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not seeing how a ruling about a set of postcards in which an image of a sculpture was on one postcard in the set makes this image OK. I also see that it was discussed in the linked thread, and a "simple answer" was given which is at variance with your preference. Trying to argue about that in deletion request threads won't work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


These are not toys, these are puppets from a puppet theater. This is just madness! Why delete all the images that have any sculptures or graffiti? Such images from Russia are freely used by media all over the world, including European ones, a court in Russia confirmed that they can be published even on postcards - and only in Wikimedia Commons this strange game continues. Why? RG72 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle applies; a puppet is an artistic work, and is protected by copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is just madness! Why delete all the images that have any sculptures or graffiti? Such images from Russia are freely used by media all over the world, including European ones, a court in Russia confirmed that they can be published even on postcards - and only in Wikimedia Commons this strange game continues. Why? RG72 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@A1Cafel Oh, the mural was on the store wall, it is already part of a tourist attraction, also I thought murals were considered public art EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The license on this file is clearly bunk and there's zero evidence what-so-ever that the stamps on this passport or the passport itself are otherwise PD in the meantime. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A personal portrait uploaded for attack and public shaming purpose; Uploader was banned by WMFOffice; Out of project scope --1233 (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Billboards are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Honduras says absolutely nothing what-so-ever about stamps and there doesn't seem to be a general exception for works created by the government of Honduras either. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by 129.185.170.120 as no permission (no permission since) Krd 04:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a personal photo with no use on Commons. Ratekreel (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a personal photo with no use on Commons. Ratekreel (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola,
Soy Jules Henry Alacoma Parisaca, encargado de la creación de redes y marketing para Paulo Folster, presidente del equipo de fútbol Gv San José. La imagen "Foto perfil del presidente de Gv San Jose Paulo Folster.jpg" es una fotografía legítima, tomada con el consentimiento de Paulo Folster y está destinada a ser usada en sus perfiles oficiales de redes y plataformas de marketing.
La imagen no infringe derechos de autor, ya que fue subida con mi autorización y en calidad de material de trabajo para sus perfiles públicos. Por lo tanto, solicito que no se elimine la imagen, ya que es una representación precisa y autorizada del personaje.
Gracias por su atención y comprensión.
Atentamente, Jules Henry Alacoma Parisaca 2800:CD0:1182:B900:D0C3:1371:BF40:BC94 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jules, who holds the copyright for the photo? It's the copyright holder who must contact COM:VRT to give permission for the photo to be used commercially per COM:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video doesn't belong to the uploader. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video doesn't belong to the uploader. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube video doesn't belong to the uploader. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why does PD-TH-exempt apply? Krd 04:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblem of Walailak University.svg is PD-TH-exempt because the file is derived and modified from the announcement of the regulations from Royal Gazette the government agency's official regulations. Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible license laundering. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May be below COM:TOO UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The greek column/wing pattern might have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flower might be a borderline case. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. This logo is a screenshot from File:Total War WARHAMMER III - Forge of the Chaos Dwarfs.webm, which was released on YouTube by the copyright holder under a CC license. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyleft nature of the video is not inherited to the logo itself.  Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright owner released the entire video under a CC license. There was no additional clarification anywhere that the license only applies to parts of the video. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The developers may have released it under CC, but the logo is a derivative work of the Warhammer logo, which separate from this video. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Revdelete current file revision, as the sword silhouettes clearly meet TOO. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Please don't tag a file as a copyvio to request a revision deletion. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete revision - I don't know why I uploaded this without removing the sword. I think I was doing work on SGDB images en masse and just made a mistake here. Mea culpa. --IagoQnsi (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine,  Speedy delete for current revision. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. The Mortal Kombat version of Spawn is a clear derivative work of the Spawn Character from Todd Macfarlane's titular comics. The freely licensed nature of the trailer he starred in does not make the character he represents free. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Please see the previous consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omni-Man in Mortal Kombat 1.png. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WB games owns the Copyright to this version of Spawn. Nevertheless, it is a derivative of the Original Todd Mcfarlane Spawn.  Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think this is pretty clearly just simple geometry and color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, Might have 3d shaping that makes it above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no 3D elements. It's just color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: I'll say it's in the range of PD-textlogo. —— Eric LiuTalk 05:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but the gradients may have artistic value per COM:TOO Japan. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about stamps and there's zero evidence that they are in the public domain. Let alone that random artwork on a cover would be just because said cover contains a couple of stamps on it. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Di (they-them) (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think this is pretty clearly just simple geometry and color gradients. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, see this. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Blurry and unused image, also potentially out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circular 23/2012/TT-BTTTT Chapter 7, Article 30 says "The Ministry of Information and Communications is the copyright owner of the official postage stamp design. Any use or copying of part or all of the content, images, or ideas of the official postage stamp design must have written permission from the Ministry of Information and Communications." (Google Translation) The only question would be if this applies to old stamps as it does to those issued since 2012. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to older stamps. Recent or otherwise currency doesn't seem to be PD. So it's unlikely stamps are. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Absent evidence it doesn't apply, we should probably assume that it does and that these stamps are under copyright protection. —Tcr25 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Blurry and unused image, also potentially out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Blurry and unused image, also potentially out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D/3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No evidence of permission Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam says absolutely nothing about Vietnamese stamps being public domain and there's zero evidence anywhere else saying they are freely licensed. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: I might be miss remembering, but I thought there was some question a while ago about if the template was valid or not. Regardless, the section for "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}" in the guideline doesn't seem to be sourced to anything and I'm not sure that works from South Vietnam wouldn't be copyrighted just because the Socialist Republic of Vietnam rival governments are illegal. Realistically what does that actually have to do with copyright? Ukraine doesn't think the Russian occupation of the Donbas is legitimate either, but we still delete images that are from there as copyright violations and I'm pretty sure a creator from there can sue if someone violates their copyright regardless. So I don't see how it matters what the government of Vietnam says. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template is based on the fact that the first version of the Vietnamese copyright law stated that works against the state, of a reactionary nature, or of a counter-revolutionary nature are ineligible for copyright ©️. Later laws state (here it's Điều 688 and Điều 689) that the new laws aren't retroactive. The original discussion referenced a law that was at "Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright" ©️ under Article 7 (seven). These works are ineligible for protection under sub-sections 1 (one), 2 (two), and 4 (four) as the enemy regime was seen as "reactionary" against "the revolution" (the Communist state), current laws don't use these wordings anymore but are explicitly not retroactive. Likewise, the "life + 50 (fifty) years" wasn't retroactively placed back under the copyright regime when the new introduced "life + 70 (seventy) years" as the new standard. "So I don't see how it matters what the government of Vietnam says." Copyrights and other forms of intellectual property are explicitly government granted monopolies, they exist only because of a legal basis ("what the government says"). These works were not protected by copyright under the 1994 law. The URAA also didn't restore the copyrights for these works as it specifically excludes "Works that were in the public domain in their source country on January 1 (first), 1996" at the time the 1994 law already existed (17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong. I totally believe something that was created to be "against the state, of a reactionary nature, or of a counter-revolutionary nature are ineligible for copyright" by a competing government probably isn't copyrighted. These stamps are clearly based on a portrait of Emperor Bảo Đại that existed before the government of North Vietnam put it on the stamp though. And there's nothing necessarily revolutionary about putting a preexisting photograph on a stamp. I don't think whomever took said photograph originally somehow magically has their copyright to it nullified just because it was re-published after on a stamp after the fact either. If this was a clearly revolutionary stamp that solely created by the government of South Vietnam at the time purely to be reactionary then sure though. I'd agree that they are probably PD, but that's not what these stamps are. You can't just say that something based on a previous that's probably copyrighted by the original creator is now PD simply "because South Vietnamese revolution" or whatever though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These works "go against the unity of the state" (again, article 7 of the 1994 law) as these works claim that a rival government exists (each stamp states that it's from the "State of Viet-Nam" (or issued by one of this government's offices like the Viet-Nam Post) while only the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam officially existed according to Vietnamese law. This is also why the template doesn't simply work for any works from South Vietnam. It goes against the principles of Article 7 (seven) due to highly specific reasons (being against the unity of Viet-Nam and "distorting history", that is claiming that this government is legitimate). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's just circular. Otherwise why wouldn't it just go for anything created in South Vietnam regardless of if it was created by the government or not? Since essentially everything created there claims that a rival government exists through virtue of being created by someone who lives under rule of said government. Regardless, I don't even disagree that "a stamp" would fit what your saying, but you have to separate that from the fact that "the stamp" is of a previously created photograph that probably still copyrighted. Emperor Bảo Đại died in 1945 and whomever took a photograph of him at the time didn't do take it under the rule of the South Vietnamese government. So there's zero reason they wouldn't retain the copyright. Anymore then Mickey Mouse would suddenly be PD if the South Vietnamese government decided to publish an image of him on a stamp. So generally, sure. I don't even disagree with what your saying. In this specific instance though? There's absolutely no reason the photograph Emperor Bảo Đại wouldn't be copyrighted just because it was re-printed on a stamp. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the original author then and see if I can find his / her date of death ☠️. Though in the above case I think that if it would make a difference if it was an official government portrait or a private photograph re-used by the government. As the above laws would cover original government works, but indeed not any pre-existing works. Then it's also the question of publication, if the photograph was published before 1948 it would be in the public domain in Viet-Nam regardless of its origins. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with that. It looks like the stamp says "H. V. Paris" on the side. Maybe it's the photographer's initials? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Insufficient details of the source book to determine copyright status. There was no response to ealier discussion on user talk page Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjunaraoc (talk) garu, appreciating your concerns of wiki`s copyright policy, I would submit that the image of uploaded was photographed from a book (now I don't, remember the title) through my mobile camera and cropped it suiting to upload, since wiki commons did not have the same. In the initial years of my writings on wiki, I was not aware to provide much details in description. Wiki articles look incomplete without images. It is also difficult to get images of aged authors of yester decades/centuries unless we find a way to get them like this. In view of the above, I request to retain the image and help to make the articles look better. Vjsuseela (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Vjsuseela (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjsuseela, Thanks for your response. I located a potential source through Google search, with artist credited as Ketha. This painting itself seems to be colourised version of the image on the book about Abburi Ramakrishna Rao published in 2002 by Sahitya Akademi. As copyright compliance is compulsory, we can only use this picture through local uploads on language wikipedias under fair use rationale. So there may not be a issue with deleting it on Commons. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir Vjsuseela (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I again upload through local commons, it will not accept, since it finds the same upload. Vjsuseela (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vjsuseela, why are you trying to again upload it through Commons? As Arjunaraoc explained above, this is a copyrighted image that has to be uploaded locally to Wikipedias that accept COM:FAIRUSE and must be deleted from Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title has an error Gniam Jin Hong (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete, qualifies for G7, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Copyright rules by territory/East Timor says nothing about the copyright status of stamps from the country and according to someone on the talk page government works are probably copyrighted for 50 years after the publication date. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Author Arpit Mehta Copyright holder All Rights Reserved". VRT permission from Arpit Mehta needed. MKFI (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sri Lanka stamps of Sri Lanka are copyrighted. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted per watermark Smooth O (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sri Lanka stamps of Sri Lanka are copyrighted. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sri Lanka stamps of Sri Lanka are copyrighted. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sri Lanka stamps of Sri Lanka are copyrighted. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your free to do that if you want to. I don't edit Wikipedia though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright? Who is the photographer? This photo was taken in 2023 and Peter Startup died in 1976. Wouter (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of permission or a release under a free licence at the given source (https://www.jamaran.news/fa/tiny/news-1638891). I tagged it as such, but the uploader (Nmhnhg) removed it without comment (and also broke the source link for some reason). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellow is further discussion subsequently from Nmhnhg's talk:

Hello, at the bottom of this site

https://www.jamaran.news/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B1-59/1638891-%D9%81%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%B4%DA%A9%D8%B1-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1

کلیه حقوق مادی و معنوی برای پایگاه اطلاع رسانی و خبری جماران محفوظ است. استفاده از مطالب سایت با ذکر منبع بلامانع است.

The meaning of this text is that all material and intellectual rights of this site are reserved for Jamaran news and information base. The use of the site's content is allowed by mentioning the source. And the reason I changed the source to 1 is because it has a source and that source is linked to the site. Please remove the delete tag Nmhnhg (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the CC by 4.0 licence that you included. In addition this declaration doesn't seem to meet all the criteria needed for a free licence (Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses). "use" here gives no assurances that Commercial use is allowed or perpetual and non-revocable as is required. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is written on the site itself that if you declare the source, there is no problem using the content in any way, if there was a problem, the method of use would be mentioned in the same article. Nmhnhg (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service. It appears to have been taken in the United States in or around 2010.

The link is now dead, and its original context is missing from the archive. The page it's currently hosted on lacks both the authorship details and the date captured by the uploader -- https://www.weather.gov/bmx/outreach_sps

The uploader attributed it to NWS employee Alan Moller, presumably this one who passed away in 2014.

However, this file doesn't look like the kind of images that NWS employees usually create in the line of duty, making it unclear whether it was ineligible for copyright, or whether he owned the copyright on the file. There's enough doubt here that I would normally verify this with the photographer.

The rationale for hosting files like this on the Commons has been:

  • a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain. (see also a previous DR for the 2008 image that kept it on the basis of this belief).
  • a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

  1. There is nothing to connect this images with the Sioux City office (they were published by the Birmingham office)
  2. A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.
The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Over the last month, I have been reviewing the copyright and licensing statuses of files for which we previously relied on the above rationale. As I have been progressing, I have been reaching out to photographers for verification of whether they ever gave up their copyright, and if not, whether they would be willing to do so now.

In this case, this is complicated because the named photographer seems to have passed away.

Any copyright he retained in this image (if any) would now be property of their estates or heirs.

There is no evidence that he released this work into the public domain, and there is now no straightforward way to ask him. Any such exercise would involve determining the new rights holder.

Personally, I do not want to intrude on his family, not least of which because his death seems particularly difficult. And to keep this image purely on the basis that the dead can't say "no" feels like grave robbing to me.

This images will unambiguously pass into the public domain in 2085 (70 years after the photographer's death).


Rlandmann (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as stated in the deceased authors DR. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the photo but I'd like to remove it as I was requested by the person that appears on it. Hojasdehierba (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern sculptures (unlikely made before 1970s or authored by sculptor who died more than 50 years ago), but there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529 Rodolfo Matias (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-SloveniaGov}} only applies to text document, not images A1Cafel (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En el inciso de los articulos se incluye la fotografia. Por lo tanto si aplica la plantilla
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/78529
Rodolfo Matias (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears to be Верный, a character from w:Kantai Collection. It is within the copyright protection period. This picture focuses on it and not COM:Deminimis. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to source does not lead to any picture. It is unclear why this picture is in public domain and from what source it was really obtained. If the author is uknwon it is probaby orphanted work. Anyway the real legal status of this picture is unclear.

It also apply to:


Polimerek (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defaming Nair caste not a Nair women Rajeshm.1988 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Delete But not for the reason it was nominated. Agree with RAN that the source does identify the woman as Nayar and with Ikan Kekek that correcting information is almost always preferable to deletion; however, the source also says the photo was taken by Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf who died in 1995. It is released by his estate with a CC-by-NC-ND license, which is incompatible with Commons. It could be undeleted in 2066 when it enters public domain. —Tcr25 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by RegiBeltramino (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality drawings, out of COM:SCOPE.

Belbury (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Absolutely no COM:EDUSE. --Achim55 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated nonsense of a file NorthTension (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Cafel (talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Taken from AA Photo, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Telegrafi, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the Office of Prime Minister of Kosovo, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality copy of Category:A Man on the Moon (photo by Neil Armstrong) (flash reflection). Yann (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date of death of the author is unknown, it cannot be confirmed that the file is in the public domain. Astrinko (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to US federal copyright law, fair use includes the use of a photo for educational purposes, research, criticism, comment and news reporting. One factor in determining fair use is whether it is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit purposes. In this instance I have uploaded it for inclusion on a forthcoming Wikipedia page detailing the life of the author of the original novel behind "Christmas in Connecticut", so its use is both educational and not for profit. Fearless6 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also safe to assume from published photos the author is now either dead or over 120 years old. Fearless6 (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FAIRUSE does not exist on Commons, whose COM:Licensing terms require commercial use to be acceptable under copyright laws. en.wikipedia and some of the other Wikipedias do allow fair use under specified conditions. However, was publicity for American films ever copyrighted, when that required registration? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use files should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as fair use files are still under copyright protection. Wikimedia Commons cannot accept copyrighted content unless the copyright owner allows the file to be freely re-shared. Astrinko (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo has to be redone by the original author. MaloxDayag (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong photo. MaloxDayag (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be replaced by File:GV Florida S007 (2024) (09-14).jpg MaloxDayag (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

لا يوجد ترخيص Rami mohamad (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tsurumaru logo is copyrighted John123521 (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

In the absence of an explicit and proximate copyright statement, the only way we can know with any certainty whether an image supplied to the NWS by a third party is free or not is to approach its creator and ask. (And the answer has been "no" in almost every case, as documented here).

Unfortunately, the NWS has no record of where they obtained this image, and have published it as "photographer unknown"[2]

With the passage of another 21 years since then, it's highly unlikely we will discover the identity of the photographer now.

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

If the photographer is never identified, it will enter the public domain as an orphan work in 2100.


Rlandmann (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete for the next 75 years. Per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Image by Amber-Jayne Bain": VRT permission from Amber-Jayne Bain needed. MKFI (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected copyright violation: image credited to "Hoog Mobility / Sam Schmidt" in https://majandus.postimees.ee/7806766/noor-eesti-rappar-investeeris-bolti-konkurenti-viiekohalise-summa MKFI (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Copyright holder MARKUS MIKK". VRT permission from Markus Mikk needed. MKFI (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation, no permission for the contemporary portraits, no freedom of panorama Martin Sg. (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free 3D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tsurumaru logo is copyrighted John123521 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tsurumaru logo is copyrighted John123521 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free 3D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free 3D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution, missing EXIF, not found on Flickr at the moment, probably Flickrwashing. Quick1984 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A jojke or a hoax Rathfelder (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User has provided no proof that they are the original author of this football club's badge from 2006 (they have uploaded badges of several clubs, all as "own work). The file name says "screenshot" in Spanish, which puts further doubt on that claim. The wreaths and hammers are not simple shapes and text like the rest of the badge so this can't get a public domain get out of jail card either. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong tree...correct image will be uploaded shortly after deletion Volkone (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image outdated. New image will be uploaded shortly. Volkone (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:SwarajyaMag

[edit]

Firstly, there is no evidence that the uploder is a representative of the magazine, and even if they were, there is no evidence they are authorized to licence works copyrighted by the company. Secondly, there is no evidence that the company owns the copyrights to the texts depicted; it is possible that the copyrights are held by the heirs of the article authors. Delete per PCP. --Janhrach (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is published on the NWS website.

I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source, who confirmed that although they work for the NOAA, they took this photo on their own time and own the copyright to it

When I asked them if they'd be open to releasing the image into the Public Domain for Wikimedia to use, they replied

"I’d rather not release the image to the world for public use, but I’m definitely ok with Wikipedia using the image for educational purposes and for the purpose of documenting the event. A photo credit would be nice, but not necessary."

I have forwarded a screenshot of this conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024092010010551)

Although we can't host this on the commons, they're more than OK with English Wikipedia using it under its "fair use" provisions.


Rlandmann (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

In the absence of an explicit and proximate copyright statement, the only way we can know with any certainty whether an image supplied to the NWS by a third party is free or not is to approach its creator and ask. (And the answer has been "no" in almost every case, as documented here).

Unfortunately, the context in which the NWS published this image (and any attributions) have not been archived. The uploader to the Commons did note the source as TV station WDRB.

I have reached out to WDRB who have identified this as a viewer-submitted image to which they do not own the rights and cannot comment on its licensing. I have forwarded this response to the VRT (ticket:2024092010006931)

the NWS has no record of where they obtained this image, and have published it as "photographer unknown"[3]

Because neither we, nor WDRB, can verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.


Rlandmann (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In Use by Estonian Wikipedia. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted as it was upload mistake. Editorq35 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © ELENA PETERS-ARNOLDS & KIMI PALME - https://www.leon-stiehl.de/bilder - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrighed image Mateus2019 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A mix of out-of-COM:SCOPE raw text and uncredited source images (eg. https://www.dwell.com/search/a-zero-energy-community-part-2.html/photos/6133469017047633920 in File:Ventilation & infiltration.png.

Belbury (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: CSD G10. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour. J'ai d'abord changé la légende qui accompagnait le dessin, elle était ambiguë. Mais en y repensant, je pense que c'est un copyvio. J'ai bien lu la discussion de 2022. Ce dessin est beaucoup trop proche de cette photo [4]. La photographe qui a fait son auto-portrait est décédée en 2009. C'est un copyvio. Derivative work too close to the original. Msbbb (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded to illustrate fake/nonsense article, cf. w:de:Special:DeletedContributions/Haloamola Schniggendiller (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely claimed to be "own work." Photo of a photo whose photographer clearly has not been dead for 70 years, if it was shot in 1960. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

useless scan of nothing, as many other similar imports in Fleurons - F (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from given professional photographer in the file title, Cainva Isenia see also https://x.com/cainphoto73?mx=2 Hoyanova (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Neko hehe as no permission (No permission since). User mass tagged files. Video is no longer on YouTube it seems. MGA73 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Neko hehe as no permission (No permission since). User mass tagged files. Video is no longer on YouTube it seems. MGA73 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jeanpaul.yeswecan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright concerns: All of these documents have inadequate source and licensing information. All of them are tagged as self-created CC0, but most of the documents have named (and distinct) authors, and some of them contain copyright claims (e.g. File:IMBARAGA MUGUSHIMA.pdf: "Copyright © 2012" on page 2). It's possible that some of these documents are freely licensed, but there's no clear evidence establishing that.

I'm also concerned that some of these documents are simply outside the educational scope of Commons. Many of them appear to be religious tracts, like File:Ibyo tugorora-Ku isi hari amadini angahe.pdf or File:Ibyo tugorora -KIMWE MU ICUMI.pdf.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jeanpaul.yeswecan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope / possible copyvio: similar to previous uploads, these files all have inadequate source and licensing information (including some clear copyvios like File:INDONGOZI Y'UMUKURU W'ITORERO RY'ABADIVE.pdf), and many of them appear to simply be out of scope for Commons (e.g. religious tracts like File:THE FALL OF BABYLON.pdf; slideshow presentations like File:Isukari-UMWICANYI MUHORANA.pdf).

Omphalographer (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Thich an che as no permission (No permission since) PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep CC BY note is given, so no valid reason for speedy deletion --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately stamps of Germany are copyrighted and the artist of these ones, Vytautas Kazys Jonynas, died in 1997. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2068.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files from Flickr account PoYeuNu

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Thich an che as no permission (No permission since). But a more valid reason for deletion is the Flickr account seems like a miscellanenous collection of celebrities collected from the Internet, please feel free to have a look here. Flickr account owner doesn't seem like a photographer or someone who actually holds copyright to these photos.  Băng Tỏa  18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Montserrat the country follows the laws of the United Kingdom and modern stamps of Britain are copyrighted until 70 years after the publication date. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not-PD-US-URAAに該当するが、アップロード日が2012年3月1日以降であり、削除対象になると思われる。 Identified15 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


While I haven't found the precise date of the image used on this catalogue cover, the exhibition advertises "the final works of Ivo Pascual", who died in 1949. Therefore it is likely the painting was not published before 1929 and since its Spanish copyright would not have expired until after 1996, it will be copyrighted in the US until 95 years after first publication. Unless something more comes to light, I would suggest undeleting in 2047, since the 1951 catalogue puts an upper bound on the date of first publication. Felix QW (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belarus. 2006 building. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Repeated image: it should be replaced by File:Argentina 3-3 Francia - Copa Mundial 2022 - Celebración de victoria.jpg Basenji1908 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: photo of non free document Yann (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted this, and create a regular DR as it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This is just a list of addresses, so there is probably no copyright, but I don't understand why this would be in scope. Yann (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: User_talk:KaiKemmann#File:Haus_der_Weimarer_Republik,_Erweiterungsbau,_2023-03-22.jpg 

Thank you, Yann. What do you mean by "in scope", though?

KaiKemmann (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Porque no está en la categoría que corresponde Jessicaoria (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is the former logo from 2014 of the "Union des producteurs agricoles" organisation with "pouvoir nourrir, pouvoir grandir" tag line. The new one (2024) is already uploaded and connected to the wikipedia page of the organisation. As it is a minor change, we don't need to keep the 2014 version. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Union_des_producteurs_agricoles.png Montesburdigalensis (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't delete history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This video is currently unavailable and the archived versions have the same problem. Also, it is unlikely that the person that the video took the photos considering that the voices were generated with text-to-speech software. Günther Frager (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate of File:Flag of the Iraqi Turkmen Front.svg. Fry1989 eh? 21:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British author died in 1954, not in PD until 2025 in the U.K. Wiiformii (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no objections, whatever the particular copyright rules are in this case, fine. I suppose it can be uploaded again in 2025 if anyone cares to do so. Cotinis (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be automatically unhidden then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. The photo is clearly taken by a professional and a reverse search gives many photos form the same photo session [5] [6]. The photo also appears in the thumbnail[7], but I couldn't find it in the page [8]. To keep this image we need a VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional/non-notable club logo. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This images was uploaded in 2011, but it was already available on the web in 2010 [9]. To keep this image we need a VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nararutrut8899 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused, unwanted AI-generated images of various topics, per filenames. These files were uploaded along with wildly inappropriate AI-generated English text across multiple non-English wikis. (A typical example is io:Special:Diff/1055962.) Please don't do this.

Omphalographer (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Low quality image. OSX (talkcontributions) 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: speedy kept - file in use Denniss (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality due to being blurry. File:Vehicle Outside 1920 Motel 2024.jpg was created to provide a superior alternative. Nv8200p (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's named "Skärmbild" (swedish for screenshot), no wikiuses and most likely not own work. Kakan spelar (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot (skärmbild is swedish), most likely not own work. Kakan spelar (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of Google Trends, I guess that the site is copyright protected. Kakan spelar (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot (skärmbild is swedish), most likely not own work. Kakan spelar (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in France Mazbel (Talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal picture, not in use. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is published on the NWS website.

I reached out to the first creator named in the attribution at the source. They confirmed that of the two people named in the attribution and were storm-chasing together that day, they were the one holding the camcorder and therefore claim copyright over the image.

When I asked them if they'd be open to releasing the image into the Public Domain, they declined, saying

"I am not comfortable with giving a wide ranging pre-approval."

I have forwarded the conversation to the VRT. (ticket:2024092010007171)

Although we can't host this on the commons, they're more than OK with English Wikipedia using it under its "fair use" provisions.


Rlandmann (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's highly unlikely the company this logo represents wishes to permanently pass their logo into a cc-by-sa-4.0 license. No evidence provided this user is authorised by the company to represent them. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]