October

October 1

File:Agus Muhammad Iqdam Kholid.jpg

It has been explained that the file was downloaded from a site (https://webdisk.nu.or.id/nasional/awal-mula-viralnya-istilah-dekengane-pusat-milik-gus-iqdam-N5Qum), where the site took a screenshot of a video from a YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@gusiqdamofficial1024/streams). The videos on this channel do not indicate a CC license, and as you could see, there is a watermark on the photo. Symphonium264 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Admiral PP King SLNSW FL145407.jpg

I accidentally have loaded this image twice - this is the second image Eothan (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eothan: For reference, could you link to the other one? Looking at your recent uploads, I'm having trouble finding it. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin - the earlier upload is File:PP King SLNSW FL145407.jpg Cheers. Eothan (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's propaganda content. Territory boundaries contradict most of the sources going across important principles of Wikipedia, including Crimea. I have prepared File:Плотность населения России по муниципальным образованиям 1.png as a replacement, let's use that instead. I was unable to upload the edit without Crimea "on the top." — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 07:58, 1 October 2024Audriusa

Keep, I overwrote it with the replacement. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once is overwritten with replacement, the issue is now fully resolved. There is totally no reason to discuss this any further. Audriusa (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turning Points, sculpture by David Black.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist David Black died in 2023 A1Cafel (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uploader claims to be David Black and all uploads were made before his date of death. This is tough to verify 100%, given his death, but the whole portfolio of images by the uploader contain dates, technical measurements, and other details which strongly suggest these were indeed uploaded by David Black. Assuming good faith and seeing no evidence to the contrary, I think these are safe to keep. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then someone should undelete all the David Black photos uploaded by this user which were previously already deleted (see the uploader's talk page for the nomination alerts). Nakonana (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @IronGargoyle: I'd love to see if there are evidences @DBSculpture: was indeed registered, logged in and used by uploading files by David himself during his life. Anyway, should I create that user page by inserting {{Deceased Wikimedian}}? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that tag seems reasonable. For me, the evidence is compelling in its entirety. The combination of a credit line of David Black and/or DBSculpture is important on its own, and only the sculptor himself is likely to preserve and provide such precise dimensional measurements of the statues. Traveling around the world to take pictures of David Black statues also seems like an activity very likely to be undertaken by David Black himself. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

marked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flyover, sculpture by David Black.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist David Black died in 2023 A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turning Points, sculpture by David Black.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open Skies, sculpture by David Black, detail.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist David Black died in 2023 A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turning Points, sculpture by David Black.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonora, sculpture by David Black.jpg

No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist David Black died in 2023 A1Cafel (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turning Points, sculpture by David Black.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ann Williams Illinois Representative.jpg

Copyright violation. This file was NOT created by the US federal government. It was created by the Illinois General Assembly which does not have PD tags in Wikimedia Commons. Should not be assumed to be Public Domain Mpen320 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by The mk editor (talk · contribs)

https://www.instagram.com/asadowaisiimperator/p/C_6WywKz18V copyvio.

File:Profit for The World 3.jpg <-- this one is maybe OK, i cant find it elsewhere on the net. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Profit for The World.jpg
~~File:Profit for The World 1.jpg~~ (duplicate of the file below. Deleted and redirected.) _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 07:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Profit for The World 2.jpg

modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:--- YOU CAN Speedy delete IT!!!!!!!!!!!! ---- modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)~~ lets just wait then. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 20:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern primat The photographer for this event was MK Editor, and the photos were uploaded upon my request. Since he created an ID for the first time to upload the photos, he made the mistake of not understanding how to upload the original photos correctly and ended up uploading the forwarded version from WhatsApp. Khaatir (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

contact COM:VRT. or upload it with metadata. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 19:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024100210003321 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toad 2 9.jpg

borderline derivative. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Fan Art template is sufficient --Headlock0225 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is used in cs:Toad as replacement of the original Toad image, which doesn't exist for copyright. Either this is a DW, or it is unusable nonsense. --Krd 14:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have a look at COM:TOO Spain. I agree that this is probably too distinctive to be in the public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo SNCF 2011.svg

france has low TOO and fonts are copyrighted there. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tutorial- Usa DISCORD desde tu Xbox.webm

This file was initially tagged by Kakan spelar as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The YouTube video uses copyrighted material, such as the Xbox homepage with gameposters. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Xbox México video, so Microsoft itself uploaded it with a free license.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that, but still, Microsoft doesn't own the rights for the gameposters and I don't think they are allowed to release them in a video with a free license. // Kakan spelar (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De Minimis.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with copyright and the legal stuff behind it, but I don't think this is de minimis. // Kakan spelar (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? it's a small enough portion appearing few seconds in a video.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, maybe. Not sure though. I've added {{De minimis}} for now, I guess an administrator gets to decide. // Kakan spelar (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISS insignia.svg

This image has been discussed at en:Talk:International Space Station#Insignia validity and we can find no evidence that this image was created by NASA, so, therefore, it is not covered by the PD-USGov-NASA license. A Wiki user did not create it, and by its uploader comment, it was copied from the design of a patch. Therefore, our usage without a proper license may violate the original designer's rights. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the uploader, I agree the source and PD claims are dubious at best Mysid (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote now the Polish space magazine which hosted the oldest version that I could find (2001). This magazine actually still exists and since the image has been used so widely I would like to wait for their reply. I asked them if they can provide an origin, license details and possibly licensing under CC. Ill come back to you, as soon as I have a reply. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1965-02 1965 才旦卓玛.jpg

This file is claimed to be in PD in China, which may be true, since the source was "《人民画报》1965年第2期". So 1965+5+1=January 1, 2016. However, I doubt the U.S. tag is correct unless the uploader can prove the image was also simultaneously published in the U.S. the same time as it was first published in China. This is a foreign work, and pre-1978 works that weren't simultaneously published in the U.S. are eligible for a longer U.S. term of 95+1 years due to COM:URAA-restored copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Photos published in China and created after 1945 are not free in the US. If the uploader claims it was simultaneously published in the China and the US, then they should provide evidence of their claim.Günther Frager (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

File:The History and Role of Creative Commons Advancing Knowledge Sharing.png

the file I uploaded was double Nafisathallah (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OHCHR logo.png

I don't see how this file can exict considering Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Nations and OHCHR being created after 1987. Even if it can exist, it is not "own work" as it clearly originates from the UN-owned logo. Vanyka-slovanyka (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High-res copyrighted content by AOMAF2024

These three images uploaded by User:AOMAF2024 have a fabric Cut The Rope artwork. Also, The styles of Keep cases.jpg have high-res copyrighted covers and needs a alternative image of keep cases without copyrighted covers. Todonite (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh no AOMAF2024 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 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.

Files uploaded by 4ipid (talk · contribs)

Commons:License laundering. None of these files are works created by the sources mentioned. Iranian news agencies such as Tasnim, Mehr and Fars have a conventional way of publishing their own photographs (mentioning the photographer's name and using a watermark). While lack of these do not necessarily mean that the photos are not freely-licensed, lack any further indication that these works are owned by those sources and the fact that many of these photographs are found elsewhere on the internet or obviously seem like screenshots, means that we'd better delete them.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:21, 24 November 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.

Files uploaded by 4ipid (talk · contribs)

non-notable

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear@HeminKurdistan 4ipid (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @HeminKurdistan Please explain why you nominated this photo File:Javid Nasiri.jpg for removal under the title of not remarkable?

This person is an Iranian pop singer and has pages on international platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, Instagram, isni, imdb, etc.

If you check his wikidata item and his platforms, you will realize that this person has an acceptable reputation. This photo was taken by me and I am very careful in the photos I upload.

Please review and remove this photo from the nomination. I am waiting for your reply. Thanks 4ipid (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4ipid. Everyone can create accounts on social media. The Wikidata item has been deleted. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 4ipid (talk · contribs)

No indication of being a work by SNN/Mehr (no photographer credit, no watermark), seems like a screenshot from the film

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 4ipid (talk · contribs)

No indication of being a work by Mehr (no photographer credit, no watermark), seems like a screenshot from the film

HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michał-Janowczyk-bokser-1945.jpg

Zdjęcie zostało wrzucone przeze mnie w sposób niepoprawny, bez wcześniejszej weryfikacji licencji. Nie jestem w stanie ustalić autora fotografii, stąd prośba o usunięcie fotografii z zasobów Mag.po (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translated: "I uploaded the photo incorrectly, without prior license verification. I am unable to determine the author of the photo, hence the request to remove the photo from Mag.po resources" --RAN (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I corrected the license. --RAN (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Plaques referencing 2010 in Ukraine

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and these plaques were all created in the 2010s. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rector-hugo-lavados-3.jpg

Se sospecha de violación a derechos de autor (copyvio). La imagen había sido publicada anteriormente en el sitio web de la Universidad San Sebastián [1]. No queda claro si la persona que subió el archivo es también el autor de la fotografía. Es posible que simplemente haya sacado la imagen de otro sitio y la haya subido utilizando una licencia inadecuada, en cuyo caso sería una violación al derecho de autor. SamuelInzunza (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quién es Pamela San Martín, la autora? 186.173.92.83 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela San Martín Jara? 186.173.92.83 20:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sculpture at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), an art museum in Los Angeles, California LCCN2013632448.tif

No FoP for 3D works in the United States Nv8200p (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Erected in 1974 without a copyright notice, so this is {{PD-US-no notice}} per COM:PACUSA. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{PD-US-no notice}} tag to file licensing Nv8200p (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:18-110-0037 Пам'ятний знак на честь Михайла Обачного.jpg

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this plaque was created in 1996. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Faithful representation of a photograph from the late 1800s. The text on the sign looks like basic biographical data and is not copyrightable. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least IMO it looks like a drawing and I certainly couldn't find an original photograph that it might have been based on when I looked for one. If your going to claim it is a faithful representation of a photograph then it would be good if there was a source for the original. Otherwise it just seems like speculation. Although on your end of this he did die in 1903. Which would put him a year before the date for unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire in Commons:Hirtle chart. But then it's dependent on this being an unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous work created before 1904 to begin with. Which there's really no way to know without the original. It's just as likely someone created it after his death. But it doesn't look like a photograph regardless. Probably it doesn't really matter either though. No one is going to sue anyone over a 100 year old drawing. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photograph. Here is a colorized version which derives from same original. Given his age of death, the photograph is pretty clearly {{PD-old-assumed}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for finding the photograph. I'll have to add it as another version of the image when I have the time. I'm totally fine with it being keept now that you've provided the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Commemorative plaque to Taras Shevchenko in Zviahel

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this plaque was created in 1992. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Располов ИЕ.jpg

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this gravestone was created in 1975. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Monument to Lesya Ukrainka near museum of Lesya Ukrainka in Zviahel

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Ukraine and this bust was created in 1971. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Payasos de circo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Nv8200pa as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo from 2015 shows probably a young mother and her children wearing clowns costumes and make-up. It is semi-professionally made with a large cardboard background. The purpose of this photo isn't fully clear: Does it show, "people wearing costumes at home for family entertainment"? The Spanish captions do not mention the names of the people shown. Thus, I guess, the photo fits well into Category:Clown costumes and do not see a reason for (speedy) deletion, just because it has now been cropped, translated and categorized. Please keep and remind Nv8200pa to request speedy deletion only in well explained exceptional circumstances. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of assumptions are being made about this image. The people in the image may not even be related or at their home or they were doing this for family entertainment. It was taken with a cell phone and is very blurry. I would not qualify it as semi-professional. We make all these guesses about the intent of images, which have no or inadequate descriptions, and then classify them as educational. My opinion still is this is a poor-quality personal image taken by a non-contributor. Nv8200p (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very good quality but certainly could be categorized as "people wearing clown costumes and makeup." And it didn't warrant speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every image can be categorized. In my opinion, that does not make it educational. It's a low-quality image of a bunch of kids taken with a cell phone. It looked like a personal image, of course that is subjective. It is the only image the user contributed. It my opinion, the image met the criteria for F10 speedy deletion. Nv8200p (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a basis for discussion about it, it should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. I'm surprised you won't concede that point now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

File:President Visited Scranton Army Ammunition Plant (54014754567).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:DM. Focus of the image is the president looking at the ten different letters/photos at the wall, not the photos itself. If really nesseccary, we can still blur the two images there. ~TheImaCow (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blur or

Delete --Krd 07:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdullah Baybasin.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 1234qwer1234qwer4 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pirogov GS - Melnik & Mefistofel.png

The author specified died im 1956. Quick1984 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Phantasmagoria65 (talk · contribs)

Podcast posters? 2 are DW of other photos, all need permission to keep

Gbawden (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024100310012677 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Панин Геннадий Олегович.jpg

Нарушение прав на авторство. Либо НаталиЛис нарушила неотчуждаемое право авторства, либо пресс-служба Государственной думы (что маловероятно). CartN. (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Chamot at Sloane Square, London, 1983.jpg

Not own work, missing permission from photographer Anthony Parton (same photo as File:Mary Chamot at Sloane Square 1984. Photograph Dr. Anthony Parton.jpg). P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secretário de Gestão e Governo Digital, Caio Paes de Andrade.jpg

Picture not available at the reference source link at flickr, should be replaced by other picture Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Nosferatu

Per the repeated deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:NosferatuShadow.jpg:

a German movie, still copyrighted in Germany (both cinematographers de:Fritz Arno Wagner and de:Günther Krampf died after WW II). It doesn't matter to German copyright law that rhe movie was a copyvio of Dracula.

Wagner died in 1958, so the film won't be public domain until 2028, 70 years after that.

Belbury (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I may have jumped the gun here, I've now found a discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/05#So_when_exactly_do_films_go_into_the_PD_in_Germany? from 2022 that quotes an EU copyright directive that

The term of protection of cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of the last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: the principal director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work.

which would exclude Wagner. Belbury (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, l'importation de ce fichier est une méprise de ma part. Je suis donc pour le supprimer. Dlouit (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination having read the previous discussions, I'd put too much weight into enwiki still saying "undelete in 2029" on a frame from the film. --Belbury (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Having requested that other Nosferatu content be undeleted, an admin has questioned how decisive the pump discussion actually was, so I'll let this run for now. --Belbury (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember of German copyright on films, the whole film expired in 2020, but individual frames will expire in 2029, so

Delete the jpgs, unfortunately. (EDIT:

Keep the videos) Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way. It's been pointed out that there was another past discussion of the issue last year at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-03#File:NosferatuShadow.jpg that reached that conclusion. Belbury (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware during that discussion that there was yet another cinematographer involved with a later death date... Agggghhhhhh EU copyrights SUCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!! 😪😒😡 A very regrettable Delete. But we need to transfer over to Wikisource since this is used actively on a transcription there. I'm gonna download it now so that this will be possible. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the videos, since the cinematographer isn't considered a co-author for the copyright. The logic around the videos being public domain but not screenshots created from them is kind of unintuitive. But I'll defer to people more familiar with the relevant German copyright laws, and the 2023 discussion suggests the still images should be deleted. hinnk (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the videos (at least the 1947 version; for the 2006 restoration see below) but Delete film stills per this discussion in German-language Wikipedia a while ago. German law contains a list of roles that are considered for the copyright term of movies, which includes: "Hauptregisseur, Urheber des Drehbuchs, Urheber der Dialoge, Komponist der für das betreffende Filmwerk komponierten Musik". That is: Main director, creator of the screenplay, creator of the dialogues, composer of the music that was composed for the film work (note that this does not include the cinematographer). All of these have now died more than 70 years ago in the case of Nosferatu, and so the movie as a whole is now in the public domain in Germany too, since 2020 (70 years after the death of Henrik Galeen, author of the screenplay, who died in 1949). But unfortunately, film stills / individual frames are protected differently, and for these, the date of death of the cinematographer is relevant. One of the cinematographers of Nosferatu, Fritz Arno Wagner, died only in 1958, so individual frames aren't yet free and will enter the public domain in 2029. As hinnk says, this is unintuitive and may even seem paradoxical, particularly in this age where we're able to easily create stills from a video at any time, but apparently, that's how it is. We can keep the movie as a whole, or excerpts as videos, but not still images until 2029. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: There was a separate deletion request for File:Nosferatu (1922).webm not long ago, which Yann decided to keep. This I find more questionable, because there might be still claims of protection for the 2006 restoration (see discussion there). Personally, I think this would amount to a "protection of scholarly editions" at most, which in German law lasts for 25 years, so in this case it would be until 2031, but there might even be claimants for full copyright protection due to artistic choices made during restoration (which I don't agree with, because the goal of the restoration was to get as close as possible to the original movie, so quite the opposite of originality). But I'm not sure. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hinnk. Tisourcier (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tisourcier: For clarification: You say "per Hinnk", so, like User:Hinnk's, your "keep" vote applies only to the videos, not to the still images, where Hinnk agrees that they should be deleted? Gestumblindi (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Tisourcier (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your argument for keeping the still images, if I may ask, given the legal situation in Germany as the country of origin? Gestumblindi (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A video file or a film is a succession of hundreds or thousands of still pictures. So, keep all. Tisourcier (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pertinent comment. A film is a derivative work of many thousands of pictures, so how can we keep the film if we delete the individual pictures? And, in the opposite, supposing that the film is in the public domain, how dividing it in thousands stills makes these pictures under a copyright? Yann (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may seem absurd in our personal opinion, but apparently, that's what the German law says, and laws can sometimes seem absurd, but are still applicable. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to

Keep to defer to others in the room who are more knowledgable on EU copyright than myself—I'll just take your word for it. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyCinema: Asking you for clarification of your vote/opinion, too: you say just "keep", but the argument brought forward in this discussion by me and others, and in line with previous deletion discussions, is that we can and should indeed keep the videos, but have to delete the still images. It seems you don't disagree and "defer to others", but cast a blanket "keep" vote, including the still images? Gestumblindi (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirk 2024-10-01 1800Z.jpg

ZoomEarth is not copyright free Pierre cb (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for the same reasons as I said in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kirk 2024-09-30 1440Z.png (namely that zoom.earth is copyrighted). Duckmather (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further inspection, it looks like I might have been wrong, as this file is credited to a different source (namely EUMET, which has released its satellite photos freely). However it might be good to double-check the source. Duckmather (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed that this image can be viewed at the stated source for 2024-Oct-01 at 17:10 UTC. But I don't see any license statements... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aleksey Fedotovich Afrikanov.jpg

This looks like a crop of an image from Aleksey Afrikanov's gravestone and there's zero evidence it's in the public domain. Probably it isn't since he died in 1973. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nunnapolku memorial.jpg

Derivative work of Nunnanpolun muistomerkki by Finnish sculptor Juhani Vikainen (Wikidata:Q99671807), died in 2020. Not in PD yet, no Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, buildings only. Htm (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Природа вокруг памятника Высотскому. - panoramio.jpg

This request applies for first version, not for whole file. There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures and this is post-1980 sculpture, so I cropped the sculpture away. Taivo (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the first version. The monument is just present at the right edge of the image, hardly being the main subject of the image. Commercial use is fine as long as the sculpture is not the main subject of the image, as per COM:FOP Russia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in my opinion the monument is main object of the photo. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name and description say that it's about the surroundings of the monument. Nakonana (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could see this going either way but it at least IMO the person was clearly trying to take a photograph of the pigeons. So I don't really see how the existence of the monument in the corner would really matter since you have to prove the person meant to photograph the object and that it's the main subject of the photograph to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:I'm His, He's Mine KP7.png

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: Album cover/Movie poster. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion on my talk page, not a copyvio, and Fine under com:FANART, but I don't think the image is within scope. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this isn't actually the cover art for the single, I don't see any educational use for it. Omphalographer (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a fan-made logo, I believe it should be allowed to remain. In fact, after reviewing the policies, there doesn't seem to be any that prohibit fanart consisting solely of letters. Moreover, the category itself, Category: Katy Perry logos, is filled with logos we've created as fanart, none of which resemble the official logo of the artist. The license even clarifies: This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD § Fonts and typefaces or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information. —Zorvoth {talk} 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aopou (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Nom All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-text and INUSE on Wikidata. Whether or not it should be on Wikidata is an open question, but not our job. Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should stick to official artwork; adding fan-made covers gives a false impression that they're used by artists and their labels. Keeping this would serve no useful purpose and only enable people to inappropriately add to infoboxes (which has already happened). SNUGGUMS (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SNUGGUMS: You need to base your argument on a general principle. Commons applies to all Wikipedias and all Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fact that English Wikipedia doesn't favor fanart is one thing, as you mentioned in the edit summary when you reverted me. Here, the discussion needs to be general and cover all projects. A clear example is Spanish Wikipedia, which has NO issues with FANART; many articles use logos created from FANART. Our encyclopedia isn't as strict with copyright as English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias. So, I reiterate: if you're going to argue for deletion, make it clear that it's your personal judgment, because it's irrelevant to say "we should stick to official artwork" when not all projects can use free images like English Wikipedia. We have to manage things differently, as I did. —Aopou {talk} 01:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, song and album artworks (at least official ones) aren't free of copyright in the first place, regardless of which Wikipedia one uses. That's where non-free content criteria come into play, and such works should generally be limited to the infoboxes of their respective pages. Trying to use Spanish Wikipedia as basis for maintaining fan creations is overly lenient and comes off as a cop-out. I don't know why anybody would be okay with using unofficial work, especially when people know it's not the real deal. We should try to uphold higher standards than what you appear to want since Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a fansite or collection of fake covers. Looking under the "General rule" section of Commons:Fan art, this doesn't seem to fulfill the "realistically useful for an educational purpose" requirement when nobody would learn much (if anything) from it. SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @SNUGGUMS on this one. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gunung Bromo - Malang.jpg

Unused and unusable poor thumbnail, redundant to many better alternatives in Category:Mount Bromo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: Please be more specific. I cannot see a similar photo in this category. Thus, please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hepr 16 b copy.jpg

Unused image of non-notable group, COM:WEBHOST, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Indraneil Das https://www.asiaresearchnews.com/content/indraneil-das https://hamburg.leibniz-lib.de/en/forschung/abteilungen/herpetologie/associated-scientists/das.html is a professor at Unversity Malaysia Sarawak so I'd argue that they're notable enough for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Abhijit Das appears to be this person: https://explorers.nationalgeographic.org/directory/abhijit-das Abzeronow (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are in this photo, it is so small that their faces are just a few pixels. Hence unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

Files uploaded by ARABCREATOR7 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: As a general rule, national flags should not be used to represent languages, as they unavoidably fail to represent minority languages, and are prone to invoking nationalist disputes. Using a single national flag (like that of Saudi Arabia, in this case) to represent the Arabic language is especially problematic, as the language doesn't have a well-defined country of origin.

Omphalographer (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deleting my files saying "Using a single national flag (like that of Saudi Arabia, in this case) to represent the Arabic language is especially problematic" is strange, What about combined flags like this one? . It's out there in WIKIMEDIA COMMONS and no one deleted it! Is it okay if I combine two flags and ignore all the other countries' flags that speak English like Canada just because I combined two of them? so 1 flag is bad. 2 is good. and 3 is not necessary? what logic is this?

My reasons for choosing the Saudi flag to represent the Arabic language:

Saudi Arabia is the largest country in the Arabian Peninsula, which is the recognized homeland of Arabs.
The Saudi flag is already used as a symbol for Arabic in countless games, websites, movies, apps, books, etc., so everybody is familiar with it.
The other Arab countries have similar colors in their flags (red, white, black), which can be confusing, and it can be difficult to identify which country is which, and is it Arabian or not?. In contrast, Saudi Arabia has a simple and distinctive green flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARABCREATOR7 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my point is: if you gonna delete the files you need to delete this Combined flags too, or give a good explanation. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. The Arabic language didn't originate in Saudi Arabia and it's not even in the top five countries where the language is spoken. That would go to Egypt, where there's like 4 times as many people who speak Arabic then there are in Saudi Arabia. I think Saudi Arabia is like six or seventh by population who speak the language. So you could just as easily argue it should be the flag of Morocco, Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, or again Egypt. There's nothing particularly special about Saudi Arabia here. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be racist or offend anyone, but among Arabs, you can call someone 'Arab' if they come from Arab tribes and have Arab lineage. Most Arab tribes are found in the Arabian Peninsula, such as the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, as well as in small parts of Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. The people in Egypt are Copts and do not have Arab lineage. We love them, but that's the reality; even they know it and agree with me.

If a Chinese man speaks Arabic, that doesn't make him Arab. And if entire China (1.412 billion people) speaks Arabic, that makes them Arabic speakers, but it doesn't make them Arabs.

Arabs are tribes, and you find them mostly in the Arabian Peninsula, What's is the biggest country in it? Saudi.

Otherwise, you wouldn't see famous websites and major companies using the Saudi flag as a symbol for the language without reason, or you will be saying to the world "You all wrong, and i'm right".

I swear to you that I am neither biased nor racist; I am simply trying to explain why the flags of Egypt or Iraq or Morocco are not used as symbols for the Arabic language. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply trying to explain why the flags of Egypt or Iraq or Morocco are not used as symbols for the Arabic language. That's because there isn't a flag for the Arabic language in the first place. The only reason there's one in this case is because you created it. There's a reason why if I do a Google search for "flag of Arabic language" most of the results are for Commons or another website for user created flags though. Otherwise you get results like this one to Reddit where there's comments like "I've seen many people use different flags to represent the Arabic language" or "in Israel I saw Arabic represented by the Jordanian flag." This discussion on Quora about which flag represents the Arabic language. To quote from it "there is no flag for the Arabic language." Etc. Etc. The fact is that there is no "flag of the Arabic language" except ones created by users of Commons or similar websites for reason's that are pretty obvious. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Home of Faith Charitable Trust.jpg

Unused photo of non-notable group, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least, the photo shows the sign of the "Home of Faith Charitable Trust". Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Братська могила радянських воїнів, с.Білани.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Adamant1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Clearly COPYVIO since there's no FOP in Ukraine and the artist hasn't been dead for more then 70 years since it was created after World War 2. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the source is listed as "Own work" but the photographer is not the creator of the sculpture. The copyright for a sculpture in the Ukraine seems to be 70 years after the death of the sculptor,[2] Rjjiii (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio José Cecilio del Valle.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MHernandezp05 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: |source=https://tiempo.hn/gobierno-entregara-premios-martires-resistencia-8-periodistas/palacio_jose_cecilio_del_valle-3/. Upload is from 2021, link is undated, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yojoa Lake.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MHernandezp05 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: |source=https://xn--hondurasradiotvturstica-jfc.com/lago-de-yojoa/. Old upload from 2012, would otherwise decline per COM:AGF but uploader has other uploads which are confirmed copyvio, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Група братських могил радянських воїнів (2),вул. Чехова, Лучанське кладовище.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Adamant1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There's no FOP in Ukraine and this was created in 1975. So it's clearly COPYVIO. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Братська могила, пришибське кладовище.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Adamant1 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: There's no FOP in Ukraine and this statue was created in 2000. So the image is clearly COPYVIO. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farzana yasmin Ananna.jpg

dubious license EdrianJustine (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the file because insufficient information/reason; definitely that the uploader was hold rights under free license to this file and was not widespread over the internet. Apipattana (talk) 05:21, 30 November 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.

File:Piramide Culturale del Ciento ideata da Menotti Lerro.jpg

The uploader of this photograph has said that they are not in fact the owner of the copyright. They falsely claimed it's their own work then retracted that, they are also not the artist whose work is depicted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gingeksace#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took this picture myself. I told I have asked to Menotti Lerro the permission to use some of his pictures and him gave me it. But in this case I have made the picture myself.Gingeksace (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piramide Culturale del Ciento ideata da Menotti Lerro.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Netherzone as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The uploader of this photograph has said that they are not in fact the owner of the copyright. They falsely claimed it's their own work then retracted that, they are also not the artist whose work is depicted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gingeksace#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. In some countries this photo would be ok per freedom-of-panorama, as the mosaic seems to be located ourdoors. Unfortunately, Italy has no freedom-of-panorama exception. Therefore, a permission by the artist is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulan Loi Luean.ogg

While the composition is in the Public Domain, this recording is of a modern performance, which must be presumed copyrighted. Paul_012 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Đăng dàn cung.ogg

While the composition is in the Public Domain, this recording is of a modern performance, which must be presumed copyrighted as there is no evidence noting of it being licensed. Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical logo of the BSG.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LogoDoceFBC.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mutual aid logo by Olumide.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olimpia San roque.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Third Lanark A.C.png

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samsung Wallet.svg

This file was initially tagged by Syrus257 as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chloe Burrows in 2023.png

Credited to "BBC's Podcast Rex", but Podcast Rex just seems to be a YouTube channel that publishes clips of many different podcast sources, with no particular connection to the BBC. Unclear whether they actually have permission to CC-Attribution licence all this content, it seems unlikely and https://podcastrex.com/submit-a-show doesn't mention the licensing. This is the only Podcast Rex sourced image I can see on Commons right now. Belbury (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guyon syndrome pain distribution.jpg

The image at Pixabay with this author and numerical ID does not match. https://pixabay.com/vectors/palm-hand-human-fingers-five-303412/ shows a different image. I didn't find this image at https://pixabay.com/images/search/user_id%3a3736%20hands/ or https://web.archive.org/web/20190403115255/https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=303412 MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a composite of "Hand Back Part" and "Palm Hand Human", both by that user. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omphalographer. Image is based on images that are free to use as stated on the cited webpages. Nacaru (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tequila-2429376 1920.jpg

The picture at the given URL of https://pixabay.com/photos/summer-tropical-tequila-drink-3106910/ does not match the upload. I searched through the Pixabay's photos at https://pixabay.com/users/5275305/?tab=photos&order=latest&pagi=1 but this image is not there. I also did not find this photo at https://pixabay.com/photos/search/tequila/ . MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portuguese electronic music pioneers Underground Sound Of Lisbon (or U.S.L.) in Portugal 1994 - photo by Ithaka Darin Pappas 01.jpg

promo endless description, out of scope GioviPen ^{GP msg} 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In use at en:Underground Sound of Lisbon. Omphalographer (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the page HAS to be fixed @Omphalographer

it's unacceptable, full of promo info and automatic translation, copied in every version of the (all) images GioviPen ^{GP msg} 22:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! The file doesn't need to be deleted just because it's got a bad description. Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portuguese electronic music pioneers Underground Sound Of Lisbon (or U.S.L.) in Portugal 1994 - photo by Ithaka Darin Pappas 02.jpg

promo endless description, out of scope; as for File:Portuguese electronic music pioneers Underground Sound Of Lisbon (or U.S.L.) in Portugal 1994 - photo by Ithaka Darin Pappas 01.jpg GioviPen ^{GP msg} 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portuguese electronic music pioneers Underground Sound Of Lisbon (or U.S.L.) in Portugal 1994 - photo by Ithaka Darin Pappas 03.jpg

promo endless description, out of scope; as for File:Portuguese electronic music pioneers Underground Sound Of Lisbon (or U.S.L.) in Portugal 1994 - photo by Ithaka Darin Pappas 01.jpg and second img GioviPen ^{GP msg} 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sovdetsvastika.jpg

Unused. No encyclopedic value - this is just Soviet/Russian child urban legend. Alex Spade (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's an urban legend, it might be in scope?

I case someone is wondering, the text reads Гитлер (Hitler), Гимлер (Himmler), Гебельс (Goebbels), Геринг (Göring). The Russian language does not have the letter "H", therefore all four names start with the letter "G" in Cyrillic (Г). The Cyrillic Г looks like one "arm" of the Swastika, so four Гs form a Swastika, and Г happens to be the initial letter of the names of four important Nazi figures. Nakonana (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For encyclopedic value an urban legend must be described in reliable sources, there are not such sources for this legend. Alex Spade (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Moor 1941 (Published version)
Sketch version

A poster from 1941 (author Dmitry Moor). So categorical (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good finding! But then discussing version is an original research, Moor used another artistic representation of the 4G legend. Alex Spade (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found another one. Alex Spade (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it means that the urban legend is wide spread and famous enough that it found its way into (state) propaganda, which would mean that it is in scope? It's even mentioned on some official websites, e.g. [3] (although in this case it's really just briefly mentioned). Nakonana (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moor's poster circulation was limited, so the legend is not wide spread (compared with ru:Садистские_стишки for example). Anyway Sovdetsvastika is an original research, it is not based on Moor's representation. In other words, Moor's poster is suitable illustration for possible encyclopedic article about the 4G legend, but Sovdetsvastika is not. Alex Spade (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soviet Swastika.svg

Original research (not to be confused with File:Soviet Swastika 2.svg). The swastika for kalmyk units was introduced in 1918-1919, the USSR was formed later. Alex Spade (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecusson GGM 3-3 Nantes.png

Ce n'est pas le bon, pour y travailler, je confirme Ttgv4445 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

Dans ce cas il convient en effet de procéder à sa suppression.

Je suis toutefois preneur de toute photographie de l'écusson officiel afin de le reproduire et l'intégrer dans Wikipedia.

Cordialement Loick7695 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Zone map first upload.png

Although, "[n]early all Govt.nz content is licensed under Creative Commons", per the Terms and Conditions of the Canterbury Maps website: "This website and the information provided in it are the copyright of the following District and Regional Council(s); Kaikoura District, Hurunui District, Waimakariri District, Christchurch District, Environment Canterbury Regional Council, Selwyn District, Ashburton District, Waimate District, Mackenzie District, Timaru District and Waitaki District. This website is a public service and may be used for personal and business purposes. However, you are not permitted to copy or republish any substantial amount of the information from this website without the prior written consent of the aforementioned Councils." (Emphasis added.) I think a map is a "substantial amount of ... information" and meets COM:TOO New Zealand. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not from New Zealand and this argument seems to hold water, so I won't stand in the way of deletion. Anyone have any other ideas how I can make a map to supplement the article? Riverhugger (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Negociación decorada con la temática de Año Nuevo.jpg

Solicito la eliminación de esta imagen que muestra el frontis de un negocio aleatorio porque 1) La imagen no tiene un valor enciclopédico significativo, ya que representa un negocio que no es notable ni tiene relevancia histórica. No contribuye al conocimiento general ni proporciona información valiosa para los usuarios de Wikimedia Commons y 2) La imagen parece haber sido subida sin el consentimiento del propietario del negocio. Esto podría violar los derechos de autor, ya que no se ha proporcionado una licencia adecuada que permita su uso. Por estas razones, solicito que se considere la eliminación de esta imagen de Wikimedia Commons. Gracias por su atención. Nosoymidori (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

File:EA24 Kirche Hörschel 02.jpg

The current version is an exact duplicate of File:EA24 Kirche Hörschel 01.jpg. The retouched version in the file history had been made by myself just as a draft for discussion, and is - in hinesight - too misleading, because the stairs are missing. NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:סמליל מרכז כיוונים אשדוד (עד 2022).svg

No VRT permission. מקף־עברי (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summer Walker Logo.jpg

a PNG format file of the same kind is released. Better quality and no background provided Despechi.ro (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Secret - 21 Savage ft Summer Walker.png

better version of the file with removed bg was released. Despechi.ro (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salzburg - Neustadt - Kurpark Paracelsus-Denkmal - 2019 11 28 - 2.jpg

As Austria's freedom-of-panorama exception does NOT generally cover texts, it needs to be evaluated whether the text on the depicted information board is above COM:TOO and thereby needs to be considered as copyrightable or not. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, but probably covered per de minimis :

File:Salzburg - Neustadt - Kurpark Paracelsus-Denkmal - 2019 11 28 - 1.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)

Keep the second image. Even if it would be copyrighted text, it's hardly readable. Nakonana (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first image in my opinion, as I think multiple paragraphs of text specifically written should be above the threshold of originality for textual works. Felix QW (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dieser Text ist keine eigentümliche geistige Schöpfung auf dem Gebiet der Literatur ..., die ein schutzwürdiges Werk kennzeichnet. Siehe § 1 UrheberrechtsG. Die Menge allein kann kein Argument sein.--Josef Moser (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:People's Architect of the Russia.jpg

Probably a non-free photo of the 3D object (PD itself), taken from an unknown source. Рhotographer's permission required. Quick1984 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source says "Government of Russia", probably to make clear that the depicted order is not self-created, but the photographer might very well be the uploader because Google reverse image search does not yield aby results. The missing exif data can probably be explained by the image being cropped. The software used for cropping might have removed the information. What makes you think that the photo was taken by someone else? Does the user have a history of uploading copyvios? Nakonana (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you start your investigation, interviewing the uploader, who must give a verifiable source and the evidence that the image can be considered free? After that we can go back to my doubts, described here. Quick1984 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader gave the Government of Russia as a source (probably for the order itself while the photo may well be an own work). What is it that you are asking for for it to be verifiable? Google doesn't find any previous uploads of this photo. You have to have significant doubt for PCP. But what is that doubt based on? The user has a very good record regarding proper licensing as far as I can see. Why should it be different in this case? Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader definitely seems to be using some software that is removing exif data when cropping, see for example File:Gianlorenzo bernini, cappella cornaro, 1644-52, scheletri nel pavimento 01 (modified version).png which is lacking the data of the given source file. However, this modified version and other uploads by this user (e.g.[4][5]) indicate that they are familiar with different licensing templates and are making an effort to clearly state the source and appropriate license. Skimming through some of their uploads I didn't find any suspicious uploads with any obviously incorrect licenses in them. Nakonana (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to focus on this particular file instead of joining your far-reaching assumptions and generalizations and get information about the source from the uploader. Quick1984 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been active on Commons after this request and appropriate notification, and if he had something to object to, he would, I believe, have already objected, both here and on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orden Pocheta.jpg. To me this is a signal that both images have a similar - external - origin. Since you are clearly deliberately evading the essence of my answers, I suggest for the last time that you refrain from your guessings and persuading me to participate in them, and address the question of authorship to someone who knows the answer to it. Quick1984 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orden Pocheta.jpg

Non-free photo of the 3D object (PD itself), taken from third-party website. Own photo or photographer's permission required. Quick1984 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Памятник А.С. Пушкину и Н.Н. Гончаровой в Полотняном Заводе, 2024.jpg

No FoP in Russia for modern sculpture. Quick1984 (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Фотография сделана мною в день открытия скульптуры. Gizetdinovki (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Но вы не автор скульптуры. Lesless (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ναός.JPG

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PorteradYQM.JPG

Canadian law on freedom of panorama does not apply to 2d artworks temporarily on display in a public place, such as this advertising banner in the terminal at the Moncton Airport DS (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grammy First Look Cover.png

This is a cover of Billboard Magazine—which is stated in the description. This is copyrighted and is not the uploaders own work. Roastedbeanz1 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Socialist Party of Albania.svg

This flag is claimed to be too simple for copyright protection but the hand holding a flower id far from a simple shape. Whpq (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq I copied the licenses on which the logo was sent, I do not understand why someone added the PD-logo there. In Albania, official symbols of public organizations are not protected. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq During the check I found that the party itself uses the logo without the agreement of the author, who is Spanish. [6] There is no point in discussing the flag, because if the logo is not allowed, then the flag is too. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in terms of the complexity of the logo. As for the other public domain claim, Template:PD-Albania-exempt refers to "official bodies", which seems more likely to be agencies of the government rather than political parties that contest control of said government. Unless we have previous case law that says otherwise, the precautionary principle suggests that deletion is the best choice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also recommend deleting File:Logo e Partisë Socialiste të Shqipërisë.svg for the same reason. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamie McAllister DPMM FC Coach.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Pangalau as no license (No license) Krd 18:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:(05-31-22) Senator Myrie in the Senate Chamber.jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 18:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myrie Senate Full Headshot.jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 18:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over a month with no responses. What is the point of starting these discussions? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. This file is literally Myrie's official NY Senate headshot. No other NY Senators have their official headshot on Wikipedia. This file is blatantly a copyright violation and yet it has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia for months. I tagged this as a copyright violation at the start of October and rather than just deleting it after a week, we instead had to start a deletion "discussion" that has sat completely untouched with no responses for nearly 2 months. Krd, can we please get something moving here? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dudi Amsalem Portrait.jpg

Please add this OTRS ticket and keep at least one of the photos, although this file was initially tagged by Little Savage as no permission (No permission since) NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikimedians of Los Angeles West Hollywood Library Meetup.jpg

Person in image is requesting deletion. Blervis (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Brangwyn - The Swans.png

Painting is PD in U.S. but not in home country as author solely died in 1956, should be undeleted in 2027 Wiiformii (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:D23 Expo 2015 (19993964824).jpg

Copyrighted Disney characters. Full delete or blur them. SDudley (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:D23 Expo 2019.jpg

Copyrighted Disney characters. Also no category. Invalid license on those characters SDudley (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:D23 Expo 2022.jpg

Copyrighted Disney characters. Also no category. Invalid license on those characters SDudley (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сергей Николаевич Горшин.png

Not an own work. Author of the image is Vladimir Igoshev (died in 2007). See there. Werter1995 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

File:Erudimus qui custodient terrae fertilitatem.jpg

Not valid for Belgian FoP. A parliamentary document cited by the Belgian copyright rules policy page states the legal right "was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public." The page description implies the location of the work: "Dean's Office of the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent" (Google Translate-d), which does not appear to pass the public place requirement of the FoP law. The artwork author was Eva Decaluwé . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345

Keep I have the following arguments against your nomination:

You are indirectly referring to a document that was attached to a draft version of the Belgium freedom of panorama law, that "public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public" would not a considered to be public place. Are you really sure that the law would not be valid inside public buldings?
The Google translation "Dean's Office" is misleading...
- The wall painting is not in the private office of the dean but in the public part of the university building

--Geert Van Pamel 16:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geertivp re: the first question. It depends on the status of school interiors as among the allowed public interiors as based in the spirit of the law. Tom-L mentioned at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Freedom of Panorama in Belgium the so-called Flemish communal laws that seem to include church indoors as public interiors. Plus, two online sources (now archived) – this and this – mention that public interiors that are not permanently open to the public, like museums, are not covered, as the artists who exhibited their works in these indoors do not expect permanent public exhibition of their works.

An important word mentioned in the VPC archive is "openbare plaatsen" – "places where access is not restricted to the private sphere." I don't think most school indoors are part of the "public sphere", though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JWilz12345 It is not just "a school", it is a building of the (in origin State-owned) University of Ghent. --Geert Van Pamel 09:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following argument about the definition "public spaces", that was not restricted by the law:

https://www.auteursrechtensamenleving.be/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20160823_advies_panoramavrijheid_JD.pdf

Quoted from the document, point 2:

"Het toepassingsgebied van de uitzondering is niet beperkt tot openbare plaatsten in open lucht, zodat het ook werken omvat die permanent binnen in openbare gebouwen staan. De memorie van toelichting verduidelijkt dat het moet gaan om plaatsen die ‘permanent bereikbaar’ zijn en niet om ‘openbare musea of het interieur van gebouwen die niet permanent geopend zijn voor het publiek’. Nochtans is deze eis van ‘permanente bereikbaarheid’ – die de toepassing van de uitzondering verengt – niet terug te vinden in de tekst zelf van de uitzondering, zodat hier o.i. geen rekening mee dient te worden gehouden. Een duidelijke wettekst primeert immers boven een afwijkende memorie van toelichting."

Translation:

"The scope of the exception is not limited to public outdoor places, so that it also includes works permanently located inside public buildings. The memorandum of Explanatory Memorandum clarifies that these must be places that are ‘permanently accessible’ and not ‘public museums or the interior of buildings that are not permanently open to the public’. However, this requirement of ‘permanent accessibility’ - which extends the application of the exception - cannot be found in the text itself of the exception, so in my view it should not be taken into account. After all, a clear legal text prevails over an anomalous explanatory memorandum." --Geert Van Pamel 17:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geertivp we need a text or source that explicitly states publicly-accessible indoors of schools or universities are covered by the Belgian FoP exception. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:THEOrussie.jpg

likely copyrighted artwork. Translation from French description' Drawing by Jean-Pierre Boudet published in La Nouvelle République des Pyrénées to illustrate Le Voyage en Russie." Ooligan (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see - http://www.nrpyrenees.com/ appears to be "... La Nouvelle République des Pyrénées ..." -- Ooligan (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PikiWiki Israel 72439 cultural heritage of israel.jpg

picture without any information Pikiwiki - Israel free image collection project (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TimedText:March, "The Stars and Stripes Forever" · Colonel John R. Bourgeois, Director · John Philip Sousa · United States Marine Band.ogg.zh-cn.srt

Because I accidentally added too much Brolpgras421 (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ketut Permata Juliastrid winning Miss Cosmo 2024.jpg

source does not indicate a compatible license EdrianJustine (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this file because it is include the Content ID in some parts in that video, so it is not eligible and not marked for CC-BY-3.0 license for that YouTube video.

More info: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468 Apipattana (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Licensing, not only this video were published on Miss Cosmo's YouTube channel; including on other social media platforms of the organization, all of the photo and video footages from the Miss Cosmo organization; also including the almost of the international, national, and local beauty pageant organizations, were fair use, they're protected by copyright and it is not marked as a free license or a Creative Commons license. Apipattana (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think will should be recommended to

speedy deleting this file now. Apipattana (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file also per Commons:NETC and WikiProject Beauty Pageants, most of the beauty pageant images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are not suitable for a fair use protected by copyright or a Creative Commons licenses with NoDerivatives, or NonCommercial, or both. Apipattana (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a captured or saving a video or a picture file with a copyrighted material and then post it on the internet such as YouTube, or Facebook, or Flickr and publish it with giving a free license or a Creative Commons license, this will be considered to be a license laundering, and the file that will be uploaded if detected the aforementioned above will be speedy deleted by the administrator of the Wikimedia Commons. Apipattana (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is also against the Commons:YouTube files. Apipattana (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Miss Cosmo website, it is stated a copyright notice on the bottom page stated: Copyright © 2024 Uni Media - Unimedia, plus it is neither did published any materials with any free license, which is actually it is a fair use material and it is unacceptable and prohibited on Wikimedia Commons.
Source video: link Apipattana (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ketut Permata Juliastrid winning Miss Cosmo 2024.jpg

This image is copyrighted .It is taken from a screenshot of a YouTube video that is not licensed for reposted. This file isn't licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. 103.65.214.62 14:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but previously the original uploader was changed the license to CC-BY-2.0 (mostly used on Flickr) after seen a file nominated for deletion and then removed tne file nominated for deletion template for file deletion evasion, although the file deletion discussion is not closed yet. Apipattana (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blason Dawans.png

Wrong depiction of the coat of arm Ad1194 (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from editing the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skowronek Jerzy.jpg

Photography probably from family archive, the uploader is a son of the person on a photo. This is obviously orphaned work and can't be in Wikimedia Commons according to Polish law. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sudarshan Chakra Corps.png

Old version Adiiitya (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? My question would be what is this a logo of and why is it in COM:SCOPE? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trishakti Corps India.png

Old version Adiiitya (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? My question would be what is this a logo of and why is it in COM:SCOPE? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, с. Жеребки.jpg

And also

File:Моя Тернопільщина Місто758.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1966. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Кулик Петро Іванович. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник поету, письменнику, художнику Тарасові Григоровичу Шевченку, Озерна.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1968. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Експозиція музею модерної скульптури Михайла Дзиндри.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1960. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptors. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник поету, письменнику, художнику Тарасові Григоровичу Шевченку Цебрів.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1993. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Дзиндра Петро Іванович. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Могила Михайла Дзиндри.JPG

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 2006. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Slovolyub (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of modern artworks, no authors' permissions, no FoP in Ukraine.

Quick1984 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sex Non-Conforming Flag.svg

Unused personal design with no evidence of real-world relevance or adoption Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my design, and I'm personally not a big fan of it given its coiner excluded intersex people. But I've seen it on multiple LGBT wikis and other flags have followed its pattern, e.g. https://www.tumblr.com/sproutflags/733939885386366976/hormone-non-conforming-hnc

The term is in active use, e.g.: https://web.pdx.edu/~adinno/files/AETC%20SOGI%20Community%20of%20Practice%20DRAFT%20Glossary.pdf https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstreams/4bf6a7e7-66f0-4d25-a5cd-98c942c38946/download https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22sex+non-conforming%22&btnG=

I acknowledge it's not a widely used flag. But I think it still has educational merit for being the most common flag for a term that is actively used. There are some other SNC flags on Tumblr that don't appear to have left the Tumblr bubble (e.g. https://www.tumblr.com/mogai-angels/734376676906106880/part-three-of-my-altersex-flags ). That was my reasoning for uploading it. Intervex (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also used here. Web-julio (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Commons has a very low bar for inclusion, I still think “used on a Tumblr blog and a wiki” is below even that bar. We aren’t an indiscriminate collection of every free piece of media that exists. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low bar for notability issues, not for COM:INUSE relativization (in which many times, this is evoked in these discussions), especially cause lgbtqia.wiki uses MediaWiki and some of zer flags from Commons are used there (not exactly this one). Anyways, it seems ze is hosting zer flags somewhere else from now on (as ze was using Commons as a COM:WEBHOST). Web-julio (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some things:

1. I have had personal web hosting longer than I have been a user on Commons. I don't need to use Commons as a personal free web host nor do I understand Commons in this way.

2. Someone's personal hosting is not a reliable means of ensuring valuable educational/cultural materials remain available to the public. I don't even trust LGBTQIA+ wiki with that mission: they migrated hosts in 2022 and in the process lost the provenance of basically all of their image files.

3. Of the >4000 pride flags that I have saved on my personal web server, I see only a small minority belonging in scope of Commons. Before considering a pride flag for upload here, I ask myself:

Is this flag actively used? Can I find evidence of its use beyond Tumblr?
Does this flag have educational merit in teaching people about a marginalized identity group?
Is there established precedent for a flag like this being on the site?

4. I would like to reiterate that I did not make this flag and I don't even like it. I'm not picking random flags I like and uploading them.

5. I uploaded the flag because I consider it to have educational value. Flags are a means in which cultures and subcultures express themselves. The sex non-conforming community is an actual group of actual people and I think there is value in archiving their most commonly used flag.

6. Flags are a common means in the LGBTQIA+ community for teaching people about different subgroups of the community. As somebody who routinely educates people about intersex issues and complex relationships between gender and sex, I consider this flag pedagogically useful. It provides a useful foil to gender non-conformity, whose flag has been up on Commons since 2021.

7. The stated scope of Commons is that files should be realistically useful for educational purposes. Commons does not say it has to be realistically useful for every single user. I don't teach chemistry, but I still support chemistry people uploading whatever obscure chemical visualizations they say are useful for chemistry education. Intervex (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник Тарасу Шевченку в Демні.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1990. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptors Petro Dzyndra, Stepan Dzyndra and Yaroslav Trotsko . Микола Василечко (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, с. Богданівка.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1985. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Twin paradox

Per en:Talk:Twin paradox this is a compelling but factually misleading AI-generated representation of a 1911 thought experiment about an astronaut returning home to find that their twin sibling has aged. By specifically asking the AI to draw a "paradox", it has presumably looked to sci-fi films for inspiration added a dramatic glowing portal and some tendrils of electricity. But the thought experiment is just about an ordinary high-speed rocket flying away from Earth and back again, the two twins would not crackle with blue electricity when they met. Questionable COM:EDUSE for being misleading, and the only current project uses are additions by the uploader.

Belbury (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The files are in use in other wikis, and evidently any "artistic depiction" of a thought experiment will be misleading, as it has never happened. Theklan (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions of described situations can be accurate or inaccurate. If File:Schrodingers cat.svg showed a cat eating a radioactive pellet and glowing with arcs of green electricity, its educational value would be questionable, and perhaps a net negative. Belbury (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File is in use on w:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/AI images in non-AI contexts as an example of a removed unsuitable image. Dan Leonard (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kolaż Helu 2022.jpg

Very low resolution, probably not own work. 92.243.182.32 13:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own work, sorry for the resolution. The work is in no way a copy of another work, and comes 100% from me. 23stycznia2007 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Winstrup

2 images are not quite enough to justify a gallery Hjart (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Ebbesen

2 images doesn't quite justify a gallery Hjart (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Hajotthu (talk · contribs)

Derivative works.

Yann (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Images focus on the control room, not any specific work. The countless unspecified layout plans on the screens are all very blurry, and the camera views on the screens are PD-automated. COM:DM applies. ~TheImaCow (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saga Masones & Libertadores de Waldo L. Parra recorte.jpg

covers of books 87.205.169.187 14:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.jpg

Doesn't this fall under COM:TOY regardless of the license the original photographer/source put on it? Ubcule (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, probably. I did not know about COM:TOY. Jessamyn - Flickr Foundation (my talk page) 15:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Base Jump (2924228872).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Bildersindtoll as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F3 not a sufficiently original work, F3 does not apply to FOP issues ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaarsild in the evening.jpg

no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bridges tend to be works of engineering and not architecture. There is no mention of bridges being protected works at COM:FOP Estonia, nor is there evidence in statute or case law presented here. In addition, this is a very simple bridge. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

File:ES FRANCISCO -.png

Carece de relevancia, el escudo está desactualizado -ifrasombi-Ifrasombi (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Outdated" is no reason for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1947-48 ISU MBB.png

Screenshot of a 1940s American photograph. Photo is likely public domain by formalities, but an actual source for this would be very helpful. Abzeronow (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment haven't done full research yet, but this is a photo of a screen. Not relevant for copyright, since it's the original that matters, but odd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kontrollschild Kanton Waadt.png

Also: File:Kontrollshild Kanton Waadt.png

Not sure if this is real. Can the first digit be 0?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Знаме Български възход.jpg

The Bulgarian Rise's logo is protected by copyright and should not be uploaded here as it is non-free logo. VilianEst2007 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlotte Martinez Chiong6.jpg

Probable copyrighted text. Does this letter of greetings pass the threshold of originality or not? If yes, then this is not OK to be hosted here. If no, then it can be dismissed as {{PD-text}}. But my hunch suggests it is not a text of pure facts, original information, or plain data. It is a letter that has a carefully-written prose that warrants automatic protection by its writer. COM:Derivative work issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly ask a one day, for I intend to visit the clinic hospital of Dr. Charlotte Chiong, regarding the photos, she may enlighten Commons or Wikipedia on this matter; if there is a doubt on the matter, I intend to use the option in my talk page - Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy reason here For more inform thank you very sincerely Valenzuela400 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Valenzuela400 if an uploader's own image already exists for some time now, like this case (since August 29, 2024, more than a month), then it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion even with the rationale (uploader's own request). You must wait for the closing administrator to decide. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malolos E E N T Hospital Charlotte Armando Chiong9.jpg

Same issue as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charlotte Martinez Chiong6.jpg: derivative work of a letter that may possibly be under writer's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly ask a one day, for I intend to visit the clinic hospital of Dr. Charlotte Chiong, regarding the photos, she may enlighten Commons or Wikipedia on this matter; if there is a doubt on the matter, I intend to use the option in my talk page - Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy reason here For more inform thank you very sincerely Valenzuela400 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

File:Dawson Corpus.jpg

No FoP in the United States for artworks and sculptures: {{NoFoP-US}} Nutshinou ^Talk! 08:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:350th airborne regiment

The source is not a continuous video stream, but a set of scanned photographs made by various unspecified people ("from the archive" of the YouTube channel owner). There is no reason to believe that all the authors of these photographs have given permission for their works to be published under a free license.

Quick1984 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Polyoxy (talk · contribs)

Unlikely own work. Seems to be derivative work of potentialy copyrighted stuff.

Gumruch (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the only owner of these 3 works. Two of them are the self-made medals and I made the photos of them. And the third is my redrawing based on my own photo. Polyoxy (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of regional units of Greece

A gallery of only three free flags, with the rest of being dummy ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue at Fort Defiance.jpg

Per [7], this photo depicts a 2006 artwork by Nashville sculptor Roy W. Butler and thus is still protected by copyright. Wikicommons accepts only free-to-use media. DanielPenfield (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TWICE Sana Minatozaki April 2024.jpg

Source video is no longer available/has been deleted ☆ YuhakGuardian ^(talk) 15:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the city of Limassol in Cyprus.gif

COM:CYPRUS 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 15:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of municipalities, like Limassol's, often fall under public domain because they are considered official symbols created by government entities. In Cyprus, municipal flags are generally considered public domain. Examples: Flag of Strovolos Municipality, Flag of Nicosia Municipality, and Flag of Mesa Geitonia Municipality, Limassol. I’d assume that the Limassol Flag must be put under the same format (.svg, instead of .gif), or under a different permission license. Lomaine (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, allowed under PD-EdictGov. Dmartin969 (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blocbirds - GRID Grafisch Museum.jpg

no permission from given author - see metadata "Author Andre de Molenaar" Hoyanova (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hoyanova,

Thank you very much for your sharp eye. I contacted our photographer (Roelof Bos) and he updated the information.

'Andre de Molenaar' is unknown to us both and he certainly didn't make or owns this image.

Thanks again. All the best.

Kind regards,

PM Mulder PaulMMulder (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these works permanently installed? Otherwise we need permission for the displayed artwork too. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Sjoerd, nee dit is geen permanente installatie. De kunstwerken en de installatie zijn van ons. Moet ik dat ook aangeven?

Alvast bedankt voor je reactie. Mvg. Paul 2001:1C01:3803:7800:95BF:8169:89AC:3D01 09:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voor de foto en voor het weergeven van het kunstwerk zijn beide toestemming nodig. Gebruik hiervoor de Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liwa Shani Louk.svg

This CoA seems to be a complete fabrication by the uploader. There is no evidence that there is a real connection to the state of Yemen or any group in that country. This file is not viable for use in any of the wikimedia projects. Willi P (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created it for Yemeni Jewish users who opposed the Houthis but just in case they are not using it, I created for myself because I supported the Yemeni Jewish people SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the name of a massacre victim. I wonder if you asked for permission with her family. I seriously doubt that. Using the name of a deceased without their permission is a very serious violation of their personality rights and cannot be tolerated. If you did not get their permission this file should be deleted or at least renamed without her name in it. Willi P (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is absolutely not how coats of arms work; it's also deeply inappropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename We allow users, per COM:SCOPE, to upload a small number of personal images to the site for use in their userpages if they're active, and you're most certainly active. However, the use like this of the name of a massacre victim in the filename (and the image itself, which you have removed) is a violation of personality rights, along with being very insensitive and inappropriate, and I cannot begin to describe how much I disagree with you calling her a martyr in the edit summary for said removal. I believe the file is OK to keep, but her name must be removed. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 22:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename per Rubyn Abo Yemen ✉ 09:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd you might also want to fix the coat of arms of yemen that is being used in the pic cus the one you're using was ironically designed by a houthi supporter Abo Yemen ✉ 09:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up:

the file name is a violation of personality rights
the CoA used in this file seems to be a mockery made by houthi supporters; thus is not at all appropriate for supporting jews in Yemen

Delete this file asap. Willi P (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Abo or Rubyn said, we could keep the file and change the name and the type of coat of arms. I did not realize that the COA is made by someone who supported one of the most hated groups of all time. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lali-A Bailar Edicion Limitada-CD.png

Although the image of the CD does not meet the threshold of originality, the logo of the CD does look extremely artistic, in addition to containing the logo of the Sony Music record company and a production company, therefore this image would be violating copyright and should be deleted. JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The file was also uploaded on a page by someone other than the record company, and that page does not have a CC license. I don't know if that has any influence or not, but I wanted to mention it. And as for the design, for me the design of a CD goes beyond the threshold of originality. https://www.coveralia.com/caratulas/Lali-A-Bailar-(Edicion-Limitada)-CD.php

JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CD's design is a solid color with text, without any artistic elements that could make it copyrighted. Lali Espósito's logo is simple enough to be below the threshold of originality, like the A Bailar logo. And all the other logos are not the main focus of the image, as such I believe they fall under de minimis. nicolas _{talkpage★★★} 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mar grabación del video Déjame Ir.jpg

There is no evidence that the file is the user's own work JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Znakpocheta.jpg

Most probably not own photo of a 3D object (PD itself), but a derivative (background removal and moving) of the non-free one taken from [8] (First found on Apr 24, 2008, as tineye suggests). Quick1984 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meritorious Artist of the SFSR.JPG

Non-free photo of the 3D object (PD itself), taken from third-party website. Own photo or photographer's permission required. Quick1984 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 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.

File:Man Thong Wedgie-2.jpg

DMCA - Model not approved DMCATakeDown (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: invalid DMCA request. --Krd 06:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man Thong Wedgie-2.jpg

This file is not used anywhere and it is only a badly taken pic by the author. Speedy deletion F10. Nazazaku (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silly subject, maybe, but not a bad picture, and I'd have to say wedgies are in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 8 October 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.

File:Man Thong Wedgie-1.jpg

DMCA - Model not approved DMCATakeDown (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: invalid DMCA request. --Krd 06:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man Thong Wedgie-1.jpg

This file is not used anywhere and it is only a badly taken pic by the author. Speedy deletion F10. Nazazaku (talk) 21:59, 7 October 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.

File:Man Thong.jpg

DMCA - Model not approved DMCATakeDown (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: invalid DMCA request. --Krd 06:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man Thong.jpg

This file is not used anywhere (and it can't be used anywhere, it's more pornographic than educative) and it is only a badly taken pic by the author. Speedy deletion F10. Nazazaku (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not very pornographic! I feel like if we keep one, File:Man Thong Wedgie-2.jpg is the best and most useful, because it illustrates what a wedgie is. I guess I'm a weak

Keep for all 3, simply because space is not at a premium, but if you find 10 more, I'll have a different view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Urseh

All copyvios. Taken mostly from Pinterest (e.g., Чоловічий та жіночий чапан, Дівчина в національному узбецькому одязі та доппі.jpg, etc.) and all lack EXIF data. Nataev ^talk 22:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

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

File:Ergoldsbach 0.jpg

Not educationally useful Ilieva666 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's useful inasmuch as it portrays a view from a balcony that overlooks houses and a tree. Reasonably decent quality, so it could be used as a sort of freely licensed stock image on our projects. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —holly {chat} 01:08, 7 December 2023 (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.

File:Ergoldsbach 0.jpg

COM:TOO Germany A photo of a private garden taken from the balcony of a private house. Marchuk17 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does this have to do with the threshold of originality in Germany? --Rosenzweig τ 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a really useful image (the fence is to prominent), but the given reason clearly does not apply. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The view from the balcony is covered with a fence. Ilieva666 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ergoldsbach 0.jpg

Copyright violation. Source https://archive.org/details/img-0748_202212 https://archive.org/details/@22sanlinn Viii23dawari (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you gave produces:

"This item is no longer available.

Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use."

The second link doesn't appear to show this photo. So so far, no evidence against this file has been produced that anyone can see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lange Haare 1.jpg might suggest that we could be suspicious of User:Marchuk17's "own work" claims, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it was Marchuk17 who nominated this image for deletion last time. Nakonana (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not for that reason, so I'm not sure it matters. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KKTC Sahil Güvenlik Komutanlığı Logo.png

This file was initially tagged by ToprakM as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, not own work. Requires a Turkish speaker to determine whether the linked document supports the PD claim. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard Command is a public institution affiliated to the State of Northern Cyprus, not a private institution. SahinBasaran (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter; all work by the government is copyrighted in Northern Cyprus. --ToprakM ^✉ 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, doesn't this apply to the logo of the Security Forces Command and the TRNC Police Department? SahinBasaran (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yaroslavl 1929.jpg

No evidence provided that the author Ivan Vasilyevich Bazlov died 70 or more years ago. Quick1984 (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are publications by USSR state institutions of that time somehow in public domain by any chance? Because this work by Bazlov was published by the People's Commissariat of Communication Routes of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the name of the author is very common so that it's hard to figure out which of the many Bazlov's he is to determine his death date. Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book is credited as being compiled by Bazlov in his role as chief of dredging works of the Upper Reach of the Volga River. I see several other state employees credited with doing the surveys for the maps, but no-one is credited specifically as the cartographer who drew them. If it's determined that the cartographer is unknown, then {{PD-Russia-1996}} might apply. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Losynoostrovsk 1930.jpg

False PD rationale. This book is written by 14 authors, who named here: [9] / [10]. Among them: Nadezhda Pogrebova (d:Q124769642, died in 1960); Yuri Shmarov (d:Q30345005, died in 1989) and so on. Quick1984 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villa D'Adige - Piazza Felice Chieregatto.jpg

Licenza errata, opera derivata senza specificare la fonte che è evidentemente un libro o una pubblicazione, originariamente probabilmente cartoline delle quali non si conosce l'autore né il periodo dello scatto. Threecharlie (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translate: "Incorrect license, derivative work without specifying the source which is evidently a book or a publication, originally probably postcards of which the author and the period of the shot are unknown."
Keep Here we have a pic of pic. The original looks like a postcard circa 1940 or earlier. Italy only awards 20 years of exclusivity. --RAN (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leopoldina F C de Cachoeiro de Itapemirim.png

This file was initially tagged by Eric Duff as no permission (No permission since) Krd 12:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload the image with the correct license. User Sir. Daniel Mareto uploaded several club logo images without proper licensing. I am not obligated to keep correcting image licensing for a user who uploads a bunch of images with the same issue. The responsibility to provide accurate information lies with the user uploading the images. Eric Duff (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AO MEGALA KALYVIA FC.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 12:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they drew it as claimed, they are the source. There are no copyrightable elements to the image. --RAN (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Workers at Handloom - N. S. Bendre.jpg

I tagged this image for deletion as copyvio because Narayan Shridhar Bendre died in 1992 and PD-India only takes effect 60 years PMA. Túrelio reverted this because the image was extracted from File:शिल्पकार चरित्रकोश खंड ६ - दृश्यकला.pdf, a book of Marathi art for which a release has been filed with VRT.

I am not comfortable with the idea that the publisher can release the copyright on every work of art that is included in the book. It feels like license laundering. The estate of Narayan Shridhar Bendre may have agreed to have his work in this book, but did they agree to have it on Commons? "I am licensing this work to you for inclusion in your book" is not "I allow you to release this work under a Creative Commons license."

Don't art books usually have a section that explains who owns each individual copyright? Does this book have such a section - I have no idea, I don't read Marathi (and this is a PDF, so I can't even copy-paste text into Google Translate). All I know is that page 3 of the PDF includes the copyright symbol twice (and page 6 has an English quote that appears to be about real estate).

It would be a shame if it turns out that the art book isn't properly licensed and many of its sourced images need to be deleted until such time as their copyrights expire, but it's important to get Commons right. DS (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to File:Vagabond - N. S. Bendre.jpg, File:Sunflowers - N. S. Bendre.jpg, File:Quit India Movement at August Kranti Maidan by N. S. Bendre.jpg, and probably a whole lot more. DS (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:280s BC in Syracuse

Wrong grammar. The correct grammar is the already existing: Category:Syracuse in the 280s BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.dallorto (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 October 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Daniel Yusmic Pancastaki Foekh Hakim.webp

This was just a typo, no one would actually use it Technetium 99m (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:العربي 2.jpg

صورة لها حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 17:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:الكيذاوي.webp

غلاف كتاب له حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:غلاف رواية الباص.jpg

غلاف كتاب له حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symphony Orchestra Conductor Rihards Buks.jpg

Dubious claim of own work due to small size and lack of metadata, especially for a photograph supposedly taken in 2014. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No hits on TinEye, but 200x200 size and lack of metadata are suggestive of a netcopyvio. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Omensethan79F15 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope. Private image collection. The shooting angle is quite weird.

SCP-2000 18:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images shows people wearing uniforms. Except 1 and 9 are school uniforms, the rest are bank uniforms. Could you further explain what you define as 'Private image collection'? In addition, such images like this are common on Wikipedia Commons, for example: Category:People wearing uniforms and Category:Uniforms of Taiwan. So I don't understand why uniforms are out of scope.--125.230.81.230 04:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Американський кітч.jpg

Is this logo below COM:TOO in the United States? https://www.facebook.com/CakesToSuitYou/about Nakonana (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. All the elements in it are simple, but this gives me pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp of Ukraine s1427 and envelope.jpg

PerCommons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine stamps of Ukraine are PD. There's zero evidence that it extends to random artwork on envelopes just because said envelope contains a stamp though. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp of Ukraine s1428-31 on envelope.jpg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine stamps of Ukraine are PD. There's zero evidence that it extends to random artwork on envelopes just because said envelope contains a stamp though. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FERRY KURNIA RIZKIYANSYAH 2.jpg

Not own work, work of Ferry Rizkiansyah or team https://pasundannews.com/konvensi-rakyat-partai-perindo-dan-rekrutmen-calon-legislatif/ Technetium 99m (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues with phone images

These are copyrighted as are fair use and would be deleted. One image (File:Nokia 6300.png) has a software screenshot. One another image (File:Nokia-3310-14 nina.jpg) has a watermark. --Todonite (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep utilitarian objects, which these are, aren't copyrighted, see COM:UTIL. Software icons etc fall under COM:DM de minimis. ~TheImaCow (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, these images are Nokia properties, with exception of one edited image with a third-party software screenshot (File:Nokia 6300.png). Todonite (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheImaCow, Sadads (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lentz spiser kiks.png

Given history of user uploads and low res of image, taken somewhere and not own work. 87.49.146.55 23:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

File:DominiqueBilde.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DominiqueBilde (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moteur Indenor 4 cylindres 2304cc 70 ch DIN type XD2 de la Peugeot 505 GRD – SRD.png

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of post-processed images with low resolution and missing EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:INDENOR TMD 85.png

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of post-processed images with low resolution and missing EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:INDENOR XLD.png

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of post-processed images with low resolution and missing EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Identifier un moteur INDENOR.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of post-processed images with low resolution and missing EXIF. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image d55b2730.png

White logo, pretty much unusable given the white standard background of all Wikipedia projects. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think so. Please see Category:White logos. --Tmv (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmv: But here, in this specific case, we're talking about an exclusively white logo, not a white + other color logo or a mainly/essentially white logo. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Εὐθυμένης There are many logos with only the white color (and the transparent background) like File:ACE logo.png, File:Logo of Lynn Family Stadium.png, File:AmeriCorps Logo 2020 Stacked White.svg etc. ~~There are also black versions, so these logos I mentioned to are completely the same cases.~~ Tmv (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Sorry the black version for File:Image d55b2730.png is only on the frwiki. But that doesn't change what I mean. --Tmv (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20121014 Golden Dawn flyer Komotini Rhodope Greece.jpg

I'm not really sure if the text that is present on this leaflet could be considered as being copyrights free or not, especially since it's not one of your "usual" short political slogans, but more like a whole (party) statement regarding internal-external politicy matters. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 10:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Biden and President Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic before the first Americas Partnership Leaders' Summit.jpg

Duplicate of File:P20231102AS-0398.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World img.png

The file is unused. As we have better images about that, in my opinion the file is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Potentially useful. INUSE. Not accepted as dupe until you point a better image. I reduced the bloat by factor 4.5, problem solved. Delete Commons:Deletion requests/File:World jpg.jpg instead. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Боков Шамсудин Бесланович.jpg

Probably wrong license: author's name is identical to the name of the person shown, but the photo does not look like a selfie. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civo Centro.jpg

Copyright violation Saya χαῖρε 12:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Rikieboy1

These are both copyright violations. The uploader incorrectly uses the Template:PD-US-1978-89 but both files were published with copyright notice. See here (detail) and here (detail). I nominated another of his uploads separately here for the same reason before realizing this was a pattern. --Denniscabrams (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAC Wiki activities 5.jpg

Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article VojtaaZ (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vittoria di Savoia Louis Vuitton 2019.png

The only uploader's file, survived Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Umberto Cascone. Probably not own work also, but taken from Vittoria's Instagram: [11] Quick1984 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoyZuo and P199: as involved users. --Quick1984 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. i saw no reason why that could be kept, but mileage varies. RoyZuo (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alice Engel nee Wronker + Ida Wronker nee Friedeberg + Irma Wronker nee Lichter.png

Als Lizenz wird hier gemeinfrei genannt. Laut genannter Quelle ist die Lizenz Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic also NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes . AxelHH (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be expired in the EU no matter what license it was released under. For instance I may release an image here under a CC license but once it passes into the public domain (95 years after publication or 70 years pma), there is no longer a legal requirement to adhere to the terms of the CC license. --RAN (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1932+95= 2027. --AxelHH (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close wings position of Kallima inachus (Doyère, 1840) - Orange Oakleaf Image page 2024-04-10 at 10.54.32 am.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Rimi Butterfly (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common plamfly (female) without head IMG-20240412-WA0025.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake Rimi Butterfly (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soylent green.gif

If this logo is not supposed to reach a level of creativity, then presumably nothing has any level of creativity at all. Stepro (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kann sein, kann nicht sein. Die Quelle hat überhaupt keine Lizenz und keinen Urheber. Aber sicher kein Löschgrund. Ralf Roletschek 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World jpg.jpg

Dupe, unused, BAD JPG, there is File:World img.png with same size and better quality. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Ələmdar Cəfərov

Two copies of the same image uploaded in the same week, the first very clearly a photograph of a printed image, and the second looking like a scan of it where the paper isn't flat. The source of the original photograph is not given.

Belbury (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BafakiTangal.jpg

non-free image, copied from enwp (where it is tagged non-free), dubious own work claim Fastily 19:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The license has been changed to {{PD-India}}. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapey Field at Anderson Stadium.webp

Previously published at https://friars.com/facilities/chapey-field-at-anderson-stadium/14. The .webp file format suggests this fiile is a web download, not an original photo. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adeletron 3030. I work at providence college and have permission to use the image. We do not have the original file anymore so we don't know who took it, thus I claimed as my own as I have nobody to attribute it to. Thank you for your efforts to protect copyrighted material but there is no issue from the college's point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nateplanes (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nateplanes Thank you for your response and explaining the situation. Previously published photos require license verification via COM:VRT. Please have someone who can act as a representative at the college provide the copyright release statement by email or using the form at COM:VRT/CONSENT. Thank you! Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beacon Church Logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Jlwoodwa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://beaconchurchpheasey.com/ Probably PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chamakor irak.png

The resolution is too high and not adapted to the size of the text. The map is not readable as is. I have a valid export of this map to upload with a more reasonable resolution. Aetsibb (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ariadnaroca1995 (talk · contribs)

These files were uploaded as "own work" but have Exif metadata with two different names, suggesting that they're a copyright violation, or at least non-free. File:FREE Andy Scott Giant Bear Sculpture Dunbar MED RES 01.jpg and File:Andy Scott Giant Bear Sculpture Dunbar .jpg have an Exif author of "Colin Hattersley", while File:Visitors at the opening of LOVE Gorgie Farm on February 2020.jpg has an Exif author of "Ian Georgeson". Maybe these are both names used by Ariadnaroca1995, but it seems unlikely. File:FREE Andy Scott Giant Bear Sculpture Dunbar MED RES 01.jpg has an Exif image title that ends "**FREE Picture - FIRST USE ONLY** - within 30 days of origination of photography; all other publications to be paid for - please contact photographer for details.", which isn't an adequately free licence for Commons. File:Visitors at the opening of LOVE Gorgie Farm on February 2020.jpg has Exif usage terms saying "Editorial Free First Use, Further permission for future use must be agreed with Ian Georgeson Photography", which is similarly not adequately free. File:Andy Scott Giant Bear Sculpture Dunbar .jpg has no licensing information in Exif.

bjh21 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:28 août 1906 St-Quentin.jpg

1906 postcard from French photographer and editor Francis Barnaud of Laon. I cannot find a death date for Barnaud, and 1906 is too young to assume Barnaud died before 1954. Abzeronow (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wezuwian - Alchuri, Skardu, Shigar Valley, Pakistan.jpg

Wstawię nowy i lepszy Lech Darski 22:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.jpg

A 2024 image is most certainly not {{PD-Italy}}. MKFI (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination on further investigation it looks like another user had changed the license: Revision #934956810. MKFI (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Nomination withdrawn. MKFI (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.jpg

Not own work but from Facebook 181.203.28.41 23:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the facebook page where the image was? Or were you basing this on the metadata having the "FBMD" information? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

File:Saint Augustine School, Inc. logo (revised version).png

Is this logo own work or free? 181.203.28.41 00:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, not unless 1969 works are public domain, which I don't believe. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summary report of the Nth Country Experiment.pdf

Per - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE LNL works are not necessarily under PD terms. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roglo f.jpg

No information on source of medallion or year it was made. User is claiming own work. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 01:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quadrober on the pillow.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Skazi as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This file was uploaded as an Own Work by Овладевающая and marked without them being notified on their talk page, nor any reason given for their ownership of the image being under scrutiny. Google Lens reveals no instances of the image appearing on the internet before Овладевающая's September 7th upload to the Commons, ~~only~~ two news articles from this current October in Russian, as a ban on Quadrobers (no English article) has been in consideration in Russia. I believe this photo is the work of the original uploader. Kaasterly (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. I don't think so. No EXIF, no permission. I'm not going to explore all the social media communities to find where this image was taken from. Either the permission is added to the photo or its deleted, there are no other options. This is a user who logged in to Wikipedia for the first and last time and is trying to “improve” the article by adding photos to it from social media. And your Google Lens doesnt index such images. Skazi 10:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected in that the two news articles aren't the only instances of this image appearing on the internet. However, after clicking on "exact matches", and clicking on all that don't give a date on Google, the earliest date I can find on an instance not associated with Wikimedia or Wikimedia clones is a Livejournal post from September 16, 9 days after the Commons upload. I believe Google Lens does indeed index from social media; the image we're debating on appears in an X tweet from October 3rd, 26 days after the Commons upload. Here is an instance of Google Lens indexing images from Facebook, LinkedIn, X, Pinterest, and YouTube. Here is an instance of Google Lens indexing an image from VKontakte. Worth noting is that the article this image is used in has been among the top ~~five~~ six most visited on the Russian Wikipedia since ~~at least Monday~~ October 4th. Also, I think this being Овладевающая's only contribution makes it more unlikely that they would know they were contacted in time, even if they were contacted about the initial no permission since nomination. Kaasterly (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue of the mask if the uploader/subject did not create it. Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Museo Frida Kahlo

I am sorry but we will have to delete these photos because they depict artworks by Frida Kahlo, whose copyright has not yet expired.

Gnom (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Day One - Listen on Spotify!.ogg

This file was initially tagged by Prototyperspective as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: doesn't seem to be CCBY (?) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Organigrammukb.pdf

This file was initially tagged by Universitätsklinikum Bonn as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Nicht mehr aktuell --Universitätsklinikum Bonn (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Yann (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xu Beihong yugongyishan.jpg

Xu Beihong died in 1953, and thus this work would not have been public domain when the URAA came into effect in 1996. The painting will only be public domain in the United States in 1935 (per the 1939 date given by China Daily). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Тернопільський академічний обласний драматичний театр P1410188.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The house was built in 1957 and maybe the photo violates architects copyright І. Михайленко, В. Новиков, Д. Чорновол.. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lanivtsi. Prince Volodymyr monument.jpg

And also

File:Моя Тернопільщина Місто815.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2001. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Садовник Василь Петрович, dead in 2005. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ангел скорботи - монумент - Хмельницький ввечері.jpg

And also

File:Ангел скорботи - монумент - Хмельницький ввечері 2012.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1990. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bathy opsis.jpg

Incorrect restoration and overall bad quality. We have, for example. file:Bathyopsis fissidens head.png. Taivo (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrei Filotti Geneva Conference.jpg

Very improbable that the uploader (Nemoianu at Romanian Wikipedia) is the author of this photo. Judging by their short contributions list, Nemoianu is most probably Andrei Filotti himself, and the photo looks like has been taken by an official photographer – or at least not Mr. Filotti himself as he is in the picture. Gikü (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrei Filotti Bangladesh.jpg is in the same situation. Actually it may be a good idea to review all photos in ro:Andrei Filotti. Gikü (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's clearer now. The following images are also uploaded by Nemoianu and claimed as own work:

Thus Nemoianu is either Filotti's life-long photographer, that covered his life from 1938 to at least 2004, or it's Mr. Filotti himself, who uploaded photos from his personal collection. Trouble is, the photos have Mr. Filotti as the subject, not the photographer. We don;t know who the photographers are and what would be their copyright claim.

Tagging User:Afil because he really is Andrei Filotti. Gikü (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Памятник святителю Николаю. Архитектор - Зураб Церетели.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures and the sculptor en:Zurab Tsereteli is still living. The photo violates his copyright. Taivo (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the image for transfer to wikivoyage where the image can be hosted without limits according to Russian law. Please wait with the deletion until the bot has transferred the image. (Unfortunately freedom of panorama-like rules for sculptures in Russia only apply if the image is used in travel guides.) Nakonana (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalevipoja monument (Tartu Vabadussõja mälestussammas) 24. veebruari hommikul 2018. aastal.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia. The sculptor en:Ekke Väli is still living and the photo violates his copyright. Taivo (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1996 Isle of Man Crown. Robert Burns Bicentenary of his death. Cupro-nickel.jpg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Isle of Man Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two amputees fitted with prosthetic feet.jpg

copyvio see metadata which read Copyright holder KSENIA GAILLARD Hoyanova (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esther de Mézerville.png

License information in the source is unclear: it has an icon for CC BY-NC-SA, which is linked to CC BY 4.0, and the following text says it is licensed under ODbL 1.0. Green Mostaza (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2023/10/18#File:María Eugenia Dengo Obregón.png, it looks like the link to CC BY 4.0 is enough. I'll wait for an administrator to confirm this and remove the tag from the image. Green Mostaza (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A below-the-knee amputee dancer with a prosthesis.jpg

copyvio see metadata which read Copyright holder KSENIA GAILLARD Hoyanova (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woman amputated above the knee in front of the Atomium in Brussels.jpg

copyvio see metadata which read Copyright holder KSENIA GAILLARD Hoyanova (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Transtibial amputee with Lunaris foot prosthesis.jpg

copyvio see metadata which read Copyright holder KSENIA GAILLARD Hoyanova (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don José Vela, curandero del Centro Takiwasi, sopla (icara) su shacapa antes de iniciar curación.jpg

La persona que aparece en la foto ya no trabaja en el Centro Takiwasi y utiliza la imagen indicando falsamente que ha sido capacitado por nosotros para dar ayahuasca. Austro180 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La persona que aparece en la foto ya no trabaja en el Centro Takiwasi y utiliza la imagen indicando falsamente que ha sido capacitado por nosotros para dar ayahuasca. Austro180 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escultura de Jorge Debravo.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Green Mostaza as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:FOP Costa Rica. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4-30 Vinalhaven, Maine 1936 Codfish (6597564175).jpg

1936 American photograph from negative. CC license seems dubious since no photographer info is given at Flickr source. Flickr upload could have been first publication and we might have to wait until 2057. Abzeronow (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, it came from scanning a negative so we have no evidence that a copy (print) was ever circulated. If it came from a family member, the Flickr account can file a VRT as the heir. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

File talk:LOGO ALCALDÍA DE BOGOTÁ.png

pertenece a https://bogota.gov.co y todas las entidades de la alcaldia de Bogotá Dlg098 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SelebaFromGetto.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Abzeronow as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three images of the aftermath of the 1997 Jarrell tornado by Tim Marshall

These three images were all taken by meteorologist and civil engineer Tim Marshall, of Haag Global. The uploader sourced them from an ArcGIS "Storymap" published by the National Weather Service, on the basis that they were in the Public Domain because they had been created by an employee of the US Federal Government in the performance of their duties. The uploader also incorrectly attributed these images to "NWS, NOAA, KVUE Austin" when there is no evidence that any of these organisations were involved in creating them.

However:

Tim Marshall was not a federal employee performing his duties
there is no claim at the source that these images are in the public domain or licensed under a free license

As photos taken in the United States after 1989, they are therefore protected by copyright and we cannot host them here.

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

--Rlandmann (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Can confirm Tim Marshall did not work with NOAA until 2003. For reference, Mr. Marshall has worked with Haag Engineering 1983 to present. However, in 2003, he began to jointly work for the NOAA Quick Response Team (along with Haag), which meant he surveyed (E)F4-(E)F5 for NOAA officially since 2003. In 1997, he did not work for NOAA. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:The April 19, 2023 Cole, Oklahoma EF3 Tornado courtesy of Tim Marshall.jpg that you were in correspondence with Tim Marshall. I assume he either didn't respond or agree to a release of rights? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response to my most recent email. (He has replied to previous emails.) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending response. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by TheUnknownSaviorOfInformation (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:Scope: text-only images.

MKFI (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused; potentially useful to illustrate syntax highlighting but there is not a shortage of such images and I'm not sure anything significant is being demonstrated here.

Also mild copyvio concerns. Given that File:CodeSection003.png contains paragraphs of text from a photography website, these may just be screenshots of the HTML source of somebody else's website. Belbury (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Могила героя Порт-Артура и Цусимы Бабушкина Василия Федоровича.jpg

also File:Могила героя Порт-Артура и Цусимы Бабушкина Василия Федоровича (надпись).jpg
There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures. Although the person died in 1924, by style this is post-1991 monument. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The data base says it's from 1924 https://ru-monuments.toolforge.org/wikivoyage.php?id=4300235000 Nakonana (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The monument can't be from post-1991 because it has been a cultural heritage monument ever since 1966, per "Решение Кировского облисполкома № 560 от 30.08.1966". Nakonana (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official website of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation (MKRF) confirms that this monument was created in 1924 (see "дата создания1924 г." on https://opendata.mkrf.ru/opendata/7705851331-egrkn/45/228738) Nakonana (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite surprising, that it was allowed to create such gravestone in 1924. But it is still likely copyrighted. If we do not know the sculptor, then we cannot be sure, that (s)he is 70 years dead (Russia demands often even 74 years). Taivo (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it fall under 2.) for anonymous authorship of Template:PD-Russia-expired or Template:PD-Russia-1996 or Template:PD-Russia? Nakonana (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Russia-1996 applies, if the sculpture is anonymous. But is it anonymous? The fact that I and you do not know the author does not make it anonymous. Is there an expert or database, who confirms anonymous work? Taivo (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The database of the Ministry of Culture also doesn't know / list the author. Does that count? Nakonana (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:کتاب آیت کریمی کلیات بیمه.jpg

Book cover and copyvio Doostdar (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copy and it is a personal work. Farbod13789 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alva Chiang standing on the stage, AGA male staff recording 20230513 (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G1. I do not see reason for speedy deletion and allow discussion for a week. Taivo (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is redirected to File:Alva Chiang standing and holding microphone on the stage 20230513 (cropped).jpg, but Solomon203 removed it and tagged with speedy delete. He has not provided an explanation for his action, so I suggest keeping this page.--125.230.85.27 12:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the creator I suppose I should at least clarify that I didn't create the redirect accidentally or as a test: it was a routine (and indeed automatic) creation along with renaming the file. I renamed the file under criterion 3 (obvious error) because the "AGA male staff" does not appear in the cropped version, but I don't think the name is so inaccurate that there's significant harm in keeping it. I have unblanked the redirect because I don't think it's appropriate to blank a redirect while it's being discussed. --bjh21 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Savage House.jpg

Improved (cropped and straightened) version has been uploaded [Savage House (straightened)] Pbergerd (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tuc de Saumet.jpg

The picture is not showing Tuc de Saumet, so the title is not correct. The showd peak has no name. 188.77.121.159 13:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the peak is not right, so the name of the picture is wrong too. The picture should be deleted. Contraix (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think COM:File renaming requires the deletion of the file? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The peak doesn't show Tuc de Saunet. The shoed peak has no name. Contraix (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contraix (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just correct the filename and description! Why is that so hard? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nihon Hidankyō Logo.jpg

Logo likely above the trheshold of originality AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While I perceive the text as fine, the paper crane makes me believe this is above the threshold, per Commons:TOO Japan. EdoAug (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the orizuru paper crane is a critical part of Nihon Hidankyō's logo: removing the orizuru would tarnish the file's meaning. The orizuru itself is not in copyright, and there are already free images of the orizuru, such as File:Origami - Crane.svg. However, I cannot make a decision until (1) we find out if Nihon Hidankyō consistently uses a particular angle of the orizuru, and (2) someone makes a version of "Origami - Crane.svg" at that particular angle. --Minoa (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-09-30 F-15D No455.jpg

there's a better version of this video still published by the IDF at "File:Israeli attacks on Yemen, September 2024. XXIII.jpg" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdo216 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Могила заступника голови проводу Організації Українських Націоналістів Івана Гавдиди.jpg

And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 2003. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник поету, письменнику, художнику Тарасові Григоровичу Шевченку, Шумляни.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1990. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tiet Manh Cuong (talk · contribs)

Text in description contradicts license. Also looks like promotional materials, so out of Commons:Project scope.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Leitmann's Publications and Patents.pdf

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pegaso sport.JPG

This may very well be out of copyright, but with no source or author I think makes it at least worthy of discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 18:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Round ray.ogv

Duplicate file at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Urolophus_aurantiacus_Izu_%C5%8Cshima.webm Coughdrop12 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

normally the file is delete which has been uploaded more recently. Also use {{duplicate}} for duplicate files. cheers, Amada44 ^{talk to me} 07:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Heuser.JPG

Diese Grafik hat Schöpfungshöhe, da vermutlich gezeichnet bzw. gemalt. "Eigenes Werk" würde bedeuten, dass Jula2812 diese Grafik eigenhändig erstellt hat (anstatt sie z. B. zu fotografieren oder zu scannen). Dies bezweifle ich. GerritR (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohje, dass ist 10 Jahre her – und tatsächlich habe ich das gemalte Wappen aus der Nachlass-Sammlung abfotografiert. Es war im Besitz von Werner Heuser († 1964), wobei ich mit Sicherheit sagen kann, dass das Gemälde nicht von seiner Hand, sondern schon älteren Ursprungs ist. Er hatte selber Ahnenforschung betrieben und darüber mit seinem Onkel Peter Georg Heuser († während des 1. Weltkrieges) sich ausgetauscht. Somit müsste das Bild zumindest Urheber: unbekannt / Quelle: aus Nachlass und {{PD-old-70}}. Zu dem Heuser Wappen existiert noch ein Foto eines vermutlich im 2. Weltkrieg verschollenen Bildes, ein Stempelsiegel und ein Abdruck in Siegellack. Der beschreibende Text ist aus den Annalen der Heusers aus Gummersbach. Jula2812 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katy O'Brian in 2024.png

This image seems to be screencapped from one of several Love Lies Bleeding press junket videos from the same sitting, probably this one which was not released with a free license. If it's not pulled from this video, the exact source and timestamp from a freely licensed video should be produced as evidence. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

Files in Category:Maman (Bürkliplatz)

According to English Wikipedia, the sculpture was only exhibited from 10 June till 2 August 2011, which means it is a temporary display. Thus, it cannot be benefited from Swiss FOP

A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at Village_pump. As the sculpture wasn't just in transit at the location, but displayed in the fixed manner, this should be kept. Note that Switzerland isn't Germany which has some odd/different definition.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Maman' Spider Sculpture, National Gallery of Canada, Sussex Dr, Ottawa - panoramio.jpg

Author is Christine Linsdell, not the same as the Panoramio user A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment likely the wife (or girlfriend or relative) of the Panoramio user? I dunno how North American copyright systems deal with such instances. I'm more curious to the user comments in the metadata: "Ours. Do not have image print. Public. Google Earth Approved." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simone Martini e Lippo Memmi - Annunciazione e i santi Ansano e Massima, 1333, 1890 nn. 451, 452, 453.jpg

copy vio, this file taken from the Uffizi website can't be used as it infringes the museums copyright, as the file contains 3D elements. The upload of this file is expressively not covered by the PD-art tag Oursana (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question This isn't considered flat art, as a painting? It's not a sculpture or a relief, but a decorated triptych. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al McCoy Shirts at Phoenix Suns team shop.jpg

A bunch of words and names forming a broadcasting mic. A basketball firing up as a comet. I'm pretty sure the whole T-shirt is above COM:TOO US. And no, de minimis doesn't apply, especially when the photo focuses primarily on the T-shirt. George Ho (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In use, reasonably within scope. Not a derivative work per COM:CLOTHES. Dmartin969 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspect, you must have overlooked what it says: In any case, care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface. Clothes might not be copyrightable, but the design on the T-shirt may be. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not de minimis. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 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.

File:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

Questionable PD status, date of first publication missing to meet requirements of COM:Russia. As per description, taken from a family archive, so probably first published on Commons. Quick1984 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless otherwise indicated. --Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Строители Центрального телеграфа в Москве. 4.09.1926.jpg

Re-nominated with the same rationale, because it was closed with a clear contradiction to COM:EVID, COM:PCP and COM:HIRTLE: Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known – 120 years from creation.

So again: Questionable PD status, date of first publication missing to meet requirements of COM:Russia. As per description, taken from a family archive, so probably first published on Commons.

I don’t know who was meant by the word “we” above, so I’ll give a few similar examples:

Comment Re:"We": I copied @Yann word for word when I closed the Deletion request. And it's based on this Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Photographs_by_Pavel_Troshkin. As @Fae commented "Overly hypothetical doubts about copyright." The Precautionary Principal request significant doubt. COM:EVID is not written to address photos that are highly likely to be in the Public Domain. The Hirtle chart is specific to works published in the United States or made by Americans, and URAA specifically states that, "All other foreign works have their US copyright restored (according to US rules) if they were still in copyright in the source country (according to source country rules) on the relevant URAA date." If this was public domain on January 1, 1996, the relevant date in Russia, then it remains public domain. The test is whether this anonymous, possibly unpublished photograph was public domain in 1996, 73 years after the photograph was taken. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique, if you don't know the author's name, it doesn't make him anonymous. From a legal point of view, an anonymous publication is one where the author deliberately hid his name. --Quick1984 (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘’Unknown’’ author. The test still applies Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever wondered, if the creation of an artwork was automatically equated to its publication, why the laws of many countries specifically stipulate the date of first publication separately from the date of creation as the starting point for copyright? Since your opinion is at least questionable, I wondered what opinions other users would have. Quick1984 (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the sort of photo anyone would have taken for personal purposes, so I'd be quite confident in saying it was promptly published. - Jmabel ! talk 08:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:Russia does not distinguish the term of copyright depending on the purpose of creating an artwork, but clearly distinguishes between creation and publication. Quick1984 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:Russia is not applicable if the image fell into the public domain before 1996. Without known authorship (and it's highly likely the photographer was never credited), this work fell into public domain 50 years after first publication as per en:Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation#Duration_of_copyrights, and there is no "significant doubt" that this image was soon published. Given the subject matter, and the expense of taking such an image in the Soviet Union, in 1926, there is no significant doubt that it was published soon afterwards, for use in a magazine, propaganda, or government report on the state of the Central Telegraph in Moscow. The burden on you is to provide that significant doubt, which not is something you have yet done. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, counting 50 years from the first publication, about which you know nothing, and forcing others to prove you wrong is a new word not only in copyright, but even in logic. Quick1984 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Significant doubt” not “theoretically possible”. That’s the policy here. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the U.S., the question of publication was tortured since there was no single definition, but the most common definition that seems to be used, would make distributing photos to friends (with no restrictions) likely be publication. Taking a photo yourself and putting in your own album, no that is not publication. Giving copies outside the immediate family with no restrictions, very well could be. For a group photograph like this, since prints exist, you would assume they were distributed to many of the participants of the photo -- so yes that would be considered published from a U.S. perspective and thus public domain in the U.S. no matter how you slice it. So, no "120 years from creation" issues that I can see. If no name was present on the initial copies (which would be the prints like this), it should be anonymous. And the anonymous term would start from the "disclosure", not strictly "publication", given newer Russian law. I am far less sure on the subtleties of Soviet and current Russian law (at the time, there was no Soviet copyright, so it would have had to be retroactively given by newer laws). But, "theoretically possible" is not the same thing as "significant doubt". You really would need to show a significant doubt based on current Russian law about its copyright there. That seems like a stretch to me, at first glance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:New York State Department of Health

These images are derivatives of copyrighted packaging and New York State Department of Health is not the copyright holder.

Quick1984 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:لوكو سكوب مفرغ.png

شعار منظمة له حقوق Mohammed Qays 🗣 07:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which country is this logo from? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's from Iraq (the website URL has "iq" in it and is showing the weather in Bagdad[12]). Nakonana (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's no COM:TOO Iraq page, so what laws they have about that are anyone's guess. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek I'm from Iraq and logos have Copyright Mohammed Qays 🗣 19:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries have a threshold of originality for copyright in logos. Do you have any idea whether Iraq does? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek see https://moj.gov.iq/upload/pdf/قانون%20حماية%20حق%20المؤلف.pdf Mohammed Qays 🗣 20:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Mohammed. What I get from that document is that there is no such concept as threshold of originality in Iraqi law. Would you like to create a COM:TOO Iraq section of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iraq that links to this document and states that there is no concept of threshold of originality in Iraqi law? If not, do you agree with me, and is it OK for me to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Urheber "Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe"? Das kann nicht sein. War die Wehrmacht eine KdöR? Passen die Angaben zur angeblichen Gemeinfreiheit? GerritR (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Abend GerritR, Du hast zweifellos recht - der Urheber ist unbekannt und höchstwahrscheinlich nicht mehr zu ermitteln. Ich habe das Verbandsabzeichen wie auch einige andere von einem Plakat der Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe abfotografiert, das vor ca. 50 Jahren veröffentlicht wurde. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blanche-monnier.png

Yanlış resim (Alınan kaynak hatalı yönlendirdi) Klingbeil16 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD old. Keep. 186.172.224.161 13:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banner of West Bengal.png

Wrong mime type Coolmaster69 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. I don't understand the problem, but why don't you fix it and upload your edit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image was deleted several times by consensus, e.g., Commons:Deletion_requests/Emblem_of_West_Bengal, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Government of West Bengal.svg, and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-10#File:Emblem_of_West_Bengal.svg. Günther Frager (talk) 22:03, 28 October 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.

File:Sexy German Femboy In Private (52752460556).jpg

I got pointed towards a list of images, that appeared solely through unsolicited means on here. I don't neccessarily mean the bot, that's just crawling and doing its thing, but the fact that they were categorized as CC0 in the first place. Seemingly you can just choose it as a setting on Flickr. Had someone else manage that stuff, because I'm lazy and a yea-sayer. As for if it was intentional or not: I hope it wasn't, since it's a random assortment of pictures, but that's neither here nor there; everything and everyone involved is being scrubbed now. I think it's clear those pics have no place here and Wikimedia shouldn't be on anyone's mind as a first stop for private image hosting. Just put a checkmark next to this accident and it's back to usual business. Alice0815 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Free license at time of upload, has potential use. --Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sexy German Femboy In Private (52752460556).jpg

سکس در اماکن تاریخی در شهر 2A01:5EC0:2013:952C:8017:DCFF:FEA2:FCE8 12:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No potential (educational!) use... 186.172.224.161 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being very imaginative. The categories suggest possible uses. That said, if there are better alternatives, I wouldn't oppose deletion on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that there appears to be no problem about consent or license. And, yes, cross-dressing like this is a valid topic in human sexuality, and this illustrates it better than most. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eamposter.jpg

The fact that the author is unknown (?) doesn't necessarily mean that the file in question is copyrights free... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's untrue that "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Right now, the only available data we have (?) is the date of creation (i.e. 1942). However, we dont know the original creator or the original uploader of the file here on Commons didn't make any proper research regarding this matter. I'm not really sure whether the artist/designer (?) behind this propaganda poster died right on the spot so that it became public domain around 2012, however, this scenario doesn't look really plausible. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the original uploader did not do their research? You need to have significant doubt about the copyright status. The author of this work also didn't have to die on the spot for this to be in the public domain. All that is needed is that the author's name was not disclosed at the time of publishing and 70 years after publishing. Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure. Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:11news.jpg

out of scope logo HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it out of scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is unused and not likely to be ever used as it does not belong to any specific entity. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11 News is not a specific entity? OK, that's odd. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephan Breuer.jpg

Wrong photo Marcelduchamp26 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:如何使用維基百科──以維基輔助我完成作業與報告.pdf

Own work claim, different author in metadata (author in metadata is "卓政興", uploader is "Jasonzhuocn"). No evidence that author and uploader are the same person.--125.230.85.73 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe there is sufficient reason to believe that the author and uploader are the same person. Firstly, there is the fact that the name "Jasonzhuocn" is visible in the file itself. Furthermore, their surnames match. 卓 (Chinese names have surname first) is pronounced Zhuo. It is not uncommon for Chinese people to have separate Chinese and English given names. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponožkový pár ze září 2020 1920x1080.jpg

promotion image of a sock manufacturer Gampe (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Also:[reply]

@Gampe: Please

Keep:

as those socks were used as a prize for winners of the Competition Czechoslovakia hosted by Wikimedia Czech Republic. I've renamed those 3 files to reflect the situation better. Thank you, --janbery (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No podle mě je to dost nešťastné promo, ale jak myslíš... Gampe (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vapaussodan muistomerkki Suodenniemi (05).jpg

URAA-case. Derivative work, unveiled in 1938, of Finnish sculptor Emil Cedercreutz (Wikidata:Q11857751), died in 1949. Free from copyrightt in Finland, but copyright restored in U.S. because of URAA, until 2034. Htm (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethel Payne in Shanghai.jpg

At the source page, the Library of Congress asserts that it has not evaluated the copyright in this image, and on the linked copyright page it explains that it does not possess any rights to items in its collections. Thus it couldn't make this photograph available under a CC0 dedication, even if it had in the past published the image with such a license statement. As it stands, if the image was not first published in the US (but for instance in China), it would still be copyrighted until 2069, and if published in the US, it would have to have been published without a copyright notice to have fallen in the public domain. There is no indication of this at the source or elsewhere, so the precautionary principle would in my opinion suggest deletion.. Felix QW (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esi-Lufo-me-dy-kupa-644793286.jpg

Claim of public domain, but no proof of how that is. Image is recent, has a watermark, and from https://www.shkodrasport.com/lufo-une-jamkrenare-dhe-falenderuese-qe-jam-pjese-e-nje-familje-te-tille-si-vllaznia/ RedPatch (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is from online, simple to look up. If it were not publicly useful, it would not have been online. Fedmonger (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being online does not mean it is in the public domain and not subject to copyright RedPatch (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Belomorkanal

Derivatives, COM:PACKAGING.

Quick1984 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a bit more complex. The original packaging design was made by the Leningrad artist Andrey Tarakanov (Андрей Тараканов). It showed three different canals on it (Belomor-Baltic, Kiel, and Suez canals). Neither of the nominated files has this design. The design was updated in the 1950s to only show Soviet canal with red lines for borders (of the USSR). This is the design we see in File:Belomorkanal gaspers pack. Avers and revers.jpg and File:Belomorkanalsav.jpg. The design was once again updated after the Soviet Union fell apart. This time the red lines that were symbolizing the borders were removed. That's the design we see in File:Belomorkanal cigarette box.jpg and File:Belomorkanal.JPG. Source for the info on the designs: [13][14]. So, we have two derivate works of a design which was created some time between 1932 and the 1950s, and the author's birth date and death date are not mentioned anywhere it seems (it's also a quite common name; there are several artists with that name, the oldest one I'm finding was born in 1898). Nakonana (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Indigirlag

Works of 1950s, bogus PD rationale: you can't count copyright term from the death of an unknown author.

Quick1984 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"you can't count copyright term from the death of an unknown author". Why not? Is the issue that we don't know whether the photographer died between 1952 and 1954? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far as i know, these pictures were taken by the man who died in that years. So maybe we should delete them, than wait for at least 10 years (the source can be erased due to some reasons of russian political situation, for example) and than upload? Author died somewhere in Indigirka, Boguchan, Oymyakon ragion in 50s, that for sure, but no proofs. It is unreal to proove it. I even cannot present my grandfather's death certificate, and he died in the 50s in Soviet Union.. - Zac Allan (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1954 is 70 years ago. Is that long enough to be in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, i'm the author of these uploads and my second granddad is the victim of this gulag camp, being there 6-7 years and than lived nearby until 1970s. I'm definitely not the person who want it to be deleted, i know i'm right and it can be stoed here but have no strict proofs. I think it will bw deleted. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I will not upload it again here even if I asked. And third, i really thought about upload here my family's archive from 1977-1979 Afghanistan before war broke, USSR 1980-s and so on. I see no reason to do some work that can be erased any moment "just because". Let it burn. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take your say-so, but I don't make decisions here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Gillray - Gillray Caricatures - B1977.14.21012V - Yale Center for British Art.jpg

Blank with no content Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... It's not exactly blank with no content. It's art (or at least the cover / front of the collection). See https://collections.britishart.yale.edu/catalog/tms:54661. Nakonana (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty blank to me. Rathfelder (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as you can see in the link above it is part of the Yale British Art collection. Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is an accident. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they have two such images in their collection, if I'm not mistaken. So they made two accidents? Nakonana (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. We certainly can't call them Gillray caricatures. Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DGoIF-Logo.png

Unknown if it's own work, it's the logo of a local swedish football club. Kakan spelar (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WrigglerRR.jpg

Copyright violation. Nv8200p (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot understand this. The photo is mine, I released the game via my company Romantic Robot and I retain full copyright. The game also contains my own music plus my track The Moons of Jupiter, which still attracts a lot of attention on YouTube. I am listed on Wikipedia as is my company Romantic Robot. AGRR (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AGRR: My mistake. So sorry. Removing deletion request. Nv8200p (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zac Allan (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of copyrighted 2D/3D artworks, no FoP in Belarus, Kazakhstan and in Russia (except architecture).

Quick1984 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah, even trivia like "Dvina named train, Polotsk-Moscow. Couchette car. Train schedule information desk..jpg" is no longer need to be here. I have no interest in these files and have no will to protect them. Delete bravely. - Zac Allan (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Yerofey Khabarov monument must be deleted, though it is a culture heritage. Thats a victory. - Zac Allan (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mao Zedong and Richard Nixon.webp

If this image was first published in China, it will still have been in copyright at the URAA renewal date and will therefore be copyrighted in the US for many years to come. However, Alamy credits a version of this photograph to Keystone, and if Keystone (simultaneously) first published it in the US, and did so without a copyright notice, then it would now be PD in the US. In my eyes though, that is too much of a hypothetical to keep this image. Felix QW (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferdinand Porsche.jpg

1910s photograph, likely public domain in Germany, but we need evidence photographer died before 1954. Too young to assume photographer has been dead for 70 years. Abzeronow (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cassiopée au festival fierté Montréal 2019.png

Small low-rez 17 KB image by banned user Bull-Doser that is of very poor quality, below our minimum standards, I believe. Not used on any Wikipedia pages about the subject for that reason, perhaps. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is the only photo of a singer covered by Wikipedia articles on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it is the only picture of that signer on Commons (that kind of argument should be rejected), the quality and resolution are so poor that it is out of COM:SCOPE. I am also not sure that it is Cassiopée on the picture. I couldn't find any other example of a picture of her looking like that on the net. --Myloufa (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if it is the only picture of that signer on Commons (that kind of argument should be rejected)"

Putting aside your doubts about who the photo depicts, it's shocking that you'd want to hide the only photo on Commons of someone famous. It's a very small photo, but it looks like it would be recognizable to someone who knows the person depicted. Now, if it isn't actually her, that's another question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: - Yes, but someone who knows the person depicted already *knows* what the person looks like, and that's a very low bar. The question is whether it shows that to someone who *doesn't*! Generally, we're willing to accept lower standards for a picture in the absence of any better examples, but it still has to be minimally useful.

As for this specific image, it's on the edge for me personally- as someone unfamiliar with her, it's hard to judge whether it actually shows me anything meaningful about her appearance beyond some very basic elements. Ubcule (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very tiny picture, but I think I could recognize her from it, and I don't know her. I agree that if it were any smaller, it would be unusable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reno rock Sculpture Three's Company by Chris Atcheson - panoramio.jpg

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Tilted Donut with S" sculpture, (2006), Ann Arbor, Michigan - panoramio.jpg

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitchell Park, Milwaukee, WI 53204, USA - panoramio (2).jpg

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sculpture at Terra Vista Town Center - panoramio.jpg

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Heidelberg Letizia 3.jpg

Can you Please delete this image? I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Heidelberg Letizia 2.jpg

I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Heidelberg Letizia.jpg

I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heidelberg Letizia.jpg

I would like this picture to be deleted because I uploaded it here because I wanted to take part in a competition but I would like if My photo Would be deleted. Thank you in advance Letizia.snd (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good deletion reason, but did you take this photo, and did you take it on 19 March 2024? What kind of camera did you use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Gillray - Spanish Patriots Attacking the French Banditti - Loyal Britons Lending a Lift^ - B1981.25.807 - Yale Center for British Art.jpg

Its blank. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually some text if you look closely. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a watermark, not anything by Gillray. Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuário Nacional 20161110.jpg

The metadata says "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Thiago Leon", but is uploaded under "Own work" by User:Arquidiocese. How do we know that Arquidiocese is Thiago Leon? Kakan spelar (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delete the cropped file too if this one gets removed. // Kakan spelar (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be File:Santuário Nacional 20161110 (cropped).jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 07:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AmbasadaBraziliei.JPG

Per COM:FOP Romania, there is no freedom of panorama in Romania. This is a contemporary building. ✗plicit 23:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the argument you've provided, any and every picture of a building in Bucharest should be deleted within Wikimedia Commons.Aquintero82, (talk), 13:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Ships by name (category name check)

Obsolete summary with last update in 2013 (more than 10 years ago!) --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

File:Seal of Soreang.png

I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Xyzbcazxy5242 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the automatic courtesy deletion period. I question deletion but don't automatically oppose it, as the file isn't currently in use by a sister site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because this isn't even a work of the uploader. PaterMcFly (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1ère Légion d'Honneur de la guerre janvier 1939.jpg

1939 French photograph, would need more information on publication and the photographer to determine actual copyright status, very likely restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kawan Lama Sejahtera.jpg

Unlikely an own work. Based on this thesis (https://kc.umn.ac.id/id/eprint/21185/4/BAB_II.pdf), this file is a crop from a photo owned by the company. Symphonium264 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LOGO LANGIT KE7 SINEMA.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside userpage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not out of scope: see id.wikipedia:Langit ke-7. Probably not a textlogo per COM:TOO Indonesia, though, although "Anglo-American model" means nothing to me in terms of COM:TOO, as the UK has very strict standards and the U.S. has fairly loose standards. So which one is it, really? Per COM:TOO US, I believe this would easily be PD-textlogo, even though the use of the upside down 7 for the letter L in "Langit" is pretty imaginative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nikitha Jotheswari (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: photos of various subjects all taken at oblique angles and/or with obtrusive filters. Please hold your camera level when taking pictures and disable image filters (like the text overlay in File:Puli kolam.jpg or the "film" appearance in File:Cute pencil.jpg).

Omphalographer (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd

Keep File:Cute pencil.jpg. Other photos that might be worth saving and that I'd on balance recommend keeping, though perhaps someone might want to straighten most of them out, are File:Milk sweet.jpg, File:Beetroot juice.jpg, File:Muskmelon juice.jpg, File:Steamed dumpling.jpg, File:Panacotta.jpg (because it's mango panna cotta), File:Pondicherry entrance gate.jpg (because it's much bigger than the alternative). I'd vote to

Delete the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cute pencil.jpg has the "film filter" I was mentioning. It could be cropped but the resulting image would be under 400x600, barely a usable size. File:Pondicherry entrance gate.jpg has some weird lighting (reflections off a car window?) as well as the oblique angle. A lot of the food images have part of the subject partially out of frame, so it would be difficult to straighten them out without cropping out even more of the subject in the process or leaving a blank space "outside" the photo after rotation. Do we really have so few photos of food that we need to keep these? Omphalographer (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be what photos we have of those specific foods and drinks. I didn't see any equivalent photos of mango panna cotta, but I didn't do a search for other photos of rose milk sweets. Considering that no space is saved when files are "deleted," maybe you should do those kinds of searches before nominating photos for deletion, but if you don't, it makes a whole lot of sense to err on the side of keeping files visible in borderline cases. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse images on Commons and we still keep them. Some people might appreciate the odd angles as a form of an artistic quirk. They might be usable for food or traveling blogs etc. where being educational can be achieved without following a strict "encyclopedic" format or style like on Wikipedia. So, while such images might not be suitable for use in Wikipedia, they still may be suitable for use on other platforms. Nakonana (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlas front page.jpg and File:Atomic habits book.jpg might need to be deleted as they show potentially copyrighted book covers.

I've added categories to all other photos and think they can be kept. Nakonana (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tytany - nagrody w branży bezwykopowej.png

Probably copyvio - offical award. Look at YT material on the conference website Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Citu flag.jpg

This file was initially tagged by GoldRoger487 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Offensive
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Rationale needs elaboration. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone is offended by the hammer and sickle. That's totally OK, but serious reference sites don't delete important symbols and images just because they may be offensive. Can you imagine if Wikipedia were restricted to inoffensive subjects? It would become utter pablum, rather than an encyclopedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should no longer be deleted as it is the flag of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions and not a joke about the romanian polician Florin Citu.

I will add Category:Centre of Indian Trade Unions and Category:Flags of trade unions in India categories beside the current ones.GoldRoger487 (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biskupice gm. Biskupice. Dwór A515M.jpg

identifiable pictures of minor individuals. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 09:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is that forbidden, or would a personality rights template take care of it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Miałem wątpliwości, jestem za usunięciem Januszk57 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Gillray - The Rival Queens, or a Political Heat for Lege (Rege) and Grege - B1981.25.823 - Yale Center for British Art.jpg

Blank with no content Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by FinlandCar (talk · contribs)

File:Asser Wallenius.jpg, there is "photo: unknown", that indicates photo dont belong to FinlandCar. and also File:Satsuma_GT_(My_Summer_Car).jpg is ingame screenshot. so that is completly copyvio.

modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 12:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Steam (software)

Copyrighted background

Trade (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how these files are breaking any copyright rules. I took these pictures and they do not violate any copyright laws or rules to the best of my knowledge. ThatGerman (talk) 16:03, 13 October 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.

File:Mian Muhammad Baksh.jpg

Can not be own work, since this is a photograph or an artwork which may or may not be free. Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 00:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mian Muhammad Baksh.jpg

I am the original uploader of this file. After reviewing this file, I cannot verify its copyright status and request it is deleted and removed from Commons. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S.Pz.Abt.506 Insignia.png

This file was initially tagged by Wiiformii as Logo (help=off) See my talk page. Yann (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is in the public domain and should not be deleted.

This insignia is a coat of arms of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). According to § 5 Abs.1 of the German Copyright law, official works such as coats of arms and flags are gemeinfrei (in the public domain). Since the Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic as well as of the "Third Reich" this law is also applicable to flags and coat of arms promulgated before 1945. Furthermore, the insignia is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German authority or court, which means it is classified as gemeinfrei by the same law (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG). Onyx Moose US (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felmy hellmuth.png

This file (a ca. 1935 German photograph) was taken from the image database of the Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive), see [15], but it is not a part of the large batch which was given to Commons by the archive under a CC license and uploaded by bot in 2008.

The file was uploaded by a Commons user in 2018, claiming that the photo is in the public domain because its author is anonymous and it was published over 70 years ago. However, we do not know enough about the context, time and place of first publication to determine if this is actually true.

Per COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works, it is enough if the identity of the author has become known in some way that the photograph is not anonymous and a copyright term of 70 years pma applies. Also, a 1935 German photograph is very likely still protected in the US per the URAA. The file should therefore be deleted. It can be restored in 2056 with PD-old-assumed. Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villa Schwarzhaupt Regensburg Bavaria Am Klarenanger.jpg

This is a 1942 photo by German (based in Regensburg) photographer Christoph Lang, who lived from 1895 to 1966 [16]. So the photograph is not in the public domain yet in both Germany and the US, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2038 (URAA). Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inside-No-9.jpg

May not be below COM:TOO UK. Can't edit the page itself due to cascading. -Ahri Boy (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so, then the file that this has been derived from needs to be deleted, too. Schwede 66 22:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 1201пп.jpg

Badly-named uncat since 2017 Ukrainian photograph. Something that looks like a Ukrainian quote in upper center, possibly copyrighted. No context as to why this photograph is in scope. Abzeronow (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This might be Hutsul embroidery and a quote by poet Natalia Baklai (Q12080464). Someone who knows more will be able to provide some basic context. Sinigh (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

File:080406lynRobertsheadstone.jpg

Almost certainly a copyrighted image uploaded without source. Original uploader has no userpage/talkpage on enwiki See also file transferer's statement User:Youreallycan#Copyright Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin as Thomas the Tank Engine 02.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted icon A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cosplay; "copyrighted icon" is a circular simplified smiling face, minimal. {{Trademark}} added. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cosplay is allowed The New Foxy (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martin as Thomas the Tank Engine.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted icon A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is allowed as a cosplay and is de minimis The New Foxy (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Strawberry Fields' Sign -- Central Park New York (NY) April 2016 (26214909193).jpg

Likely copyrighted by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation Ooligan (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:塚本連平 50才の誕生日会.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Netora as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Housing for IDPs and Restoration of Affected Communities The President Met with American Philanthropist Dell Loy Hansen (53723992488).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted photo A1Cafel (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motomami World Tour (logo).jpg

Same logo transferred to PNG format, better quality. Despechi.ro (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PNG logo at File:Motomami World Tour Logo 24.png, for reference. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tata Curvv.EV.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 193.205.162.70 as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0 matches on TinEye; exact matches on images.google are only on Wikipedia. However, since at least a couple of this user's other uploads are clearly copyvio, they should be required to prove authorship to COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auto Expo 2014, Noida.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 193.205.162.70 as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided.-- Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TinEye found an exact match, albeit a smaller file, from Oct 14, 2016. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahindra Thar SUV in "Red Rage" color at Ashiana Brahmanda, East Singbhum India (Ank Kumar, Infosys limited) 02.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 193.205.162.70 as Copyvio (copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 matches on TinEye but there are exact matches on Google Lens going back to 2020. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back up your assertion with an e.g. internet link, please? Msb (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:群体免疫.jpg

Possible copyright violation, see [17][18][19]. dring sim 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo FCSurhústerfean.jpg

No reason to assume a CCBY license for this logo. No rights info on club website found, so (c) is in place. Kuddekop (talk) 14:20, 14 October 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.

Files in Category:Lotus logos

Logo for the British car company Lotus marked as public domain. The threshold of originality is very low for UK works, see COM:TOO UK. The logo comprises numerous graphical elements arranged distinctively. Sufficient effort (from a UK perspective) is likely to have been expended and the logo is potentially sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection in its country of origin (the UK). For public domain works Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

matt br 18:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Transferred to w:File:Lotus Cars logo.svg. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Lotus logos

Likely COM:TOO UK

メイド理世 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated images created by User:Mili977

Clearly AI-generated media. But the issue is that they have been poorly done. Which is why at some places there are six fingers or blurred faces or a bent trident. All of these are most likely outside the scope of Commons. Would also request admins to look at the other uploaded media by User:Mili977 which are claimed to be book covers and can have potential copyright issues. --Jovian Eclipse (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of Guantanamo's 'Navy Exchanges' -- a kind of department store.png

This image is a duplicate of File:US Navy 020807-N-0872M-537 Shoppers shop inside the mall section of the Navy Exchange located at Naval Base Little Creek.jpg Image2012 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MaguluYafesi.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no source (No source since) Yann (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work, so we need more information about the original picture. Yann (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medinilla medinillana fruits, Mount Lamlam, Hågat, Guam.jpg

Species is mis-identified in title Halenhardy (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file could simply be renamed. Please propose a proper filename here. --Túrelio (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NCL-9900010932 法國第五共和憲法.pdf

Copyrighted work, translated by Liu Pengjiu (1901-1987), published in 1959 in Taiwan. dring sim 16:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Flagge Jena.svg

picture is wrong. see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flagge_Jena.svg -- Nawennschon (talk). 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monogram of the Spanish Civil Guard (Franquist).svg

Pointless copy of File:Cifra Guardia Civil Franquismo.svg, just with an English title; uploader has been warned on en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copy. The two images are in a completely different heraldic style. OddHerring (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monogram of the Spanish Civil Guard (Republican).svg

Pointless copy of File:Emblema republicano Guardia Civil.svg, just with an English title; uploader has been warned on en.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a copy, it is in a completely different heraldic style. It's ok to not like Sodacannism, but disliking the art style is not a valid reason to want an image deleted. OddHerring (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about its design, just that it was duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point. It isn't a copy or duplication. OddHerring (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vittoria Ceretti for Chaos.jpg

The info panel is written as an advert. I have no login to Vimeo to check the onward licence. Hence this DR 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You don't need a login, the Attribution license is clearly visible, as you can see in this screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/S9QLKtr The info panel is an exact copy from the text of the page. It is, admittedly, a bit long, but it is not an advertisement, it is merely a list of the people who produced the video which this is a screenshot from. The point of the "Attribution" license is exactly to attribute the people who created the image. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak dllu.webp

Superseded by File:Panorama of Hong Kong Harbour from The Peak dllu.jpg which is higher resolution. When exporting the file, I forgot that webp has a maximum size of 16383 px, which is insufficient for the full resolution image. dllu (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcus Gronholm 1999 San Remo Rally.jpg

Seems like a clear case of COM:FLICKRWASH. Metadata credits CLAUDE SAULNIER and the Flickr profile looks like a mix of photos from different sources. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon - my apologies, I'm new to Wiki and wanted to use this photo for an article I plan to create. I appreciate you letting me know that this was a thing; I had no idea! I'll be sure to be more careful when uploading material in the future. Gman197002 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intentio Partners & Dexter Brown present the Art Car (9673068147).jpg

Likely COM:FLICKRWASH, metadata credits ©Sutton Motorsport Images, Flickr profile is a mix of photos from different sources. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sara Moledo Mato.jpg

It is not the work of the user who uploaded the image. Lord Maximoff (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:South park pip plush small ver by sarahdefroggo225 ddntkml-fullview.png

Commercial COM:TOY, https://south-park-plush.fandom.com/wiki/Pip_(Fun_4_All). Belbury (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stanley Joseph "Stan" (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Прапор Хотина.png

ошибка в формате файла Potemkovskiy_Vladislav (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tange sazen yowa Hyakuman ryo no tsubo poster.jpg

Not "theatrical release poster", but a DVD cover. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is DVD cover accidentally uploaded by myself, then delete. --Snek01 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:14th Light Horse Regiment v2.png

This file does not accurately represent the insignia of the 14th Light Horse Regiment as represented on the Australia War Memorial website. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C261490. The diagonal division from should run from the midpoint of the right edge to the angle between the left edge and base. This image is reversed. An updated and correct image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:14th_Light_Horse_Regiment_v3.png Holst87prin172 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:15th Light Horse Regiment colour patch.png

This image does not accurately represent the insignia of the 15th Australian Light Horse Regiment as represented in the Australian War Memorial Records https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C261491?image=1. The diagonal division between colours should run from the mid point of the right edge to the angle between the left edge and base. An image accurately representing this insignia exists already in the Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15th_Light_Horse_Regiment_v3.png Holst87prin172 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:15th Light Horse Regiment v2.png

This image does not accurately represent the insignia of the 15th Australian Light Horse Regiment as represented in the Australian War Memorial Records https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C261491?image=1. The diagonal division between colours should run from the mid point of the right edge to the angle between the left edge and base. An image accurately representing this insignia exists already in the Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15th_Light_Horse_Regiment_v3.png Holst87prin172 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:14th Light Horse Regiment colour patch.png

This insignia belongs to the 13th Light Horse Regiment, not the 14th Light Horse Regiment. A higher quality image representing this insignia, labelled correctly as "13th Light Horse Regiment" already exists in the Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:13th_Light_Horse_Regiment_4th_Divisional_Cavalry_1916-1917.png Holst87prin172 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:10 LHR UCP.svg

This image does not accurately represent the insignia of the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment as represented in the Australian War Memorial Records https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C261481. The diagonal division between colours should run from the upper left corner to the lower right corner. Two images accurately representing this insignia exist already in the Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10th_Light_Horse_Regiment.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10th_Light_Horse_Regiment_v2.png Holst87prin172 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

File:Ml-തുപ്പു.ogg

I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Muzirian (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded it in 2022. Why should it be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El sonido no es visible, creo. 186.172.12.82 14:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:V・drugロゴ.jpg

The thing in the center may make this too complex for pd-textlogo, and it certainly isn't cc-by-sa. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It's only a little more complex than these PD Cup Noodles cups. I hope the closing admin has more expertise on Japanese TOO than what's at COM:TOO Japan, because it's really not clear from that where the line is drawn. Is this an "artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation" or "composed merely of geometric shapes and texts"? I could go either way on that, but I'm not the one who'd make the decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to COM:TOO Japan and the quote highlighted above by Ikan Kekek, this is just text. Some letters may be nested, but it remains only text. Less complex than the Cup Noodles design I think. IronGargoyle (talk)|

File:Amir Temur Hieboni station.jpg

No FoP in Uzbekistan. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Photography in the Tashkent metro was lifted in 2018, so it shouldn't be a problem. If you're going to say "No Fop," you should provide clear evidence and sources.—-TINKO (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TINKO see COM:FOP Uzbekistan. It is against the Uzbek copyright law (under Article 28) to photographically reproduce copyrighted works of architecture and monuments for commercial purposes. Quoting the provision: "The reproduction, broadcasting, or communication via cable of works of architecture, photographs, and fine art that are permanently located in a place open to public view shall be allowed without the consent of the author or other rightholder and without payment of remuneration. This rule shall not apply to cases where the image of the work is the main object of such reproduction, broadcasting, or communication via cable, as well as to cases where the image of the work is used for commercial purposes." {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is a commercial license by itself, so not compatible with this station building. Commercial licensing permission from the station building architect or his heir/s (not the station owner or railway management) is still required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowling place, Oybek.jpg

No FoP in Uzbekistan. Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The interior architecture is extremely simple, utilitarian, and a small part of the overarching work (to the point of being de minimis). I am less certain about the de minimis status of the posters inside the building however. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Arquivo Memória (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work, different cameras, some with photographer name in exif, PCP

Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gbawden. All pictures belong to our organization. You are right that they were not taken by the same photographer. We tried to inform that but the form request us to inform the website where the pictures were taken, but they are only available in our files, not previously online. If there’s a way to remedy this issue please let us know and we will proceed — some of the pics are already in good use in Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. Arquivo Memória (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Arquivo Memória. The solution is for whomever owns the copyright to contact the COM:VRT. That probably means the various photographers have to give permission for an appropriate license separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solar Sports Logo 2024.png

Official logo claimed as "own work" Arjayay (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the licensing status - I think the user was only new when it comes to licensing of free use rationale images. It may still consider changing it to copyright license instead since Solar Entertainment allowed this to be released in public, but not permitting anyone to own it. PandaB31 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wong Kon Man Jason.jpg

Low resolution and no EXIF information, most likely downloaded from Internet. Tim Wu (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tashkent.City.Mall.Logo.jpg

Official logotype claimed as "own work" Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Logo is nothing but text. Clear example of {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tashkent City Mall Logo.jpg

Official logo claimed as "own work". Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TCM Primary-Logo Navy CMYK.jpg

Official logo claimed as "own work". Jamshid Nurkulov (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Dotkamina (talk · contribs)

Per {{Freepik}} the freepik.com elements here aren't compatible with Commons: their licence says The User may use the content in the Freepik Content provided that [it] is not used or included (in whole or in part) in a database, archive or in any other media/stock product [or does] not use the content in the Freepik Content in printed or electronic items (e.g. t-shirts, cups, postcards, birthday or greeting cards...)

Belbury (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Or esref bitlis kabri.jpg

Or esref bitlis kabri.jpg Geraslan06 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thebloodlinelogo.png

Possible copyvio: Not sure about the threqshold of originality, the band above seems to be copyrightable CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, per COM:TOO US, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems simpler than many of the examples at COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Lambkin ill trying the recuperative Wellcome V0011252.jpg

Too blurred Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mr. Lambkin and friends in court before a Wellcome V0011258.jpg
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Lambkin on his knees begging Wellcome V0011260.jpg

Too blurred Rathfelder (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr. Lambkin out walking in Kensington Wellcome V0011256.jpg

Too blurred Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mr. Lambkin and friends in court before a Wellcome V0011258.jpg
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4 - РГВИА фонд 16180 оп. 1 д. 77, л. 364 изм. Дм. Борисов 1 С БАНТОМ 523Х800.jpg

Not own work 92.243.182.32 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

depicted person is w:ru:Долматов, Владимир Иванович, whose fate is unknown after 1919, so that we can conclude that this photo was very likely taken before 1920. I've fixed the date accordingly and changed the author to "unknown". It might qualify for one of the PD-Russia templates or maybe even PD-RussianEmpire. Nakonana (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дудкина Л. И. 1916 год..jpg

Not own work 92.243.182.32 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed.

File:BRM3458-Weston-Map-of-Ancient-America Mormon-1899 lowres-1888x3000.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Rose Abrams as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: f1|No indication of licensing at linked source website, while infotable and license states "own work".
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. If the map is from 1899, it should be PD and go by PD-Art. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Налепка. Славянскі Базар у Віцебску.jpg

COM:Belarus don't trivial logo & COM:FOP Belarus 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 19:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4e régiment de Spahis-drapeau.svg

duplicate of 4e régiment de Spahis - drapeau.svg, which was uploaded earlier DmitTrix (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Anexo:Edificios más altos de Costa Rica

No FOP in Costa Rica, per COM:FOP Costa Rica. Copyright in Costa Rica lasts the author's life + 70 years (COM:COSTA RICA), and none of these buildings are older than 70 years, per Anexo:Edificios más altos de Costa Rica (oldest is from 1966, which is 58 years old). Therefore, all these buildings are still within copyright and these files are copyright violations.

Rubýñ ^(Scold) 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¿Desde cuando FOP aplica para edificios? Que yo sepa lo que tiene copyright son los blueprints (planos). LuchoCR (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP aplica a cualquier obra creativa que esté puesta al público indefinidamente, como estatuas, grafiti, y arquitectura (edificios). En Costa Rica, hay libertad de panorama, pero solo para usos no comerciales. El texto de la ley 6683 dice: Es lícita la reproducción fotográfica o por otros procesos pictóricos, cuando esta reproducción sea sin fines comerciales, de las estatuas, monumentos y otras obras de arte protegidas por derechos de autor, adquiridos por el poder público, expuestos en las calles, los jardines y los museos. Un edificio es una obra protegida por derechos de autor expuesta en la calle, por ende, FOP aplica, desafortunadamente. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 22:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joerg Haenny.jpg

possible copyvio from Aargauer Tagblatt - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gemeindeversammlung der Stadt Lenzburg 19.Juni 1972.jpg

possible copyvio from Lenzburger Bezirksanzeiger - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:52, 15 October 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.

Files uploaded by Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work

Trade (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're my (friend who has given permission's) work. Making these simulations only requires a basic Python script. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Either way, i am unsure if this is within scope of Commons Trade (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs)

Unused personal graphics/logos, no educational use, out of scope.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not in scope. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These aren't personal logos—they're proposed logos for the sidebar over at Template:Electoral systems, and may still end up being used for a series on social choice theory (SCT) or mechanism design, if we choose to split it off from the one on electoral systems. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per your remark. I'm glad you saw this deletion request. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed logos for the sidebar". In other words, your personal proposal. There is nothing intrinsically educational here, nor any real prospect of being used. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying none of these are actually still under consideration for any of the things Closing Limelike Curves stated? Because I don't think we need to rush to hide 7 files if there isn't a really important reason to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

File:VolkerFerkauAutorDeutschland3.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep there is no reason for "no permission" Emha (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Памятник "Бычку-кормильцу".jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2000. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor М. Мироненко. В. Михайлов. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Остапа побило 0118.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 2002. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Senior Male Masturbating.webm

Out of scope. Single upload. Not in use. Smooth O (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruwiki.png

Tagged speedy, but a consensus is needed to adjust the proper screenshot. My suggestion is to blur some de minimis parts of the screenshot. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK SSP 深水埗 Sham Shui Po 黃金電腦商場 Golden Computer Acrade 高登電腦 basement shop 華碩電腦 ASUS laptop June 2022 Px3 03.jpg

This file was initially tagged by メイド理世 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted Windows screenshot in Hong Kong Yann (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The screen may be blurred, but what's the object of the picture? Yann (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the laptop itself, but there's very little of it clearly visible in the photo. Good photos of laptops are common enough; I don't think it's worth trying to salvage this one. Omphalographer (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koengen Obere Neue Str. 33.jpg

WRuss war mein alter Name, ich will das Bild durch ein Bild ohne Schatten ersetzen LupusDe (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoEI-Cover.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The (bland) cover page of some sort of publication, with no information about copyright/licencing
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. IMO a blank cover-page merely with the title of the book is not above COM:TOO and thereby not copyrightable. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief text on blue background is not copyrightable. The image is currently used in a draft; if the draft is deleted in the future it may become a matter of scope instead. Thuresson (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Unia Andres Vicharra Moncada (talk · contribs)

Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes. COM:FOP Peru. Why would you request deletion without even trying to figure out which country was in question and look at the link to their FOP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country must be stated in description, categories and FOP-related template. Why this was not done is question to uploader. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good excuse. It's not hard to find out where Pucallpa is, and the first category of the first photo in this list is Category:Education in Peru. Do a little research before requesting deletion based on the possibility that you've blindly hit on a country that has no commercial FOP. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three out of five files do not have categories. You also had two years (since files were uploaded) to fix this problem yourself, but somehow you did not use this chance. Please also read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I had a chance to do something with these files? Do you also not know who the photographer/uploader of the files is? My position is simply that someone nominating files for deletion should do the most basic kind of research about them first. But that's not your way. You would rather shoot first and then get upset when others ask questions later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position, that is that if you want perfect Commons maintenance, please start do it yourself. And others could also see your false-positive and false-negative rates. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's important to you to delete things that shouldn't be deleted, on some kind of weird principle you have. My position is that the person who would nominate files for deletion has the responsibility of doing the most basic research on them. You didn't have any idea where the photos were taken and acted like because I responded negatively to the deletion request, I had taken the photos. When do you think I became aware of these photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, looking at the files again to see whether they need some updated categories, I clicked on Category:Shipibo-Conibo. Why don't you click on it, too? Then you'll know what the category is and what country it's relevant to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that kind of rationale we could (and should) just delete everything in Category:Media needing categories and all it's subcategories. Those files have been uncategorized and without mention of any country of origin for far longer than just two years. But I suspect if anyone would actually dare to nominate all those files for deletion with that rationale they would likely end up landing on some notice board for disruptive deletion requests because media being uncategorized or not mentioning country of origin are not valid reasons for deletion (or at least I'm not aware of any such policy). Nakonana (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are "just" around 500,000 files in the subcategory Category:Files needing categories by year, starting in 2017 (seven years ago). Are you really suggesting to just delete them all because they lack categories and statements about the country of origin...? Nakonana (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, he does want to delete all of them, and it's certainly true that he was blocked for a time for disruptive deletion requests. If I had been in his position, I would have said "You're right. Sorry for not checking on that and thanks for taking the time to do so." But I don't know if I've ever seen him admit an error, let alone thank anyone for pointing it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Manto - Midland Angels - 1988.jpg

Copyvio. Although the uploader's direct source of this image is from this card which is in the public domain, the photo used on that card was stolen from this card (which was published with a copyright a year earlier) and simply mirrored vertically. That isn't transformative. The underlying photo is copyrighted. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:U&eden (2024).svg

This is a logo that originated in the United Kingdom, which has a very low threshold of originality. There area few things (like the way the "d" and the "n" are constructed) that make me suspect that this image might be over that threshold, meaning that {{PD-textlogo}} would not apply. For this reason, I am bringing this logo up for discussion in light of the precautionary principle. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that what the logo really looks like? Don't be satirical on a website that's serious MoeTheMan2015 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'd' and 'n' construction is the default of the commercial font which is Right Grotesk. Also, other uploads of British logos uses this Public Domain template. TangyBase (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right mate. 2A02:C7C:4704:8500:5D26:E0D7:DBCB:44AD 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No clear reason to justify the deletion. It's just satirical argument about the deletion of this logo, and according to many users, this logo using the standard font (which is Right Grotesk). Regardless whether the font are slightly modified or not, it does not eligible for copyright, even in the UK themselves (unless there's significant commentary regarding artistic value of the typeface). Yayan550 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minh Hang 2021, Super challenging.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Khangofficial as Copyvio (Db-f1) and the most recent rationale was: url=https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1846348578902412. Converting to DR, previously deleted and undeleted by admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:柯慶施市長.jpg

1950 Chinese photograph, although PD in China, it would have been restored by URAA. Undelete in 2046. Abzeronow (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelheidvsaldern 2023.png

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission by shown person or photographer. --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buckhofblecking1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission by shown person or photographer. --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diethelm Blecking.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Känguru1890 as no permission (no permission since) Krd 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission by photographer or person depicted. Is that enough of an explanation. Why does no permission not work on this? It was uploaded by a random user. How would I know if this is an edge case or not? --Känguru1890 (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the principle of assuming good faith, meaning that we believe an uploader's claims, unless there's "significant" doubt about the freedom of a file (COM:PCP), because of, for example, a clear statement in the exif data that claims copyright, or because you found the image on the internet where it was published before it got uploaded to Commons, or because there's no freedom of panorama in the relevant country, etc.

Consent of the depicted person is not per se required but in some countries it might be mandatory. Nakonana (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Justice League - Wonder Woman Saves The Day - DC Kids.webm

I believe this is copyrighted. 76.23.164.244 17:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You'd think so, but the video was indeed uploaded to YouTube as CC-BY by an official DC account. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Meanna

Out of scope?

Trade (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in scope. Examples of music genres, useful, examples of music in Russian, etc and more useful than most other audio files. Also COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out all the files, but which ones are COM:INUSE on public pages? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public? Trade (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being used on user pages isn't really COM:INUSE, is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be in scope. The official website of the city of Tomsk (which is not the singer's city of origin btw) calls the singer "the mother of abstract rap" (https://www.tomsk.ru/news/view/148236-Mrachno-gluboko-i-poetichno-kontsert-materi-abstraktnogo-repa-v-Tomske), and the singer got also some mention in at least one gazeta.ru article. Nakonana (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The singer also explicitly publishes songs and footage under cc 4.0 license as per her website [20]: "Музыка, тексты и изображения сайта распространяются по лицензии Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0". Nakonana (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be but the license still needs to be checked by an administrator or reviewer Trade (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link is right there. The license text is at the very bottom of the website for anyone to see. Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What user page? Trade (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look at use before nominating for deletion? For example, look at File:Meanna-why.flac. I don't feel like doing the rest of the work I respectfully submit that I think you should have done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Wikidata pages they were used on. Dont know why a random user page is such a huge concern Trade (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it is, and I actually questioned above whether that really counts for being COM:INUSE, but I was surprised you were asking me where pages you nominated for deletion are used. I think the more salient issues that should be addressed (and I'm not prejudging how to address them or what decision to make) are the ones brought up by Nakonana. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be weird to exclude entire Wikimedia Projects from the category dont you think? Trade (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't know what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mao Zedong 1959.jpg

1959 Chinese photograph, although PD in China, it would have been restored by URAA. --向史公哲曰 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, has 3 derived versions that would also be affected by this. Undelete in 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фото Тадеуша Ковальського, 1926 р..jpg

wrong date, wrong source Xocolatl (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those things can be corrected. Is it public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep date and source fixed. If it is a family taken photo, which it appears to be, we allow heirs to release the image under a CC license. --RAN (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a picture in PD, its author is Tadeusz Jan Kowalski, died 1948. he visited Halych in 1926 (that's what the name of the photo is saying). information is corrected --アンタナナ 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BAPLA 2009 laptop bag.jpg

The image consists of a bag containing several non-free logos. Xeroctic (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Москва, Петровский путевой дворец (левая стена).jpg

The user Yaroslav Alekseev uploaded a wrong file and changed the original photo with a request for this file to be deleted. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Москва, Петровский путевой дворец.jpg

The user Yaroslav Alekseev uploaded a wrong file and changed the original photo with a request for this file to be deleted. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 23:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

File:Char Etat islamique Raqqa.jpg

The copyright is attributed to ISIS Kakao88 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Screenshot from the ISIS video. Solodkih (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is the proof that this image is from an ISIS video? Image released under a valid license. Tan Khaerr (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license is fake. Qasioun News Agency is not the author of the file. The author is ISIS https://www.nbcnews.com/video/isis-shows-off-military-hardware-294035523889. Soulr8 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moody Center Front Plaza.jpg

This image appears to be an artists impression of the arena, meaning that this image most likely is not the author's original work and is rather a rendering of the stadium before it was constructed. BullDawg2021 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Il Bosco Verticale Milano Px (137734459).jpeg

No FoP in Italy, architect César Pelli died in 2019 A1Cafel (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on! A shadow?! We're clearly under the high italian ToO IMHO, a shadow of a building is not copyrighted...

As for the Unicredit Tower, we can see here practically only glasses, without the category we wouldn't even understand which building is, it could literally be any skyscraper in the world, we are IMHO under the ToO too. Friniate (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JoshuaLoyd.jpg

Claimed own work but file EXIF shows "Author Andrea Hanks". VRT permission from Andrea Hanks needed. MKFI (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Also File:JoshuaLoyd (cropped).jpg. MKFI (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the sole owner of this work and have authorized its release. The image is paid for and I own ownership rights to the image. Originally paid for to be used as a professional LinkedIn headshot for a business and network. IllinoisThirteen (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have in writing the transfer of copyright ownership from the photographer. Photo performed in conjunction with TurningPoint USA and CPI IllinoisThirteen (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IllinoisThirteen: since this is a work for hire image it is best that you send proof of the copyright authorization to VRT so Commons has a verification of the copyright. You can use Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. MKFI (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LoydWestPoint.jpg

This might be {{PD-USGov-Military}} but it is not own work as claimed. MKFI (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo FBlanco.jpg

This is the logo of a new company which uses the same name as Tabacalera (1945-1999). The new company is likely non-notable, and we shouldn't store the logos of non-notable companies. The logo of the old company is File:Logo Tabacalera.svg Polygnotus (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panonceaux de licences.jpg

Registered picture at INPI Rems03338 (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Ohrid View.jpg

found this on https://www.instagram.com/p/C1RzMP8tbu2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== – no evidence that Fatush is Valeria Albinfo (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SalMar.svg

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as Logo Borderline, let's have a proper DR. Yann (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO Norway doesn't provide enough information to help us understand whether this logo is copyrighted or public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felicia Barría Vera.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://desconocidatierradelsur.blogspot.com/2017/04/patagoniamagallanes-exposicion-mujeres.html Yann (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corporate Logo of Inland Revenue.svg

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo PD-UKGov? Yann (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cao Diqiu.jpg

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a mere allegation RevolutionaryAppreciator (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China is quite clear that no published photo created after 1945 is in the public domain in the US. This photo was created in 1967 and clearly published afterwards (the image in the source is clearly a scan). Günther Frager (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LINIJA 10.png

Picture taken from Google StreetView Öffis Graz (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simulation of the MMX Rover landing.webm

wrong licence, source says "Credit: DLR (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)" Artem.G (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same for File:Test model of MMX rover detail.jpg, File:The MMX rover moving on Phobos.jpg, and File:The MMX rover moving on Phobos (cropped).jpg. Artem.G (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contest the deletion request, it was released under a free license at the time of import, then the DLR changed license. Please don't delete the files. vip (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be accurate; the archived page at [21] has the images clearly marked as "CC-BY 3.0". Omphalographer (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I'm adding a link to the archived page to each. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altyn Asyr FC 1.svg

Needs permission if deemed above COM:TOO Turkmenistan which doesn't exist. Jonteemil (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AdventHealth Winter Park logo.png

Superseded/SVG available, File:AH WinterPark 4c.svg -αβοοδ (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited the Source URL listed at File:AdventHealth_Winter_Park_logo.png - https://www.adventhealth.com/hospital/adventhealth-winter-park - the logo my browser was served was the SVG I uploaded (with a width of 200 set in the img tag on the page). I am not sure where the PNG I am requesting for deletion actually came from, are there browsers that save SVG as raster/PNG by default? -αβοοδ (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UteBeadworkHorseBag.jpg

Creative work, almost certainly modern made, uploaded in 2006 by now-banned sock on enwiki Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UteBeadwork1.jpg

Creative work, almost certainly modern made, uploaded in 2006 by now-banned sock on enwiki Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greatincline.png

Photo uncredited and lacking source information. Could be as late as 1936. Before Wikipedia it appeared in LA Times article (uncredited) 2002 or earlier. (See Brief History) Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 1936 image would have required copyright registration and renew that copyright. I cannot find any image of this description in either database. --RAN (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Anonpso (talk · contribs)

Not own work. US newspaper scans from 1947 (first three, International News Service, author James L. Kilgallen, died 1982) and 1984. Unsure how notice and renewal works with newspaper, the 1947 ones may be public domain, the 1984 one is unlikely to be.

TFerenczy (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Buffalo News and the Poughkeepsie Journal did not renew any copyrights, so they expired that are prior to 1964. I looked at the masthead and the publishers paragraph and there are no copyright formalities used, that was required up 1989. --RAN (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

File:Sreethu Krishnan latest photo shoot picture 2024.jpg

Uploaded by SPA to a Wikipedia page that is filled with SOCK editing. Uploader likely does not own the copyright to the image. CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wuwenhao19960507 (talk · contribs)

Copyright violation and not own work. Low resolution. Photos can be found in the Internet by Google search.

SCP-2000 02:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the picture on the Chinese app Xiaohongshu. I contacted the author of the picture, DK, and he agreed to let me use it on Wikipedia. The following is the chat record between me and the author. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507: Hello, thanks for your reply.

Could you please provide the exact link to these photos? Moreover, could you please ask the author to declare a suitable license, for example CC-BY-SA 4.0 (which is usually used on Wikimedia Commons), by either following this instruction or sending an email to the Volunteer Response Team? SCP-2000 04:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-uploaded the image using CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and marked the author's name on the image. Does this meet the requirements? This is the original author's publishing page Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507: Hello, you have to ask the author to declare a suitable license by themselves, by following above mentioned instruction. Thanks. SCP-2000 05:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-uploaded the image. Is this OK? I will ask the original author to write a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is this correct? This is my first time uploading an image, so there are these errors. Thank you for your guidance. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507: Hello, you don't need to re-upload photos. I will ask the original author to write a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yes, it is correct. Thanks for your help. SCP-2000 10:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrator, I have sent the email according to your instructions. The content link is here. Do you think this is correct? Thank you for your guidance. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507: Hello, you have to ask the author to send the email by themselves, rather than yourself. Thanks. SCP-2000 14:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If need a higher resolution picture, I can ask the author to provide it and re-upload it. But this is a copyrighted work. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuwenhao19960507: Hello, thank you for your effort in contributing images. I have received and verified the permissions for these two photos File:Dafowan.DK.jpg File:Thousand-Hand Guanyin.DK.jpg. As File:Dafowan.jpg and File:Thousand-Hand Guanyin.jpg are duplicate, it is unnecessary to keep them anymore.

Moreover, I have not received permission for File:Beishan Rock Carvings.jpg. Do you want to keep this photo? If so, please ask the author to send an email to us. Thank you again. SCP-2000 16:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to keep this photo, thank you. Wuwenhao19960507 (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pergamon World Atlas

All files in these categories:

Category:Pergamon World Atlas (2 files)
- Category:Thematic maps of Pergamon World Atlas (92 files)
- Category:Topographic maps of Pergamon World Atlas (103 files)
  - Category:Inset city maps of Pergamon World Atlas (129 files)
  - Category:Inset regional maps of Pergamon World Atlas (68 files)

These are over 300 maps scanned from Pergamon World Atlas, published in 1968 (the maps appear to be created in 1967). I see no reason for those files to be hosted here on the CC-BY-SA licence.

The source page mentions that those maps may be copirighted and its the user responsibility to seek permission. Once the permission is obtained they will allow the use of their material under a Creative Commons non-commercial license. --Botev (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also raised that question with the uploader. These are fine maps, but the institution that created them seems defunct (Polish Army Topography Service). So, the initial uploader should provide a reasoning why Polish copyright would allow Commons to host the files, potentially some kind of exception for government-produced material.

Otherwise, my current assumption is that this atlas can enter public domain at earliest in 1968 + 70 + 1. So, review for Undelete 2039. --Enyavar (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid those maps would still be copyrighted in the USA for 95 years after publication due to URAA, so it's more like Undelete 2064. --Botev (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afaid I may not fully grasp the URAA legal conditions, but I did check them out. As far as I see it, the Pergamon Atlas was published in both Poland (Book No. 08-001958) and the United States (LoC Card No. 67-20808) in 1968, and that would mean it was still copyrighted as of 1996. The Main Tests thus indicate 1a YES AND 1b NO => 1=NO and 2=YES; with a NO on either of these two tests resulting in URAA not being applicable, unless I misunderstood the tests. That would mean the copyright still is in place until 2039 but not 2064. (Unless there is an applicable PD license to be found, and I somehow have doubts with that, see below.) --Enyavar (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's useful, but some of these maps are being used for commercial purposes, like here and here. So, from this point of view, I don't have issues with these maps.--Babelia (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is we need explaination as to why these maps can be used freely for any purpose and by anyone. The mere fact that someone sells those maps is not enough. From this point of view, I regard these maps as copyrighted. --Botev (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babelia, there is sadly a reason why Commons has a lack media from between the 1950s and 2000s.

David Rumsey and other sites are apparently seing no risks with getting sued - or there are 'secret' agreements with the copyright owners that they don't (and don't need need to) make transparent. Commons has different principles, so Botev is right here. Commons needs to verify that the maps are free to use, and we currently can't. Abandonment by the copyright owners does not waive copyright - we either need to point to the concrete rule that makes this material free from copyright; or we need a free licensing statement by the copyright owners that can be attached via VRT. --Enyavar (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, on the second thought, I wonder if those maps can qualify as official material and fall under {{PD-Polishsymbol}}, perhaps? --Botev (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything needed to keep these images in Commons. Babelia (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a rule that you can bend into applying, please do so. The current license attached to all these files would NOT apply, and I would doubt that PD-Polishsymbol is much better: are these maps "official documents", just because a military cartography institute made them? Each of the full pages has a copyright symbol indicating the (mostly defunct) copyright holders, and their copyright has not yet expired, since only about three generations have passed. I would think that we could all squint our eyes and let it pass if proper licenses with a valid rationale get attached. Since I cannot think of anyone who might still profit commercially of 1967 statistical maps. The data is long outdated, but seems like a good base if we can truly consider it free historical knowledge. However, Babelia you should be aware of Commons:PCP. Commons does not operate on fair use, and life is not fair use either.

On the plus side, I would think that SVG derivatives that only use the displayed data but not the style of these maps, would not fall under copyright. --Enyavar (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we could squint our eyes - either it's copyrighted or it isn't. Yes, I was thinking it might be "official material" because a military institute made it in the course of performing its tasks but if you say it has a copyright notice than it isn't. In that case

Delete. --Botev (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comet C2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) from Ohio.png

Author is Saurabh Rahurkar, not the same as the uploader, I doubt the claim of own work of this photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is me. Cave Johnson is not a real person, they are a character from a video game. Most people don't use their full names as their wikipedia username. For instance I am sure A1Cafel is not the real name of the person who is raising doubts

Happy to provide raw files if that will convince the doubters. Cave Johnson (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cave Johnson: You can submit a prove of identity to VRT--A1Cafel (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide instructions on how to do so. The page you linked talks about emailing and the raw file is much too large for emailing.

I also need to know that this interaction will be deleted after that verification since I don't want my irl life identity associated here.

I would also like to know who you are and what your role with Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons is before I engage in this laborious exercise. Your user page offers no information on your credibility to make these requests although they do state your preferences on keeping your real life unmolested. Clearly, you seem to think it's OK to maintain your "real life" separate from Wikipedia life yet seem to not afford the same consideration to other users. Again, while I can easily provide the RAW, I am indignant at this overstepping and casual accusation of stealing work when based on the licensing settings, this issue could be easily addressed by adding an attribution. Not to mention, editing EXiF information is a trivial task. If a person—myself included—wanted to pass off another person's work as their own, it is absurdly easy to either scrub the EXIF data or to edit it to change the author. This series of accusations could easily continue on and on, and a person could easily raise doubts on the provenance of the RAW files since anybody can change the author name in the meta data/exif. Cave Johnson (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can assume good faith here. All EXIF by uploader matches, including other uploads and file description details which would not likely be available if the image was stolen. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comet C2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS).png

Author is Saurabh Rahurkar, not the same as the uploader, I doubt the ownership of this photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is me. Cave Johnson is not a real person, they are a character from a video game. Most people don't use their full names as their wikipedia username. For instance I am sure A1Cafel is not the real name of the person who is raising doubts

Happy to provide raw files if that will convince the doubters.

Cave Johnson (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cave Johnson: You can submit a prove of identity to VRT--A1Cafel (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comet C2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) from Ohio.png. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:C2023 A3 Tsuchinshan-ATLAS over the Grand Canyon, Oct 12.jpg

Author is Robert Zusman, not the same as the uploader, I doubt the ownership of the photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s my photo.

Why do you think that a Wikipedia user name is necessarily the same as a given name? The Boy from Mars (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:C2023 A3 Tsuchinshan-ATLAS over the Grand Canyon, Oct 13.jpg

Author is Robert Zusman, not the same as the uploader, I doubt the ownership of the photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajna le goat.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as no permission (No permission since) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes les photos téléchargées par l'uploader ont les mêmes métadonnées. Il ne me paraitrait pas absurde que ces photos ne soient pas juste trouvées sur la toile. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comet Tsuchinshan.jpg

Author is Rado Moskov per watermark, not the same as the uploader, I doubt the ownership of the photo A1Cafel (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem with my picture try to make anything better than come back to me right. I am Rado Moskov — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.144.37.54 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajna français.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as no permission (No permission since) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes les photos téléchargées par l'uploader ont les mêmes métadonnées. Il ne me paraitrait pas absurde que ces photos ne soient pas juste trouvées sur la toile. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajna rappeur new wave.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as no permission (No permission since) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes les photos téléchargées par l'uploader ont les mêmes métadonnées. Il ne me paraitrait pas absurde que ces photos ne soient pas juste trouvées sur la toile. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajna concert Poitiers.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as no permission (No permission since) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes les photos téléchargées par l'uploader ont les mêmes métadonnées. Il ne me paraitrait pas absurde que ces photos ne soient pas juste trouvées sur la toile. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luther Concert à Lille.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as no source (No source since) CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toutes les photos téléchargées par l'uploader ont les mêmes métadonnées. Il ne me paraitrait pas absurde que ces photos ne soient pas juste trouvées sur la toile. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HIGHres-9742x800x530.jpg

Uploaded as own work, but appears eg. at https://viveen.info/info/biography/ DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait du Footballeur Algérien Adel Lakhdari.jpg

Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdalwadid.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Riad Salih as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 12:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maplegroveflag.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 94.140.246.27 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 12:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruins of Torre del Oro (Almonte) by José María Luna.jpg

Title indicated that this photo is taken by José María Luna, not the same as the user page (Ángel), which means this is not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A1Cafel. The title of the photo simply indicates who took it and that person gave me full ownership of it, for it’s a free license photo. I wrote his name in the title on purpose as a simple gesture of deference. If there’s anything I can do to prevent the file from deletion, let me know.

Thanks. AngPz91 (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AngPz91: You may ask him to submit a written permission to VRT to prove the free license. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, село Залужжя.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1975. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, село Кобилля, Збаразький район.jpg

And also

File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, село Кобилля.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1970. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilhelm Friedrich Boger (1906-1977).jpg

A photo of SS member Wilhelm Boger in uniform, taken from findagrave.com without any further details like the time and place it was taken. Presumably photographed between 1930 (when he joined the SS) and 1945.

It is claimed to be a {{PD-Poland}} photograph, presumably because Boger was present at Auschwitz for about two years, but no source and time of first publication (as demanded by that template) is given, nor is there any evidence at all that the photo was first published or even taken in Poland, so it is more likely a photo from Germany.

Without any further details about time, place, author, first publication etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo, and there's a good chance that it is still copyrighted in either Germany or the US or both. The file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 17:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en.Wikipedia should upload this photo locally for w:Wilhelm Boger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nafisa06 (talk · contribs)

Likely not own works: many low-res/web-size images with missing or FB/transmission code in EXIF data, larger images with inconsistent EXIF data or credit to someone else (e.g. File:BRACU01.jpg credited to Mahmud Zaman Ovi). All photos and videos of same person, unlikely that uploader was present at all these diverse places and times.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gmkarve2024 (talk · contribs)

This contains, or appears to contain, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This editor is a long term Sockpuppet. Please see w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmkarve. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VT-ANU B788 Air India Star Alliance livery DME 2 33259690292 2-1536x864.webp

Duplicate of File:VT-ANU B788 Air India Star Alliance livery DME (2) (33259690292) (2).jpg, except incorrectly credited and in an inferior format Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo d'utilisateur.jpg

Metadata credits Yeko Photo Studio, not the uploader Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quelques chiffres sur LG2 (40880074465).jpg

Even though the file is in a free license, the pictures on the board is most likely copyrighted. de minimis can't be applied here. Kakan spelar (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2507 Lydia 1890-09094u.jpg

Inferior quality version of File:"Lydia"-LCCN2002708353.jpg Sam Walton (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1er Zouave à Casablanca - nouvelle caserne (Maroc sous protectorat français) 1934.jpg

1934 photograph created in Morocco, which was a French protectorate at the time. Publication and photographer information would be needed to determine if French or Moroccan copyright law applies. Possibly public domain but that needs to be proven. Abzeronow (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little Britain скетч шоу логотип.png

Might be above COM:TOO UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

File:Corpse Bride Logo.svg

The font is too complex and intricate to be classified as a mere text, there is a possibility that it exceeds the threshold of originality. Taichi (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree. Read the following in COM:TOO US: the US Copyright Office does not consider text effects to be sufficiently unique to render a logo copyrightable, stating that "the mere use of text effects (including chalk, popup papercraft, neon, beer glass, spooky-fog, and weathered-and-worn), while potentially separable, is de minimis and not sufficient to support a registration". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:North facade of the Grande Arche de la Défense - 20050906.jpg

No FoP in France, architect Johan Otto von Spreckelsen died in 1987 and Erik Reitzel died in 2012 A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No creative architectural elements can be seen. This is just a close-up of simple plate glass windows. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Let's see what the closing admin says. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I see here are rectangles. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kegiatan belajar menggunakan komputer.png

Copyrighted image from document at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379511 (page 36). From the document: "UNICEF-owned photographs are copyrighted and exempted from the terms of the 3.0 IGO CC-BY-SA license outside the context of the Work." WikiEditor50 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kegiatan belajar-mengajar oleh anak-anak di masa Covid-19.png

Copyrighted image from document at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379511 (page 22). From the document: "UNICEF-owned photographs are copyrighted and exempted from the terms of the 3.0 IGO CC-BY-SA license outside the context of the Work." WikiEditor50 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Communist Trans Liberation Flag.jpg

Not released into PD. Original content posted on Reddit are copyrighted unless noted. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover Honeckers Enkel Roberto.Eine Rückkehr nach Deutschland..jpg

Release to commons by the photographer is missing. Tohma (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Головний корпус КПІ імені Сікорського.webm

video of one photo without audio; pls upload the photo instead or fix the video issue Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assimi Goïta à Moscou.jpg

Prises par des photographes de TASS News Agency, donc pas concernées par la licence libre du site du Kremlin, un rappel de Titlutin Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Kliun – Cubist at her dressing table.tif

low resolution duplicate of File:Ivan Kliun, Cubist at her Dressing Table, not later than 1915.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beamtenhaus 1910.jpg

This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no license (No license since)

It has a license but a dubious one. 1910 German photograph, possibly public domain but we'd need to know photographer died before 1954 to keep. Too young for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bleecksche Villa 1910.jpg

This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no license (No license since)

It has a license but a dubious one. 1910 German photograph, possibly public domain but we'd need to know photographer died before 1954 to keep. Too young for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License fixed to "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Where is the evidence that the author deliberately never disclosed their identity? 2. For pre-1995 works, German law says that if the author was ever known, it cannot be anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 21 October 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.

File:BB&T_Bank_logo.png

low-quality (artifacts) unused; replaceable with File:BB&T Logo.svg; logo is trademarked, so want to minimize amount of non-freely-reusable content on commons DMacks (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We do not generally delete png files just because an svg is available. There is no copyright here and we do not worry about trademark. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BB&T Bank logo.png

Per last DR, exceptionally low quality image with absolutely no realistic educational use - significantly higher quality SVG exists. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Primer escudo de Oriente Petrolero.png

Es extremadamente falso,no es la bandera original ,la bandera no viene con esos colores 🌈 Rexenticford (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El escudo es extremadamente falso,ha Sido modificado y además no tiene esos colores 🌈 Rexenticford (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{ subst : delete3 |pg=File:Primer escudo de Oriente Petrolero.png}} — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 177.222.37.49 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Primer_escudo_de_Oriente_Petrolero.png[reply]

El escudo es falso no pertenece al club y no tiene nada que ver con lo relacionado de la busqueda Lucianoxddd12345 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Entrance to the Grand Canal at Ringsend - geograph.org.uk - 4542145.jpg

Blurred image. Can easily be replaced with any of the pictures in Category:Grand Canal Docks sign. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Bryansk Forest Sternly Stirred.ogg

There is no source and the music is unofficial. Katuni5 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both statements are not true: the source is given, and from this source one can find out that the music is official. 5.142.178.40 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:34 - Guerre du Rif.jpg

1930s photograph created in Morocco. No information on when it was first published, which is important in determining its copyright status in Morocco and the U.S. Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Lienau 00.jpg

Eigenes Werk? Selbst gezeichnet? GerritR (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen Lienau 01.jpg

Eigenes Werk? Selbst gezeichnet? GerritR (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Familienwappen .gif

Hat der Hochlader diese Grafik wirklich selbst gezeichnet, ist es wirklich eigenes Werk? GerritR (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:عبدالرحمن محمودي (Abdul Rahman Mahmudi).png

Unless we can obtain proof of publication prior to 1945, the copyright on this image in the US would have been extended by the URAA. Consequently, it is non-free in the US. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean Jacques Charbonier.jpg

Est-ce qu'on a bien reçu l'email envoyé à permission-fr@wikipedia.org et est-ce qu'on peut faire une VRT ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original PSQ.jpg

"Found it from another source" does not explain why it would be PD-US, and doesn't have a US copyright tag. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My dad is the last living member of the group and he has authorized me to use the images of the group. THanks much

Karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamber Music Queen (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find no image of the group in the copyright registration database or renewal database. I can find registration for their recordings. --RAN (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New NAIA Logo.svg

The logo is from the New NAIA Infrastructure Corporation (see en:Ninoy Aquino International Airport#Privatization and rehabilitation), might be copyrighted under Philippine laws (see COM:TOO Philippines). Might be eligible for fair use in en-wiki. 2001:4453:549:9100:5137:A10C:7B80:715E 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

File:Mural @ Coit Tower @ San Francisco (16949959531).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a WPA mural, so it should be in the public domain as a work of the US Federal government. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia.png

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this government report, it stated this logo was first illustrated by Syed Abu Bakar Syed Salim in the early year of 1980s. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Everyday Objects Under the Microscope (SHOCKING).webm

“Dude, heh-heh-heh… This sucks.” (Beavis and Butthead impression) Arguably this is patronizing content authors, but I doubt this media is suitable for any serious educational use. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Are you being serious here? It features lots of microscopic videos of interesting subjects. For example it's the only microscopic imagery of toilet paper. Moreover, it's notable because of the popular attention and useful also for illustrating the JET Crew, e.g. if there ever is an article on them. You really should look into videos on WMC, most of them are not nearly as useful as this one, not all content has to be boring and uneducational. This one is about putting things under the microscope and clearly is educational and more useful than ~95% of videos on WMC, I have concerns that you don't understand COM:SCOPE and have not seen many videos on here...please browse some. Moreover, those comedic type of content is also useful for that purpose and such reactions don't make a video less useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless ways this file is useful so I didn't list all of them...for example also 'Microscopy in popular culture' etc. Nowhere is it implied WMC would only host serious content, what is "serious" about these files for just one example? Please first get familiar with WMC such as viewing a few newly uploaded videos before nominating content. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective:

Notability, interestingness, or popularity are irrelevant for Commons. Please leave these concerns to Wikipedia discussions where they can matter.
Special: Search/microscope~ "toilet paper"~ yields File: Туалетная бумага.jpg.
The constant shaking renders the microscopic imagery worthless for sincere depictions of the objects under magnification. The main subject of the video is rather two dudes toying around with their new gear.
Actually I criticized the referenced category, but the current deletion policy does not merit precedent. The argument “we must keep A, because B was kept” or “we must delete B, because C was deleted” is not recognized. Every file is assessed individually (and that’s also why said category is filled to the brim with female nudes).
Sorry for the inadvertent double entendre, the content does not need to be serious, but it must be realistically useful to teach/instruct/educate. Frankly, if my physics teachers in school had been fooling around like this, I would not have learned anything. That is my point. Apparently you’re a different kind of learner, though.

‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention notability or interestingness as a reason to keep what I said/meant is that this is educational in terms of informing about popular culture and e.g. types of popculture media content.
You really mean to argue that because there is one image that looks entirely different that this one comprehensive video would not be useful?
And? WMC can have videos of guys toying around. What is the main subject to you may not be the actual main subject and is not the actual subject to me. The microscopic videos are the main content and the reactions to that are also useful and context.
As said over ~80% of videos on WMC are far less useful and less educational than this video. So I suggest that instead on insisting you know things here well despite being a very new user very unfamiliar with the site you first look around such as first editing for a while.
Achieved with the microscopic videos contained there. You would learn how things look at the microscopic scale that can't be seen with bare eyes.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The educational value of this video - which, to be clear, is two guys joking around with a USB microscope, not a serious attempt to demonstrate microscopy - is negligible, and I don't see any substantial likelihood that it could be useful in educational content on Wikimedia sites. Mirroring comedy shows is not a good use of Wikimedia resources. Omphalographer (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To document the notable people, in fact one of the people in the video has a Wikipedia article
Microscopy in popular culture
What reaction videos are
No explanation given, you just don't like it and want to COM:CENSOR it due to that while ignoring my points
COM:INUSE anyway
The video features various household objects under the microscope of which we have no other media, it's one of the most educational valuable contents due to that...for example the one and only media showing how toilet paper looks like under toilet paper

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also lots of other things like various particular parts of human skin etc of which there is no media. That you want to delete this educationally valuable media just reveals your censorship attitude. This is one of the most valuable educational files on here, more educational and more useful thanat least ~80% of videos on here, and there is no policy for that content has to be boring. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info You should disclose that you created these uses in response to this deletion request. At the point in time of the deletion nomination the file was not in use. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create them "in response", I missed adding them earlier since I didn't know there was a Wikipedia article about one of the two people and didn't look into this video much until now. I'm very much allowed to add them after the DR was opened. Nominating files for deletion that are as useful as this is the problem, not that the file that is clearly useful is put into use. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: It’s a matter of courtesy. Without it you create the impression I filed this DR in spite of (then‑)present uses. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 04:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Amanda Hoelzel (talk · contribs)

Old photos, dates of death from 1970 to 2011. Not 2021 own work

Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-Brazil-Photo, Brazil did not award copyright for ordinary photos. --RAN (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gijs Tuinman RMWO (cropped).jpg

incompatible license non free image see metadata "Author Rick Smulders Copyright holder R. Smulders www.ricksmulders.nl Online copyright statement www.ricksmulders.nl" Hoyanova (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prabowo-Gibran Baliho 2023.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator may be correct about FOP in Indonesia. However, the image is not claimed to be FOP. Rather, the artwork on the depicted poster is described as AI-generated, consistent with a statement that the publisher of the poster provided to Indonesian media [22] (cited at en:Prabowo_Subianto_2024_presidential_campaign#Controversies).

Per Commons:AI-generated_media#Copyrights_of_person_using_generative_AI this implies that the artwork would be public domain in most countries, which includes Indonesia according to this article authored by some Indonesian lawyers:

Despite being entirely new creations, images generated by AI cannot be copyrighted because they do not meet the criteria of uniqueness and personal expression required by the Indonesian Copyright Law.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB the policy page on AI-generated media should be reformatted to include specific rules by each jurisdiction. Alternately, all of CRT pages should have a section devoted to AI-generated media, and those sections be transcluded to that policy page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: It's an idea, but probably one that is better discussed on the talk pages of COM:AI and/or COM:CRT. For now I have added a mention at COM:AI. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The news source you're linking to is about a TV advert, not this billboard. Belbury (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: Yes, it is about the use of AI-generated images (assuming that Google and Bing translate dari teks menjadi gambar yang di-generate melalui AI correctly) in a TV advert, not a poster. But I meant "consistent" in the sense that this source confirms that the campaign had been using AI-generated images in general.

In any case, this Reuters article features this particular poster motive as illustration for the use of generative AI in those elections, writing that A doe-eyed cartoon version of Gen. Prabowo Subianto - produced using generative AI - is emblazoned on billboards across Indonesia. It's reproduced on sweatshirts and stickers, and featured prominently on #Prabowo-tagged posts that have some 19 billion views on TikTok.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with HaeB, {{PD-algorithm}} should apply here even though it can't be de minimis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marked. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dai-tuong-luong-cuong-tieu-su 1.jpg

Taken from Báo Quân đội nhân dân, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tongi graffiti 7.jpg

No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tongi graffiti 8.jpg

No FoP for painting in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inisfree Foundation, cleanup ca. 1970.jpg

COM:Derivative work: photograph-of-photograph, original source and author unknown. MKFI (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samfylkingin merki 2023.svg

~~The uploading user is not the copyright owner. Maybe this qualifies as simple logo though? Bjarki S (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

On second thought, I changed the license to PD-textlogo and removed the deletion request. If someone disagrees that it meets the threshold for PD-textlogo, they can revive this request. --Bjarki S (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks too complex to me, especially as COM:TOO Iceland is a red link. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yahya al-Sinwar 2011.png

The file is an AI upscaled version of File:Gaza police exercise in 2011 (05).jpg. I believe this file is redundant as it doesn't adhere to the Manual of Style regarding AI-assisted upscaling of images, i.e. MOS:HOTLINK. Additionally, I believe the file currently used for the English article on Yahya Sinwar (File:Yahya_Sinwar_portrait_3x4.jpg) is preferable in accordance with MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. Quidama (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or overwrite with an un-upscaled version if this crop is useful. Per COM:Redundant The low quality source of this upscale makes it look like a watercolor. . Narnat (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have uploaded the No-AI version of the image, and the 3:5 aspect ratio of this bust shot is quite good. Perhaps other languages Wikipedia might want to use it, keeping it will be useful. Nagae Iku (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lol message in convo.jpg

Screenshot including copyrighted Apple emoji (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg) where they are broadly the focus of the screenshot and editing them out would alter the meaning. Belbury (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are 2 small emoji's in the image. I can't see how they are copyrighted since every other media company uses practically the same emoji's. Apple didn't invent the emoji's. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Different companies use different, original artwork for emojis, and not all choose to release them under free licences. Some companies like Android and Firefox have subcategories at Category:Emoji by theme, but Apple is conspicuously absent there.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg is a DR with a quote from their usage guidelines. Belbury (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Union Geretsberg gegen Union Ostermiething 1b (2024-05-11) 04.jpg

The picture merely shows the side view of a referee at an amateur football match without a recognisable match situation and without documentary value. It does not contribute to the illustration of a Wikipedia article and offers no added value for articles about football or the clubs involved (Union Geretsberg, Union Ostermiething). Despite its good technical quality, the image does not fulfil the requirements for content quality. Commons is not a private photo album, but serves to provide images with documentary value, which is not the case here. Reb-el-mar (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:스매쉬캐스트 로고.png

Unnecessary Redirect YeBoy371 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:연합뉴스TV 로고.png

Unnecessary Redirect YeBoy371 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keepy up, Amy Sharrocks photo Hugo Glendinning.jpg

Likely not own work: credit in EXIF data not matching the uploader. And not notable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mjibndeen (talk · contribs)

Historical photos, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. And File:Allama Muhammad Din Sialvi.jpg is taken from FB as per EXIT data.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunsthalle Mesmer.jpg

Unused photo of nondescript logo/pattern, no context, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context is in the file name (albeit with a typo): Category:Kunsthalle Messmer. Might be a architectural element or part of the exhibition in that art gallery. If it's a work of art, it might fall under the threshold of originality maybe? The gallery is located in Germany. Nakonana (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lancement de Tweest à la Cantine (4274913318).jpg

Unused photo of non-notable event/people, no context/location, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: photo of Category:Ronan Le Goff attending event at which other notables were present SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Thanks for your reply, but how do you know it is actually Ronan Le Goff? --P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hair and clothes are the same as another photo of him on the same day (File:Ronan Le Goff (4274169927) (1).jpg) SecretName101 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it is COM:REDUNDANT. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redundancy tends to be images so similar to eachother that there is no conceivable difference in use of both SecretName101 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK Government Crown Crest 2024.png

The United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0 does not cover the Royal Arms. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK Government Crown Crest 2024 black.svg

The United Kingdom Open Government Licence v3.0 does not cover the Royal Arms. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HF-Dichtung Ausschnitt.jpg

Unused and needless tiny crop from File:HF-Dichtung 660x660.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag-map of Jamaica.svg

No muestra la imagen. Maximum 1995 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot explain what happened to the image, but this seems to be a Commons-wide problem as I've seen it happen to other files over the last few months as well. The file will need to be repaired. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald Davies.jpg

No evidence that this photo has been released under CC BY-SA 4.0 as claimed by the uploader (the given source page doesn't say so, it also didn't around the time of the upload). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Osu!

I am nominating these files for deletion (including one of my own) because osu!'s licensing is complicated. osu!lazer is under an MIT license [23] but the skin, etc. could be not permissible as it is a CC BY-NC license. [24] This deletion request should help sort out the components which are permissible and the components that are not.

Aasim (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader of File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg. This file was previously nominated for deletion here, and was kept under Commons:De minimis. I have no strong feelings regarding this file, it was uploaded years ago before I really understood copyright, and it is no longer used on enwiki. I simply wanted to bring the previous deletion discussion into the scope of the conversation. Thanks, Scaledish (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were osu! images on wikimedia commons already, I thought I could upload one screenshot and I didn't think that this would happen. However, since this happened now, I am not against deleting those screenshots, including my screenshot (in fact, please delete my screenshot) TheRealUser3412 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Slider2.jpg and File:Hit circle.png that might be COM:TOO in the US at least. Not sure about Australia where osu! originates. Aasim (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пам'ятник О. Й. Партицькому, українському вченому-мовознавцю.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1995. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:GamerHashaam

GamerHashaam (talk) has uploaded multiple files that have been subsequently deleted for copyright violations – see upload log here. User has often tagged these files as own work when they patently are not. Per COM:PAKISTAN and COM:US the original photographs from 1965 are possibly in the public domain. However, no precise publication information is available via reverse image search, which only points to Facebook, etc. --Peloneous (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4 канал (2020-2021).svg

Ukrainian logo, no information at COM:Ukraine about ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Нормальний логотип, взятий з відкритих джерел, ліцензія та ж, що і на сайті джерела. Тим більше, це закритий телеканал, ніхто судитися з Вікіпедією не буде. Залиште лого. Iamthebest3000 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Фендом не є власником авторських прав, а телевізійна станція. Крім того, «вони не подадуть до суду» суперечить духу Wikimedia Commons. Що мені потрібно знати, якщо поріг оригінальності в Україні.

[Fendom ne ye vlasnykom avtorsʹkykh prav, a televiziyna stantsiya. Krim toho, «vony ne podadutʹ do sudu» superechytʹ dukhu Wikimedia Commons. Shcho meni potribno znaty, yakshcho porih oryhinalʹnosti v Ukrayini.] (via Google translate) @NickK: Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:5-4 PIANC meet Pope Pius XII, Congress 1953.jpg

1953 Belgian photograph, possibly PD there if published in 1953, but would have been restored by URAA. Likely needs VRT from organization. Abzeronow (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miss Universe Latvia 2023.jpg

The sourced youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=dqo2DRVu3ow has a CC license. However, during the recorded interview some (unsourced) still photographs are displayed that IMO are not covered by the CC license as they most likely are not shot by Chance TV. This photo can be seen on Kate's Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/kate.xeeva/p/CmuIU0wKWd3/ Achim55 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucid Games Logo.svg

Might be above COM:TOO UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word "Lucid" in a bog-standard font and two slashes in a blue box. I don't think this is something even the UK would copyright. Unlike the Edge example cited in the TOO guideline, the font here has seemingly not been altered in any meaningful way. IceWelder [✉] 06:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The font may still be copyrighted in the UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, it is just a bold Helvetica, not a proprietary font that would fall under UK copyright law. IceWelder [✉] 06:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two slashes in a box may be enough original effort to merit copyright in COM:TOO UK.

Delete per COM:PCP? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

File:Ezekiel Oluwatosin Adewunmi.jpg

Per discussion [25], editor is simply indicating that they "have permission" from someone managing a LinkedIn from the company. Is not "own work." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1!2 Price Stores Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fedco Discount Stores Final Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peoples Drug Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lane Drug Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MINIPRECO.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Logo (help=off). To me the logo seems simple enough. Bedivere (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – we do not need to delete this one. Gnom (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as to the ToO threshold for logos in Portugal (this is from pt.wiki, so assuming Portugal copyright laws), but the photo definitely isn't copyrightable, but the logo might be. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely below the threshold of originality for logos under Portuguese copyright law. Gnom (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gnom. This is below the ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thrift Drug Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hess's-The Bon-Ton Transition Logo.png

I uploaded it not knowing that even know the company is defunct, it may still be copyrighted March8613 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMC Canter ZW-4832 and a sex shop 20060318.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @A1Cafel: Advertising poster removed. Solomon203 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stele of Weni the Elder.jpg

Likely copyviol from https://whitelevy.fas.harvard.edu/biographies-person-and-place-tomb-complex-weni-elder-abydos-vols-i-and-ii 89.97.197.105 05:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Text mdnp

U3: “Inappropriate use of user pages. These include user pages […] that contain gibberish or unrecognisable content.” This does not appear to constitute anything intelligible, resembling formatting experiments one might encounter in a sandbox. Dronebogus (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tgalleria auckland by dfs.JPG

Unlikely to be own work due to low quality. The same image can be found here [26] with attribution to User:Pear285 from 2013, although this image is missing. I request an admin to check if Pear285 has any deleted uploads. Also nominating File:DFS by T Galleria Auckland.jpg Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Saidboateng1431 (talk · contribs)

No exif, unlikely to be own work of new user. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No copyright in Somalia. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lakeuden ristin suihkulähde.jpg

Derivative work. Fountain sculpture unveiled in 1963 by Alvar Aalto (Wikidata:Q82840), died in 1976. Not in PD yet, no Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptures, buildings only. Htm (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Poe Jr.png

It's a mistake that's Edgar Allan Poe not his dad IceStorm 54 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally, I'd say rename and correct/update the info, but we have several versions of the same portrait: File:Edgar Allan Poe; a Centenary Tribute - Portrait of Edgar Allan Poe p32.png and File:Edgar Allan Poe by John Sartain, 1849, mezzotint and engraving on paper, from the National Portrait Gallery - NPG-S-NPG 78 36.jpg and File:Edgar A. Poe (NYPL Hades-255666-430693).jpg. If an additional oval, cropped version is needed, a better quality version could be extracted from one of these. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajabagan police station.jpg

Not clear pic Soumava2002 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly usable, but if you'd like to resubmit, consider submitting a larger photo, and include EXIF Metadata to show clearly that you took the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The user usually don't submit good-quality photos compared to average photos uploaded by many other Indian users, which often lead me to doubt whether the photos are taken by him (yes, Soumava, a variant of Soumyabha, is a male name). Some of the photos are aerial shots. Let me ping him to confirm it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment, User:Soumava2002? Are the photos you submit photos you shot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nu, User:Soumava2002? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sangha (Republic of the Congo).svg

corrupted file + file no more in use Yunan973 (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by SabielRamirez (talk · contribs)

Commons:Derivative works from modern art. Should be cropped/blanked to keep.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd one might be OK because the painting is blurred, but it would probably be better to blur it more. The other one does have to be deleted unless the artist gives permission to COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jun Pham24.jpg

Copyright concern, no evidence Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by me. At that time, this male singer participated in an event that allowed fans to take photos. Do you know that I had to push through everyone to take this photo?. You did that as if you did not respect my copyright. I am very sad because of your actions. I beg you not to delete this photo of me. I beg you Miss grand trà vinh (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikodemus BT Altarraum.jpg

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Sg. Please indicate the image components that you believe infringe copyright or are part of contemporary works of art. This enables us to correct the image or obtain copyright from artists. Lucorient (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any individual copyrighted works here are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

altar, ambo, font, cross – d.m. not at all, imho! Martin Sg. (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The altar, ambo, and font are all utilitarian objects made out of rough-cut stone. Germany has a high threshold of originality for applied art per COM:UA. The cross details are not clearly visible and it takes up only a small portion of the frame, making it clearly de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Somaliland map (disputed territory).svg

Corrupted file 2001:448A:11A4:1735:9098:7A4C:EC08:9CF3 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the file is fine. Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Structure idf.png

This page violates the information security of the Israel Defense Forces. External parties can use this information against the IDF, and harm the current security of the state by using this information. It should be remove from the IDF page, and delete this file. Nivst (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite late. The file has been here since 2009; the current version since 2013. Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Widely COM:INUSE. Is there any copyright problem with it? It's not Commons' job to protect Israeli security. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surb Astvatstatsin Church, Yeghipatrush, Armenia1 - panoramio.jpg

Copy of File:Sb Astvatsatsin Church Yeghipatrush08.JPG Kareyac (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surb Astvatstatsin Church, Yeghipatrush, Armenia2 - panoramio.jpg

Copy of File:Sb Astvatsatsin Church Yeghipatrush09.JPG Kareyac (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Universal Subtitles

Shouldn't this be moved or deleted? The page is "inactive" and WMC (now) uses TimedTexts so the page seems nothing but confusing and to not belong into cats "Commons video resources", "Commons help", "Commons features". Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:THE UNPLEASANTNESS AT THE BELLONA CLUB (1928).pdf

This isn't CC, At best it's PD only in the US. Should be localised to English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how does this all work? Blahhmosh (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that since the servers of wikipedia are in US they should be subject to US copyright laws. Blahhmosh (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commns follows country of origin rules, Dorthy L Sayers wrote in the United Kingdom (which has a 70 year pma term) - Sayers died in 1957. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Τσαι με Αγγλους 1927.png

I uploaded this file and I want to delete it and re-upload it with a better name Ioannis wiki (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, someone please change the name from Τσαι με Αγγλους to Olympiacos in 1927 Ioannis wiki (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioannis wiki I've added a renaming request to the file.

Speedy keep Nakonana (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it. Ioannis wiki, who took this photo, and why is it OK to license on this site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's apparently a 1927 photo that was presumably hand-colored, it's obviously not "Own work," and a real source should be credited. Is it public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rename

Done. Hehua (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1996 Dominique Wilkins Panathinaikos.jpg

Unfortunately, there seems to be an issue regarding the copyrights statement of this photo. I was able to find the same photo, a bit more expanded, and definitely in higher quality over here. So, who's the copyrights holder and original owner of the original photo? Maybe the precautionary principle should apply here... 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2. 200-річна церква Введення в Храм Пр. Богородиці 1768 р.jpg

Circa late 1960s photograph, this being an own work is doubtful. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, if the uploader is in their 70s or 80s, but maybe we'll hear from them. User:MRANONYMOUS7777, sorry for writing in English, but did you yourself shoot this photo in the 1960s or so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say impossible, merely unlikely. I'm willing to hear an explanation from the uploader though. Abzeronow (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1968..odbrana doktorata.jpg

Photography from 1968. in Yugoslavia is not in public domain. Very unlikely that uploader is author of the photo,. Ђидо (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragonfly (4947831423).jpg

This has to be one of the worst dragonfly image on Commons, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, not good, and thanks for nominating it for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FortBidwell1877.jpg

higher resolution version exists here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fort-Bidwell-1877-FSDM2.jpg PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Very Reverend Canon Stephen Judge.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Pretzelles as no permission (No permission since). Says "own work". User:Auldcathy, are you actually stating that you took this photo in 1958? Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, once again I have mistakenly categorised an image. I did not take the photo as you suggested but I own the photo which was from the estate of the late Canon Judge. "My own work" was the closest category to this, or so I thought. Please advise which category should be applied in these circumstances. Once again apologies for causing you extra work. Best F Auldcathy (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auldcathy: no, "own work" is not close. "Own work" means you took the photo. To put it bluntly, the fact that you own a copy of it doesn't make you the author.

The author is the photographer, whoever that may be. If you don't know who that is, and the photo is from 1958, then there is literally no way you can be in a position to grant a license nor, assuming that the picture is from the UK, for the picture to be in the public domain (where copyright lasts 70 years past the death of the photographer; even if the work is truly anonymous, it is still copyrighted for 70 years from creation).

The source in this case appears to be a photo album or simply a print of the photo. Unless you inherited the intellectual property rights of the photographer, though, owning that no more gives you any rights to publish the photo than owning a book lets you re-publish the book. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convoy 2022 NZ (77).jpg

copyvio - this is a 2d work so not covered by NZ FOP laws TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Leonum (talk · contribs)

Pictures/logo's that are either owned by the company or have been shot by various photographers. Proof of permission is needed to indicate copyright owners agreed with the given licence.

Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is way above COM:TOO, but File:Luchtfoto buizenopslag van leeuwen.jpg is not found on TinEye or Google Lens except on Wikimedia sites, so providing that the uploader actually photographed it, we might be able to keep it. There are umpteen exact matches for File:Buizen.jpg on Lens, but all of them are much smaller than this one, so maybe we can keep that, too. File:Opslag singapore.jpg is suspect because exact matches of the same size are on a couple of company LinkedIn pages, though the uploads are not dated on Google Lens. No results for File:Opslag vilvoorde.jpg on TinEye are as old as this upload, and the one on vanleeuwenbuizen.com is much smaller than this file. Undated non-Wikimedia uploads of it found on Lens are much smaller, too, so I think this photo might be OK. However, File:Haistory van Leeuwen Buizen.jpg, photographed in 1924, is obviously not "own work" as claimed, so that makes all the "own work" claims suspect, and instead of looking at more photos, I think we need to demand that User:Leonum state clearly whether any of these photos were shot by them, and if so, which ones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture photographed in 1924 is takenm from the private collection of the owner of the company where this wikipedia page is about. The company is a family owned company and on the picture is the founder of the company in the middle. The founder is the grandfather of the current owner and chairman of the board. All other photos are also from the private collection of the company. Leonum (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. The private collection is your source, so you should state that on each file page, but that doesn't answer the question of who the photographers were and whether the copyright-holders consent to a license acceptable to Commons. But it's absolutely not OK for you to falsely claim that any of these are your "Own work." So please fix everything and have the copyright-holders contact COM:VRT. Otherwise, Commons will delete (hide) any of these photos that aren't old enough to be public domain (and I doubt 1924 is old enough). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

File:HarmonyOS NEXT.webp

A logo from Huawei. The author is apparently not the one indicated in the description and the license is also fake IMHO. The logo may also exceed the threshold of originality in China. Teetrition (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OU Bob Wren Statue.JPG

There's no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art (e.g. statues) even when they're publicly displayed in cases where they've been installed on or after 1 January 1978 per COM:FOP US. Given that en:Bob Wren Stadium opened in April 1998, no en:copyright formalities were even required for such works because by then the US had already begun applying the en:Berne Convention. So, unless it can be shown that this statue has been released by its copyright holder (which is typically its creator) either into the public domain or under a free license acceptable to Commons, this is a derivative work that Commons won't be able to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belinus panels.jpg

This is Isaksen Solar's photo. We did not authorize the uploading of this photo. We reserve all rights to this image. Rcross12 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fictional unsourced flag.svg

Another fictional flag that needs to be removed. The author himself placed it as fictional, while it was added to Wikipedia articles. Mizgel (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regretfully, as this image is still in use. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Siberian Khanate.svg for previous discussions. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Nogai Horde.svg

Another fictional flag that needs to be removed. Mizgel (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename it to File:Flag of the Nogais of Moscow.svg and remove it from pages where it is incorrectly used to represent Nogai Horde, since this flag does exist and is used, see [27]. 5.142.178.40 12:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Blue Jays baseball cards

Copyvios. All of these files use the Template:PD-US-1978-89. However, there is nothing to suggest that they were published in the United States. Toronto is famously in Canada. You can find the Trading Card Database entries for the five cards here, here, here, here and here. The reverse of each card indicates it was sponsored by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and The Toronto Star. These were produced in Canada for a Canadian audience, PD-US-1978-89 does not apply and they are not in the public domain. --Denniscabrams (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, File:John Cerutti.jpg may qualify for Template:Non-free historic image because its subject is deceased and there are no other properly licensed images of him known. Denniscabrams (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street art by Anne Bundgaard honouring Inge Lehmann.jpg

made by Anne Bundgaard (Wall of Fame på Nordre Fasanvej (frederiksbergfonden.dk, in Danish), thus still alive artist and there's no FOP in Denmark for works of art. 87.49.146.237 15:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dziennik telewizyjny.jpg

This is a logo, not a photograph. {{PD-Poland}} only applies to photographs. Botev (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dziennik-telewizyjny-Intro.ogv

{{PD-Poland}} only applies to photographs. This is not a photograph but an audio-visual work. Botev (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meike, the wife of the street photographer, looks at a rubber doll.jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The prerequisite for copyright protection is that the item in question qualifies as a work within the meaning of Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act and meets the criteria for the definition of a work established by the case law of the ECJ."

"According to this, protectability as a work requires two characteristics:

On the one hand, it must be an original that is the author's own intellectual creation. This is the case if the object reflects the personality of its author by expressing his or her free creative decisions (ECJ, judgment of June 11, 2020 - C-833/18 Rn. 22f. - Brompton m.w.N.).

On the other hand, such a creation must be expressed. According to the jurisprudence of the ECJ, this requires an object that can be identified with sufficient accuracy and objectivity (ECJ, judgment of June 11, 2020 - C-833/18 Rn. 22, 25 - Brompton m.w.N.)."

( Text Source) - Quelle: Hier

Deletes the image; This is a difficult legal matter! --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, many images of the categories also fall under the requested reason for deletion, if applicable.!??

Please see:" - Commons Category: Realdolls & Category:Sex dolls & Nude sex dolls & Category:Orient Industry

14-10-17 Penthouse Sexpuppen
Lovedoll001
BDSM Workshop in Berlin - Stille Beobachterinnen (Lebensgroße Gummipuppen) verfolgen die Erziehungsspiele eines Meisters (BDSM) und erfreuen das anwesende Publikum.
Bondage Doll
Venus Berlin 2019 795
Venus Berlin 2019 919

& Category:Sexbots|Video /wiki/Category:Sexbots

Deletes this ( and other) image(s) !!??; This is a difficult legal matter! --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: - Spiritual content

"The work must have an intellectual content. It must go beyond the "mere substratum perceptible to the senses. The human spirit must be expressed in the work (according to Schricker/Löwenheim § 2, para. 18). This is lacking, for example, in the results of purely mechanical activities or the result of gimmicks."

Form

"Finally, the criterion of form presupposes that the work in its concrete form is accessible to sensory perception (Bettinger, loc. cit., p. 54). Unformed or unexpressed thoughts, on the other hand, are not protectable. Although it is not necessary to fix the work, it is certainly desirable for evidentiary purposes."

Form and content

"Difficult questions of a legal nature are always raised by the distinction between form and content. The question has been discussed in Germany for more than 100 years (cf. Bettinger, loc. cit., p. 56 f.). Ultimately, it is a question of whether only the expression of an idea in its concrete form is protected, or whether the content of this form can also be protected, at least to a certain extent."

( Text Source) - Quelle: Hier - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Summary from my point of view - From my point of view, these are (uniform, possibly regenerated by artificial intelligence) - doll faces without creative height in the sense of copyright. --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the video is listed with a Creative Commons Attribution license it's not VOGUE Taiwan's video. The origin of the video is a copy of an interview with Architectural Digest (which the original video does not have the CC license) so VOGUE Taiwan most likely doesn't have the right to put a different license on it. Screen shot for this image is at roughly 01:35 of the Architectural Digest video.|source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbI7rCDTiQg&ab_channel=ArchitecturalDigest

Not an obvious case, sending to DR per COM:UNDEL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Althougt these captures were from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian --RevengerTime (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg as both have the same issue and the same decision should be done to both. en:Condé Nast both Vogue and Architectural Digest are both brands under Condé Nast. Per en:Vogue (magazine) Vogue Taiwan is an international offshoot/edition under Vogue American; it does not have any direct affiliation with AD. I don't believe it's a simple answer but there needs to be consensus among the Wikimedia admins as how much authority Vogue Taiwan has to relicense videos from other YT channels like, AD, GQ, Glamour that are associated with Condé Nast especially when original source is still available on YT and not under the CC license. It would be different if the verified YT channel was "Condé Nast" but it's specifically "Vogue Taiwan" re-posting the videos with subtitles and I don't believe you can just assume Vogue Taiwan has the license rights to change the original video's license. Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding a few admins for potential feedback from their perspectives Aafi, Billinghurst, Yann, Túrelio Diddykong1130 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While the video is listed with a Creative Commons Attribution license it's not VOGUE Taiwan's video. The origin of the video is a clip of an interview with Architectural Digest (which the original video does not have the CC license) so VOGUE Taiwan most likely doesn't have the right to put a different license on it. Clip is at roughly 4:27 of the Architectural Digest video.|source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxPPdlo72ho&ab_channel=ArchitecturalDigest

Not an obvious case, sending to DR per COM:UNDEL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Althougt these captures were from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian --RevengerTime (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need to refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg as both have the same issue and the same decision should be done to both. en:Condé Nast both Vogue and Architectural Digest are both brands under Condé Nast. Per en:Vogue (magazine) Vogue Taiwan is an international offshoot/edition under Vogue American; it does not have any direct affiliation with AD. I don't believe it's a simple answer but there needs to be consensus among the Wikimedia admins as how much authority Vogue Taiwan has to relicense videos from other YT channels like AD, GQ, Glamour that are associated with Condé Nast especially when original source is still available on YT and not under the CC license. It would be different if the verified YT channel was "Condé Nast" but it's specifically "Vogue Taiwan" re-posting the videos with subtitles and I don't believe you can just assume Vogue Taiwan has the license rights to change the original video's license. Diddykong1130 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding Günther Frager and Tanbiruzzaman since they approved the license reviews of File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 02.jpg and File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024 03.jpg respectively Diddykong1130 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vogue and Architectural Design are brands not companies. These brands are owned by Condé Nast and Condé Nast can license their content as their wish. The Taiwanese Vogue may be produced under a franchise agreement, but if that is the case, then it is unlikely the Taiwanese franchise has an agreement that allows them to (re)license original Vogue content under CC-BY. I wouldn't mind having that discussion, but it likely belong to COM:VPC. Günther Frager (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of barn in foreground with mountains in background.jpg

I realized it is bad for my privacy BRINGit34 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too late for automatic deletion, could be useful. I don't understand the privacy issue, but you can discuss it with COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bramnickatriot (talk · contribs)

No evidence provided on prior publication provided. Lawrence Schiller is still alive, and if these are unpublished until 2014, they are still copyrighted.

reppop^talk 19:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a retard and appear to still not have fully understood the copyright law, I agree with you that these images with the exception of the one of Jefferey Hunter should be deleted ASAP. Bramnickatriot (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReppopI agree with you that some of these images should be deleted, however the images of Ariyoshi, Bailey, and Hunter are commisioned portraits meaning that they fall under the criteria of a published work. Bramnickatriot (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that it was published? And that where it was published didn't have a copyright notice? Or that it was truly commissioned and were published elsewhere? reppop^talk 17:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a commisioned portrait fall under the criteria of a published work? Bramnickatriot (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop Thinking to it if you want to also delete the images of Hunter and Bailey that might make sense as the photographer might have just aproached them in the middle of the street. However it is almost certain that it was a commisioned portrait of George Ariyoshi if you just look at the image. Bramnickatriot (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nomination, "No evidence provided on prior publication provided". If there is proof that it was published without a copyright notice on the paper it was published in, I can strike it out. reppop^talk 18:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reppop The more that I think about it, I completley agree. I can't find the backside of the image anywhere which though the copyright claim is unlikely it's not imposible. So I think you should delete it. Bramnickatriot (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lariz20220624.jpg

The image comes from a blacklisted flickr account. I received this message when I was about to review it. Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most images from this account are indeed flickrwashes and not own work by this flickr account owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::: Desconozco la autoria de quien ha señalado que la mayor parte de las imágenes contenidas en esa cuenta de flickr no son mías. En concreto esta y otras muchas han sido realizadas por mi. La inclusión de dicha página en la lista negra se debió a unas pocas imágenes. Me sorprende mucho que alguien haya decidido incluir esta cuenta sin pedirme anteriormente explicaciones. El hecho de que se haya incluido en la lista negra, está causando muchas perdidas de tiempo en volver a solicitar en cada foto que se restaure la imagen, ya que en la mayor parte de ellas, la foto es mia y así figura en muchos casos en la propia imagen. Rogaría que se revisará la información de la foto antes de solicitar su borrado basandose exclusivamente en que ese cuenta de flickr ha tenido fotos que no eran de mi autoría. Si alguine necesita aclarar cualquier cuestión me tiene a su disposición. Esta imagen en concreto fue sacada por mi hace un par de veranos en una excursión a la localidad de Elorrio. Un cordial saludo, --Hard 07:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hard! To solve this problem perhaps you can make sure, that the files on Flickr that are not your own are clearly marked as taken by someone else and not listed with a free license? --MGA73 (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:::: Hola, MGA73 he activado en todas las fotos que no eran mías la privacidad de la vista, para que sólo puedan ser vistas por mí. Las que actualmente se pueden ver son mías. ¿Se resuelve así el problema?. Ya me dirás. Un cordial saludo, --Hard (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hard! I think thats a very good start. The best would be that who ever checked your uploade originally/earlier check if it is okay now. If the use is not around someone else have to go through the photos to see if it looks okay now. Lets hope they notice this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::::: Hola, MGA73 muchas gracias por tu ayuda. Esperemos que sea como dices. ¿Sabes quien podría quitar esta imagen de la lista de candidatos para ser borrada? Un cordial saludo.--Hard (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes any admin or image reviewer can do that. But if the blacklist of the Flickr account is to be removed it would be good if at least a few users agree. If this is kept open we Can see if there is support to do that. --MGA73 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola de nuevo @MGA73, pues tu dirás que pasos tengo que dar para eliminar de la lista negra mi flickr una vez que he eliminado las fotos que no son mías y estoy solicitando a los respectivos fotógrafos que envíen la Declaración de permiso del poseedor de los derechos de autor a <permissions-es@wikimedia.org>. Muchas gracias por tu ayuda. Un cordial saludo, Hard (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To be removed from blacklist it is important both to remove files that are not own work (or at least make sure they do not have a free license) and to make sure there are not added such files in the future. I checked today and there are 96 photos. Are you the photographer of all the files on https://www.flickr.com/photos/66383702@N06/with/51762634208? for example also the old photos like https://www.flickr.com/photos/66383702@N06/51619376744? You could also send the original file for File:Lariz20220624.jpg to permissions so that they can confirm that you have the original file. Metadata for the file say author is "JMFM". --MGA73 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @MGA73, Volveré a revisar las fotos que no sean mías. Respecto a JMFM son las iniciales de mi nombre, en ocasiones he incluido MFM o JMFM. La foto de File:Lariz20220624.jpg la hice yo hace un par de veranos, como he indicado en en la solicitud de borrado que tiene abierta, y que espero se cierre lo antes posible. Un cordial saludo, --Hard (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed on https://www.flickr.com/photos/66383702@N06/52170539835 it says "Artist - Luis Alfonso De Blas Arroyo". And https://www.flickr.com/photos/66383702@N06/52155686836 says "Artist - Santiago de Cárdenas Díaz de Espada". And https://www.flickr.com/photos/66383702@N06/52116776694/ says "Artist - AOP". So four different artists are mentioned. --MGA73 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024110610006015 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 17:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2024110610006015 regarding File:Lariz20220624.jpg. Permission has been rejected: impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the best is to focus on this particular file in the DR, and talk about other files in the TP of the user or another place. Maybe it's better to open a new DR including all dubious files. I'll explain in the TP of the user some aspects requested by VRT in order to help with the copyrights issues. About this particular case, Delete. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:25 déc 1918 Wilson Pershing à Chaumont 50025.jpg

Post WW1 postcard from France, possibly PD, more info on the postcard is needed to determine if anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tineye and Google searched 45 billion images and could not find anyone attributing an author or claiming an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be a credit on the backside. The uploader could tell us this information. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 NKVD--Small File 1-- Med Size.jpg

License is bogus, digitizing doesn't give this a new copyright and permission is not from photographer's estate. 1930s Russian photograph, could be PD. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License is not bogus, I, Jon K. Chang got the photo from Revmir Khan in Kolkhoz Pravda, outside of Tashkent Uzbekistan. Who-knows-nose (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revmir Khan was the nephew of the man in the right of the three Soviet Koreans in OGPU uniform on March 15, 1932. That man was Grigorii Eliseevich Khan or in Korean (with surname first) Khan Chan Gol/Ger. See my book (book by me, Jon K. Chang) entitled Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East. The same photo is part of the cover. See amazon url below.

https://www.amazon.com/Burnt-Sun-Koreans-Russian-Perspectives/dp/0824856783/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3HEYRAMAL50FP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2HECjeG5AyC-Hy_Bre_CXA.4A3s15ZRftUvl-5rFj2XmhaY0NWiMzMPSDFgdM_X_1c&dib_tag=se&keywords=chang+burnt+by+the+sun+the+koreans&qid=1729755863&sprefix=%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-1 Who-knows-nose (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an heir to the photographer? If not, license is bogus. Physically possessing a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright, and copyright vests with the photographer not the subject. However, I do accept you as a source. Do you know who the photographer was? If not, do you know when this photograph was first published? Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PHoto was given to Grigorii Eliseevich Khan. The rest does not matter. It was his photograph. He died in 1938. Abzeronow, you are making up a whole lot of lies. First, the possession of the photograph belong to the Khan family. Revmir Khan on June 9, 2009 or so gave me written permission to use the photo as I please. That is legal copyright in the United States. Second the photo was taken March 15, 1932. The 50 year Soviet copyright expired on March 15, 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation

Beginning on March 15, 1982 (the 1st day after the 50 year Soviet copyright had expired, this photo is Open Source. You seem to challenge things but to not even understand copyright laws. Let's talk personally, do you have an email. I would like to find out who you are and what government you represent? Russia perhaps. Who-knows-nose (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PHoto was never published. I do my work if you read what I wrote about Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East-- I simply spent around 10-12 years on and off with the Soviet Koreans in Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. I went family to family and conducted interviews.

For the last time, bugger off with this stupidity, the photo was never published. These are family photographs. NOTE THE HANDWRITING UNDERNEATH THE PICTURE, THIS IS A FAMILY PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE KHAN FAMILY!! Note that they only gave the name of the person on the right, their relative, they did not name the other two men. It is not a published state photography, it is a photo belonging to the Khan family. You sir are simply trying to delete the photo which is OPEN SOURCE BY THE WAY AFTER 1982.

Are you are a person in academia, who has crossed passed with J. Chang and simply trying to erase his work? What are the grounds for your baseless attacks. PHoto is from a family photo album, never been published before by Soviet nor Russian state media nor newspapers. If they did, it's illegal photo belonged to the Khan family.

Why did you erase my evidence which I put up again. This below is the written consent from Revmir Khan to Jon K. Chang. I have copyright to use however I see fit.

There are no further arguments. You are bogus sir and your stupidity is quite evident. There are no grounds for deleting the photo. It is a family photo. Who-knows-nose (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unpublished 1930s photograph by an unknown photographer is still under copyright in Russia and the United States. These are the facts, ad hominem doesn't help your case. I represent no government, only the interests of the Wikimedia community in my capacity as a volunteer. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

File:樱桃河河长公示图.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-PRC-exempt}} should apply here, since 河长 is set up by the PRC government. Njzjz (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Njzjz See: Template:PD-PRC-exempt at #2, (Quote): "mere information about facts ...". This mao is simple (geographic) information. The area is owned or controlled by the PRC Government. -- Ooligan (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PhaethonFlyby 2-480x392.png

JAXA, a Japanese government-affiliated entity, doesn't implement a CC BY-compatible license. JAXA's site policy unequivocally demands prior consent for commercial use of its images. This suggests that the license display is inappropriate and could constitute unauthorized reproduction. [28] テレストレラッソ (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISAS/JAXA has the distinct data policy [29] which allows the data to be distributed under the en:Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0), where the "data" includes "Digitized documents, photos, pictures, videos, etc., which are created with the aim of long-term and universal use". Unfortunately the ISAS web site policy in Japanese and English seem to have discripancy, and it may be arguable which is applicable. In either way, the Author credit should have been "ISAS/JAXA", not "JAXA". --Fukumoto (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have checked the "JAXA/ISAS's" license policy and found that there is no need to delete this file, so I have corrected the license statement accordingly. Thank you for pointing it out. テレストレラッソ (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo SPDS.png

Logotype of SPDS NGO, lack of permission Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Der Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe ist nicht Urheber. Passt die angenommene Gemeinfreiheit bei Abzeichen der Weehrmacht? GerritR (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoFoP-France (category header)

This template overlaps with {{NoFoP-category}} in its role, so it is considered less necessary. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as it gives the following warning not given in {{NoFoP-category}}:

Framing it to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation. Before reusing the content of this category, ensure that you have the right to do so. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's copyrights. See our general disclaimer for more information.

I didn't know the existence of {{NoFoP-category}} when I created {{NoFoP-France (category header)}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaohsiung Night Market in Kaohsiung Taiwan.jpg

Unlikely to be own work, since there is no EXIF data, the resolution is low, and the metadata contains the string FBMD, which means it is taken from Facebook. Also, there is no evidence there is any connection to the uploader, so a VRTS verification from the copyright holder is really required to keep this photo.--125.230.84.199 08:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tangible Orchestra.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No permission for shown artwork, no FoP (change SD to regular DR) Wdwd (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the artist of the artwork and permission holder of the photo. I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Picaroon7 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captura de pantalla 2024-10-15 a las 11.54.31.png

This file was initially tagged by MKFI as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:Screenshot of a copyrighted website.

User talk:Pedroafu has claimed that the website is freely available, but https://diesgital.com/ does not have indication of a free license. MKFI (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Captura de pantalla 2024-10-15 a las 11.58.40.png. MKFI (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working in this project for several years and it is free. It is the result of research porject and it is not commercially-driven. Th escreenshot only shows how the dictionary looks like

All the best Pedroafu (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logoโหนกระแส.jpg

This file is copyrighted by CH3HD (Thailand) who owns the show (CH3HD Copyright policy stated in paragrah 2 (translated) "..Both of the above scenario, for whatever objective including non-profit usage must acquire permission by writing from the authority of the company who related to the intellectual properties.) Minener's (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin Deveaux.png

It says own work but looks like cropped from another work. 200.39.139.25 14:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolfgang Amann.jpg

Jahresangabe nicht stimmig, geringe Qualität Anton-kurt (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hormiga luchador.jpg

per Adamant1 comment in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato#Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato_(talk_·_contribs). Intimate photo demonstrating costume and not wrestling match as direct center of photograph, Indoor photograph with no definitive evidence of eligibility under FOP Mexico. Masks have copyright. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Flickr license was right so I just forwarded it to Commons. This is not my work and the subject is likely not notable for an article on Wikipedia anyway. I disagree with the motivation for the deletion as per arguments made on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Estrellato by me and several others, but this picture in particular doesn't really concern me. Estrellato (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandre Tsfasman.jpg

wrong date, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dat fixed "PD-EU-no author disclosure" --RAN (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LanceMipmapped.png

Likely copyright violation. The other image of the same subject from the same uploader (File:LanceWilliamsPicture.jpg) is provably a copyvio. This image has poor compression and appears to have been cropped messily, suggesting it is a screenshot and not the uploader's original creation. Should be deleted per COM:PCP IagoQnsi (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Uploader:

This is not a copyright violation; it is my own work from an original given to me by Lance's widow. I cannot figure out how to navigate to the appropriate Wikimedia or Wikipedia release page/information.

I put in a few hours making the image, and it seems Wikipedia expects me to put in a few more hours to figure out their release mechanism. Sorry, after 20 minutes of searching, I gave up.

IagoQnsi seems anxious to prove the image is inappropriate, but "poor compression" and "cropped messily" in no way detract from my claim of ownership. It is, despite IagoQnsi's suggestion, not a screenshot.

Should not be deleted. Anyone aware of Lance's work on mip-mapping should recognize that LanceMipmapped.png is in the form of his original mip-map, making the uploaded image of some historical value.

But unless someone wishes to point me to the appropriate release instructions, I have no more time for this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssier: This tool can help you navigate the release process: Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. We have your permission as the creator of the derivative work, but we would also need permission from the original photographer, whether that be Lance's widow or someone else. I agree that the image is likely of historical value; however, Wikimedia Commons strictly only allows freely-licensed media. There is a process on Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) to allow non-free content in very limited circumstances; you can read about that here: Wikipedia:Non-free content. If no freely-licensed photo of Lance exists, typically Wikipedia would allow for one non-free photo of him to be uploaded there. But currently the photo is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia; we either need explicit permission from the photographer to keep it here on Commons, or we need to delete it from Commons and reupload on Wikipedia to use it as a non-free photo. Please let me know if you need any more help with this process. Best, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will seek permission from Lance's widow. I simply replaced picture that was originally there and I know nothing about Wikipedia "Commons" - nor do I care to learn about it, nor do I wish to "navigate the release process" or learn how to use the Wikimedia VRT release generator. 97.113.178.4 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Lance Williams widow, Amber Denker and I give permission for this picture to be used.

Sincerely,

Amber Amberdenker (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lexington Studio Front.jpg

Redundant to File:Empow Studios Lexington storefront.jpg P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, this is an unused black and white version of the coloured photo.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gata Preta... (13715994).jpg

Unused, uncategorized low-resolution photo of non-notable event with no location or educational information in description. Nv8200p (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is (obviously) educational, it's a witch puppet near a black cat, illustrating that specific superstition - as is written in the description, BTW. However, I'm not sure it's compliant with COM:TOYS. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aravindpazhanichelvan (talk · contribs)

Unused promotional images, non-notable event/people, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. And likely not own works: File:Lionzera17team.jpg is an obvious screengrab..

P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Lionzera17inau.jpg. A clear and authentic photo of someone lighting a kuthuvilakku is educationally useful! I agree that the obvious screengrab makes the rest look suspicious, but it is enough to assume copyvio?

Delete the rest per nomination. Sinigh (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yuri Togkces working at Amnesty international as coordinator.jpg

Third-party photos hosted on weather.gov 2024-10-24

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done under the rationale that:

a process used for a time by the NWS Sioux City regional office that placed photos taken by the public into the public domain as a term of submisison applied to all third party images across all of weather.gov
the wording of the general site disclaimer on weather.gov that says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" means "noted with a formal copyright notice" (and ignoring the wording later in the disclaimer that goes on to say "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products.")

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that:

the NWS has had multiple, conflicting processes for public image submissions over the decades, some running concurrently by different regional offices (examples). Some of these processes made release into the public domain a condition of submission, others did not, and some were ambiguous. In practice, we can almost never link a particular image to any particular submission process.
in every one of several dozen cases investigated, individual photographers and third-party organizations had not released their work into the public domain when they submitted it for the NWS to use, and still asserted their rights over their images.(examples) This indicates that either the site general disclaimer is not intended to be interpreted the way that uploaders to the Commons have interpreted it over the years, or that this interpretation is correct, but that NWS employees have applied notices to images so very inconsistently over the years as to render the disclaimer completely unreliable.

These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to obtain permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, to expedite this process (and because throughout this review period, the people arguing most strenuously for retention have been remarkably reticent to actually ask photographers about the copyright status of their images), I have approached every one of the creators I have been able to identify.

Number	File	Basis of identification	Contact	VRT ticket	Comments
1024-1	File:2014ColumbiaMSEF3.jpg	Journalist, uncommon name, lives in the same area where this photo was taken	Messaged on social media platform September 12; message seen; no response	ticket:2024102310011318
1024-2	File:PraderScott Rochelle.jpg	Confirmed: Social media comment thread with NWS Chicago found	Messaged via social media on September 12; no response	ticket:2024102310011569	NWS removed this image from their page after inquiry by User:TornadoLGS
1024-3	File:2015MountHopeTornado.jpg	Confirmed: Appears on photographer's X feed the day after the event (with copyright notice, FWIW)	Emailed on August 14; no response	ticket:2024102410013431
1024-4	File:Weather-related traffic collision on the Kansas Turnpike.JPG	Confirmed: County EMA confirms this is their photo and that they own the copyright.	Contacted via County website September 5. Director initially indicated willingness to release copyright, then stopped responding when shown the declaration of consent	ticket:2024091210003412
1024-5	File:Wall cloud near Abingdon, Illinois June 5, 2010.JPG	Hobbyist weather photographer with same uncommon name living close to where this photo was taken	Messaged via social media on August 30; no response	ticket:2024102410013627
1024-6	File:Dunklin co4.jpg	Digital content manager for a TV station with same very uncommon name living close to where this photo was taken.	Messaged via social media on August 30; no response	ticket:2024102410013681
1024-7	File:Tornado in Kansas May 10, 2010.jpg	A couple with the same names living close to where this photo was taken.	Messaged via social media on September 7; no response	ticket:2024102410013734
1024-8	File:EF2CarpenterWyomingTornado2017.jpg	Storm chaser and weather photographer with same uncommon name	Messaged via social media on September 13; no response	ticket:2024102410014028
1024-9	File:El Reno, OK supercell from above 2013-05-31.jpg	Confirmed: photographer confirms that the photo is theirs and that they retain the copyright.	Stopped responding September 2 when I asked about their willingness to release under a free license	ticket:2024091210003556

We do not have any evidence that any of these images are available under a free license and we cannot host them here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded the Rochelle tornado photo. I cannot speak to its copyright status: like many others I had assumed it was public domain. I will reach out to the Chicago NWS office to see if they can provide any input on it. On another note, this image is used in a Good Article on EN. If it is deleted on the Commons, could it be uploaded to EN under Fair Use? TornadoLGS (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; if there are no free images of this tornado out there (and a quick search suggests this is the case), then yes, I would see this as fair use; especially if there are any noteworthy features of the tornado that can be discerned in the image. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, I did get a response from NWS Chicago. They actually aren't sure if they had obtained proper permission to use the photograph themselves. The person I communicated with said that they would delete the photo from their own page if they cannot confirm permission. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two images where @Rlandmann did receive a response. Neutral for now on the others pending response. Although I will update it to delete if @Rlandmann doesn’t receive a response in a reasonable time. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TornadoLGS -- would you mind forwarding that response to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and noting the ticket number in this thread please? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done TornadoLGS (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TornadoLGS -- can you add the ticket number here please? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ticket:2024102610000601. You want it in the comments section on the table? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, I heard back on the Rochelle tornado. They have not heard back from the author of the photo and have removed it from the NWS site. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rlandmann (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Clyde -- just noting that I have listed these because I am no longer expecting a response after 6-8 weeks, and I am no longer pursuing them. Up to you how you define a "reasonable time" though, of course. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to give it about another week or two before I update to delete. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case someone does respond. That’s why I’m neutral for now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really generous. I usually take it as a no if I don't get a response in a week or so. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64 -- well, I was also waiting for the outcome of the RfC so that it's absolutely certain that the burden of proof here is on the uploaders and those wanting to keep the files. Previously, some folks had literally asserted that the weather.gov general disclaimer was itself evidence of permission (and then studiously avoiding putting their belief to the test). Otherwise, yeah, if there's no response after a week or two, I think it's highly improbable that one's still on its way! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems really hard to find good pictures of specific tornadoes, let alone a freely-licensed one. I assume it's because tornadoes only last a relatively short time, and most people who see one are going to be running for their lives. Taking a photo for Wikipedia is going to be the last thing on their minds. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's quite difficult to get a response from people these days. I've contacted a dozen or so copyright holders to request a release of rights for non-free files, and most of them have ghosted me as well. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And plus; some of these people might be ghosting you because you are unfamiliar. Admittedly I would probably have ghosted you myself if someone claimed to be “Rlandmann at Wikimedia Commons” in an instant message. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, 100%. I don't blame them, and there's no judgement here. Nor do I blame the folks who stop responding when they see the complex-looking, legally-worded document that is our copyright release. I'm more surprised by the two people from whom I did get a release! And even then, the VRT challenged one because the photo is hosted on weather.gov but the email wasn't coming from a weather.gov address. But we got it through in the end. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

File:Ambassador Theatre at Ximending 20080805b.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the copyrighted poster be blurred? The image can still serve as the photo of the theater even with the poster blurred. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 2, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

also File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg

If I am not mistaken, we have to delete this image because it displays a sculpture that is protected by copyright. Because it was only exhibited within the church temporarily, as indicated in the file description, freedom of panorama under UK copyright law does not apply, see COM:FOP UK. Gnom (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description of the photo, this is an installation by Nicholas Pope called “The Apostles Speaking in Tongues Lit By Their Own Lamps”. Per the info provided by the sculptor, this was exhibited in Salisbury Cathedral from 24 May to 3 August 2014. The picture was taken on 8 July 2014. The lamps were lit three times daily and the first photo captures that. @Diliff: Would you be willing to ask the artist for a permission? This would be otherwise a significant loss. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least in File:Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg I would consider the sculptures to fall under de minimis and removing them would not change the photo that much. GPSLeo (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Malaysia Police VSP.png

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No government exception cited at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia. Yann (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the case is more complicated. Please see [30]. Yann (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Section 23 of the Malaysian Copyright Act, 'Copyright which subsists in works of the Government, Government organizations and international bodies under this Act shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published.' The work here is a derivative of a 1958 Royal Malaysia Police logo which aged well over 50 years. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Department of Immigration Malaysia.svg

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No government exception cited at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia. Yann (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the case is more complicated. Please see [31]. Yann (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immigration Department of Malaysia Flag.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No government exception cited at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia. Yann (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the case is more complicated. Please see [32]. Yann (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garter encircled shield of arms of Muzaffir al-Din, Shah of Persia, KG.png

attribution to Muzaffir al Din Sha is wrong, the text in the coat of arms reads Nasser al din Shah who was the one warded the order of garter 78.32.37.66 09:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Lower Saxony photographs taken on 2024-10-23

Unfortunally there is no FoP for interior views in Germany.

Lukas Beck (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschantrag unbegründet. Das Bild hat dokumentarischen Charakter, es geht nicht darum, ein Kunstwerk illegal zu kopieren. Clic (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Urheberrechtschutz macht dabei leider keinen Unterschied. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The train appears to be the main subject. It covers most of the artwork in the background, therefore I'd say that the artwork is de minimis. Nakonana (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree clearly at this point. The artwork makes up almost half of the image background. The user could also have photographed the train in such a way that the work of art took up less space. It can't stay like this. Lukas Beck (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader could have also photographed an empty train station without a train if they wanted to show the artwork. Either way, the artwork is right at the edge of the photograph and can be easily cropped out if necessary. No need to delete the image. Nakonana (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Stadtbahn Hannover 8 3035 Hauptbahnhof 2410230657.jpg does have to be cropped, can be, and should be, and then it would be OK. The other photo should probably be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 26 October 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.

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

The image has no source. Its provenance is not established and descriptive information is not verifiable (e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with). Included with this deletion request is the duplicate:

File:Xiang Yu.png

Its source also provides no helpful information. It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known. --Cold Season (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. At least one of the files is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Cold Season: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file pages, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: There is NO SOURCE that verifies the images as a public domain image. The fact that we do not know what this image is, means that this falls under the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is definitly not a {{fact disputed}} case. The fact that you closed this without participation in discussion, while waiting for the close statement to provide unilateral counter-arguments is highly inappropriate. --Cold Season (talk) 09:22, 21 July 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.

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

This is an artwork that remains unidentified. There is no provenance or source that tells us what it is or its public domain status. In conclusion, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Included with this deletion request is the duplicate File:Xiang Yu.png.

To @Ellywa: in the previous deletion request, {{fact disputed}} does not override this. Cold Season (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, this image is used 15 times on various Wikipedia articles, in several languages. The other version is used 3 times. Based on this, we cannot delete the image from Commons, based on our policy, as users on Wikipedia are considering the image valuable. The precautionary principle is used only in case a copyright violation might exist. Please ask additional questions on the village pump. I note you have re-nominated the image. In that case another admin will reconsider my decision. Ellywa (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The deletion request is based on COM:PRP, because there is no information that identifies anything of this artwork and, as such, its public domain status is not established. I am not stating that the incorrectness in file description is the reason for deletion (which you keep using as a straw man argument), but I am explaining why it fails COM:PRP ("to explain more clearly" to you... again, as I shouldn't have assumed that everyone reads between the lines).

(2) Your mention of COM:EDUSE is irrelevant, as no argument with that as basis was raised here.

(3) COM:INUSE does not state that image usage is a reason to not delete or to maintain an image. Your argument has no merit. In fact, I hope you understand this instead, me saying that I'm not familiar with such a policy was just an indirect way to say that your claim is wrong (as no policy supports it).

(4) Your suggestion that the artwork is a "variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg" is incorrect, as it is simply not a scan of the same print. Feel free to overlay them in photoshop and look again, if you can't spot the differences. These are two distinct artworks with their own copyright status and, as such, it does not diminish the onus to establish this image's copyright status.

In conclusion, I see no credible argument that overrides COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this is not a Qing Dynasty image? What makes you believe there is a chance it's not in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you neglect to provide any appropriate evidence of the copyright status (just like her), which violates official policy COM:PS#Evidence.

Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old without any proof, which violates official policy COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange reply... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get more discussion from me. See what the closing admin rules. Again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep China only awards 50 years protection, so if it is prior to 1974 it is PD. Tineye and Google could not find anyone named as the author or anyone claiming an active copyright or anyone claiming it is newer than 1974. --RAN (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is counter to the policy COM:PRP: "Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: [...] 5. "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained.""

Secondly, you provide "ifs" and neglect the burden of proof. See the policy COM:PS#Evidence: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" --Cold Season (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From this image [33] the chinese text translated by Google reads: "Portrait of Xiang Yu. Source: 'Portraits of Famous People in Chinese History' compiled by the Conservation Department of the Chinese History Museum, published by Straits Literature and Art Publishing House in 2003." So now we have a source for the image: The Chinese History Museum. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion, source will be added. This image is obviously a variant of the Portraits of Famous Men, and there is not significant doubt about this being a Qing era print. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

I am reopening this DR, as I am allowed to do so. There's some points I want to make here, per the discussions above. This includes the duplicate file File:Xiang Yu.png.

(1) Assumptions that it looks old are not valid to retain files per Wikimedia policy. Modern artists are able to paint in different art styles and there's many examples hereof. This is in line with the policy COM:PRP: "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."

(2) The only thing I am requesting here is evidence to confirm the status of the work, which no one so far has provided. This is required per the policy COM:PS#Evidence: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]."

Note: Currently, User:Abzeronow added a reference (a modern book) which he has acknowledged not to have actually consulted (see the user talk page). Neither was it clarified that anyone has consulted it to confirm what's requested before he shut down the discussion above.

(3) This goes further to COM:DR: "Bear in mind, though, that admins cannot ignore Commons policies or any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so." --Cold Season (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Abzeronow has pointed out in the last closing statement there needs to be "significant" doubt to use COM:PRP as deletion reason. Examples of "significant" doubt would be things like a copyright statement in the EXIF data that contradicts the license under which a file was uploaded on Commons, or there's an author name in the EXIF data that doesn't match the uploader's name, or the uploader has a history of copyvios, or the uploader has uploaded many images that were taken with a lot of different professional cameras and it's unlikely that the uploader owns all those expensive cameras, or the image can be found on the internet where it was published before it was uploaded on Commons. None of this applies here. Of course the above list is not comprehensive and there may be other scenarios that cast "significant" doubt, but it is also the nominator's (i.e. your) responsibility to explain wherein this "significant" lays. A "theoretical" doubt that something "maybe" isn't PD or CC is not enough to reference COM:PRP. The image looks old enough to be PD and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary to establish "significant" doubt about its PD status. In your initial nomination you wrote "It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known" but you didn't provide any URL to that image on any other website to add weight to your argument to make it qualify as "significant" doubt. In your initial nomination you wrote "e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with" (cursive highlighting added by me). Here, you once again made a "theoretical" statement without backing it up with anything. Why do you think that its previous claims were "probably" wrong? Have you found some information that contradicts those claims? Or is it just an "assumption", a "theory" that the claims "might" be incorrect? If you have not found anything that contradicts those claims then what are your doubts based on? Again, "theoretical" assumptions are not enough for PRP, you need to provide "significant" doubt for the file to be deleted under this principle. Nakonana (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a description of the book that is stated to be the source of this image (Google translated and with emphasis added by me: "1. Except for the portrait of Lin Zexu, the portraits of people included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are all cultural relics collected by the National Museum of China. Most of them are hand-painted by painters of the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, and a few are ancient engraved books and rubbings, as well as carved brick statues. 2. The characters range from ancient times to the end of the Qing Dynasty. 3. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are divided into four parts according to their identities. People with multiple identities are included in the most representative part. 4. The characters included in "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" are arranged in order of birth and death or dynasty. For those with the same birth year, they are arranged in order of death year. For those whose birth and death years are unknown, they are inserted in the corresponding position according to their activity period. 5. "Portraits of Chinese Celebrities of All Dynasties (2 volumes)" does not include photos of people and works created by modern people." Nakonana (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant reopened discussions of this image are disruptive, and admins will have to make a decision about when to end them for good and all, but that's their call. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that argument, if that is so per the book, which may have come to light if the closing admin had not callously closed discussion. --Cold Season (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you wrote here, Nakonana, is you trying to reverse the burden of proof. In contrast, the official policy COM:PS#Evidence states "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]." It is a simple request that remains unfulfilled. --Cold Season (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are using COM:PRP as your deletion rationale, so let me quote that: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (emphasis NOT added by me) That's what the last closing admin was referring to, but you didn't accept it, so I thought I'll elaborate how that "significant" part is oftentimes interpreted in deletion requests. I didn't attempt to reverse the burden of proof but merely summarized the usual arguments when COM:PRP is brought up. Such deletion requests are oftentimes unsuccessful if the nominating party bases their arguments on assumptions / "theoretical" doubts, which you were doing in your initial nomination and that's why they were unsuccessful. Nakonana (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on with your attempts to reverse the burden of proof. The policy COM:PS#Evidence is clear: It is a requirement for the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that the file is, in fact, suitable for Wikimedia Commons. In the absence of that evidence, the file cannot be retained.

Your attempt to portray the absence of evidence as not significant is baseless, while each part of my arguments is based on Wikimedia Commons' official policies. --Cold Season (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nakonana has basically explained why I closed it the way I did. COM:PCP is balanced, there needs to be significant doubt about the freedom of a file, and because the uploader neglected to source it to the satisfaction of the uploader, this discussion keeps recurring. Abzeronow (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:صوت أبي حذيفة الأنصاري.ogg

File:Audio of announcement of Abu Hafs Al-Hashimi as 5th Islamic State leader.ogg

File:我們是聖戰士.ogg

File:Pesca en el río Moroco.jpg

Selfie sin valor enciclopédico Carlillasa (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A photo of a fisherman with a fish and the stream he caught it from in the background is certainly in COM:SCOPE for Commons, whether it is used in an encyclopedia or not. Moreover, the file description adds some remarks about the stream. The other photos you requested deletion of in this group are selfies of no great interest and should be deleted, but this one is not a selfie, is a decent picture and is informative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jay-and-Joss-Signature.svg

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Derren Brown Signature.svg

Per COM:SIG UK A1Cafel (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabar Oparey - সবার উপরে.ogg

"Cannot decode Ogg file: Invalid page at offset 666743546" Prototyperspective (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siyyid Mírzá 'Alí-Muhammad Shirazi.jpg

It is sourced back to a Wikipedia page where the image was deleted. There appears to be no source. The date given is 1905 for a painting of a man that died in 1850. Where was this published? Who made the painting? Who is supposed to be depicted in the painting? Cuñado (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This illustration is widely attributed to w:Báb by Iranian Bahais and has been published +30 years ago in the country. As a result, whoever the creator is, this will fall in the public domain per Iranian law. I will try to find the original source. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:05, 13 November 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.

File:Motion Data Contact Sheet-7.jpg

Personal photo that I uploaded. OverVacation (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion: may be useful. a month have passed from upload date. --Kadı Message 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Motion Data Contact Sheet-7.jpg

I uploaded it and would like it deleted for privacy. Bchauvel (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username is different from that of the uploader, and if you have a privacy concern, you need to specify what it is in each case. If there's some reason you can't do so publicly, there's no reason for anyone to support deletion, but you can contact COM:VRT privately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katy Perry Eva Rinaldi (51066109381).jpg

Photo shows Kate Perry and the photographer Eva Rinaldi, and the image is licensed to the photographer. It's of course possible that Rinaldi is in the business of carrying tripods to social events to take selfies, but I find that highly unlikely. As such, I very much doubt that Rinaldi is the copyright holder and therefore she didn't have the right to release the photo under a free license. Note that there are derivatives / crops of this photo on Commons. Schwede 66 22:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: File:Katy Perry Eva Rinaldi (51066109381) - cropped.jpg. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless evidence comes up of the photo belonging to someone else, I'm inclined to say keep per these comments of mine and I can't think of why the photographer would misuse a commons license when posting it to Flickr. SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewing her Flickr showcase, she has posted several images that appear to be selfies. Some, like this one, were clearly taken by the other person in the picture. Others, like this one, seem to have been taken by a third party. Finally, some might actually have been taken with a selfie stick. This... doesn't help things at all. In this image, her main kit appears to be in her hand, and the other one is behind Perry. That rules out the possibility of a selfie stick - the huge flash is also unlikely to have come from a cell phone camera. As Schwede mentioned, a tripod is unlikely, and the angle precludes most ledges. So, the most likely explanation is that one of the other press photographers thought she looked good and gave her a copy, and Rinaldi didn't change the license when sharing to her social media — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492, you linked to [34] - a flickr image of Ms Rinaldi and a guy named Ali Daher. Did you Google Ali Daher? I did. His Daily Mail link says "Ali is a Senior Showbusiness Reporter based in Sydney..." His Instagram page shows selfies of him with a young Britney Spears, and other celebrities. this image of Rinaldi and Daher, from a decade earlier, shows they have known one another for a long time. I suggest to you that Rinaldi and Daher, both people who take a lot of photos of celebrities, have an unwritten agreement -- "If I hand you my camera, for a selfie of the two of us, you surrender all your IP rights to me, and if you hand me your camera, I'll surrender all my IP rights to that image to you."
  I think your other two examples, [35] [36], look like they are both taken with a selfie stick. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, actually. Thanks for the ABF. Short of evidence that an agreement exists, we can't take that as an assumption. Daher would have to say that he and Rinaldi have an agreement in place. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katy Perry Eva Rinaldi (51066109381) - cropped.jpg should also be included. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the precautionary principle is carried to unreasonable extremes.

Ms Rinaldi is a capable photographer. I'm sorry. I've participated in OTHER discussions, about one of her photos, where I thought challengers were taking the precautionary principle to unreasonable extremes.

PCP explicitly says it should be invoked when there is "significant doubt" the photo is free. Given Ms Rinaldi's history, I question whether nominator Brainulator9's suspicions rise to the level of "significant doubt".

I did a lot of research into her, during those earlier discussions. But I didn't take notes, as I didn't anticipate someone would make the same arguments, all over again.

Ms Rinaldi was a professional actress, some decades ago. That is when she started taking some excellent photos of celebrities.
Over the decades she has taken many photos, which she published under a free license.
Commons contains at least 22,000 images Ms Rinaldi took.
Those 22,000 photos include dozens, or maybe over one hundred, photos, which, like this one, show a celebrity, AND Ms Rinaldi.
Could Ms Rinaldi, a prolific photographer, whose photos include professional quality photos, carry a small tripod, or bean-bag, when she is going somewhere where she anticipates taking photos of celebrities? Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume she does this, so she can use her camera's timer function to include herself in some of those photos.
Is it possible she has handed her camera to a friend, or a random passer-by, and asked them to take a photo?
The basis of nominator Brainulator9's challenge to this image seems to be that Ms Rinaldi handed her camera to a friend, or passerby, saying, "Hey, use my camera to snap a photo of me standing beside Katy Perry." Nominator seems to be suggesting that, one day, this friend, or passerby, is going to sue Ms Rinaldi, thinking they can make money by asserting they were the real photographer, and Ms Rinaldi robbed her of royalties.
IANAL, but, it seems to me that if someone is the friend of a prolific photographer, who publishes their photos under a free license, and the prolific photographer says, "I put my camera on a timer. Point it at us while I stand next to Katy Perry", I think the friend has tacitly agreed to surrender all their intellectual property rights to the camera-owner.

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Younger Eva Rinaldi (51065404618).jpg

Keep Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a point of note: the nomination was not created by Brainulator9, but by Schwede. Brainulator added the derivative image, which would automatically need to be deleted if the source image is deemed a likely copyvio. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if Rinaldi asked a third party to take the picture, the same principle applies as with a cameraperson filming a video: that person does not automatically become the copyright holder. Tbhotch™ 19:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbhotch, that is an aspect that I'm unaware of. I'm not fussed about videographers, but is there somewhere where this situation is explained for photography? I'd be keen to read up on that. Schwede 66 23:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is very very unlikely that Ms. Rinaldi will have issue with her photo of Katy Perry being displayed on Katy Perry's wikipedia page- this may work to her benefit actually. What convinced me was the mention that Commons already has many images that Ms. Rinaldi has taken. If she already has so many high quality photos on Commons, I would say she's a more trustworthy source of images than your average Flickr photographer. Also, I regularly edit Katy Perry (the article) so I may be biased. PHShanghai (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment on what's been discussed here. Sure, Ms. Rinaldi is a prolific photographer, and she makes her photos available under a free license. The photo that I nominated is likely not her photo, though, but has been taken by somebody else. I'm not in the slightest bothered whether Rinaldi will get into trouble with that someone else over copyright issues. All I'm bothered about is the Commons perspective: if Rinaldi didn't take the photo, she does not own the copyright, and therefore she cannot release the photo to Commons under a free licence. That's all I'm saying. I'm not protecting Rinaldi; I'm trying to protect Commons from hosting a photo that has an incorrect licence. However, if editors here come to the consensus that for whatever reason it is fine to host this photo, even if it wasn't taken by Rinaldi, then so be it. Schwede 66 05:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also potentially delete every photo owned by Rinaldi that "could not" have been taken by her? As mentioned by Geo Swan, Ms. Rinaldi has 22,000 photos that are approved and currently of use on Commons. I agree with GS that the precautionary principle is being pushed too much here; it is extremely unlikely that Rinaldi, having posted so many photos in use at Commons, would be using an incorrect license. PHShanghai (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If it's not her photo, she would not own the copyright, and therefore cannot publish the photo under a free license. Schwede 66 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was snapped on her camera that she uses to take pics with celebrities, and she uploaded the file to her Flickr page, does that not make her the obvious copyright holder by default? PHShanghai (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erica Schroeder 2024.jpg

I suspect Flickrwashing. The EXIF states "Copyright holder WANDERINGDORKPHOTO" 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WANDERINGDORKPHOTO is an alias of John Manard, who contributes to GalaxyCon as one of their event photographers. He also posts them on Flickr with a Commons license. TaurusEmerald (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we should keep this photo, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting this as evidence to COM:VRT would be a useful act. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this. I, John Manard AKA Wandering Dork Photography, am a Staff Event photographer for Galaxy Con LLC. While I would prefer Taurus pull my shots since I get to edit them. I generally catch the ones he pulls from Super Festivals/Galaxy Con and put my name on them as well. Npgeek73 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erica Schroeder 2024 (cropped).jpg

I strongly suspect flickrwashing of the original, File:Erica Schroeder 2024.jpg Exif here and there states "Copyright holder WANDERINGDORKPHOTO" 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, the photographer is the same person. He goes by "wanderingdorkphotography" on Instagram and Facebook. [37][38] TaurusEmerald (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TaurusEmerald That research will be better presented to COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/26 Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/31