Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03

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

March[edit]

March 1[edit]

File:Referências Sfn - Tutorial Obelepédia.webm[edit]

Audio is not working correctly. We uploaded a new correct version: "Tutorial de Referências - Obelepédia.webm" Arcstur (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mir-tajodini-3.jpg[edit]

this file upload under en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure fa:سید محمدرضا میرتاج‌الدینی please delete file and block account Luckie Luke (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pomponio Allegri bassa2.jpg[edit]

E' in corso uno studio sull'opera in oggetto ed è stata richiesta l'esclusività dell'immagine fino alla pubblicazione del saggio prevista per l'autunno 2024 G.nicolini (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bescheinigung Hochschule für bildende Künste.pdf[edit]

Commons ist nicht als Datenbank für Dokumente gedacht. Maimaid (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2[edit]

File:Cueillette des cerises.PNG[edit]

Duplicate of File:CUEILLETTE DES CERISES.JPG, but color distorted. Although it looks the same dull color as the one shown on Sotheby's website, check the source URL, it was actually generated by Sotheby's service provider, Brightspot. This is a compressed image intended to make website load faster, while the original image is found at
https://sothebys-brightspot-migration.s3.amazonaws.com/65/00/fa/9b3bb61beac1b7d8effcc1db983ef3383584883c76c32aa288bfb19d98/335l14004-5p7gj.jpg
as URL parameter of
https://sothebys-com.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/0b37218/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2000x1698+0+0/resize/2880x2447!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsothebys-brightspot-migration.s3.amazonaws.com%2F65%2F00%2Ffa%2F9b3bb61beac1b7d8effcc1db983ef3383584883c76c32aa288bfb19d98%2F335l14004-5p7gj.jpg
See this similar discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nus au bois - Emmanuel Benner.jpg. 0x0a (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File types - "On Wikimedia Commons, the file types we recommend are: SVG, PNG, and JPEG.". png is lossless, and since is it is straight from the source, it is not distorted. "not the largest version" is not a rationale for deletion - see also Category:The Milkmaid by Johannes Vermeer. jpg uses “lossy compression”. but by all means, upload all the 2000 through 2022 sothebys artworks, then I won't have to do it. --Arnoseven (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Arnoseven, you are attacking a straw man. I did say png format is not good. The problem is that the file has a significant color "bias" - duller/less vibrant than the original in amazon S3. Actually, I have left a message at your talk page about how to grab the original picture and you can try it for yourself. 0x0a (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is not a straw man to point out you do not have a valid deletion rationale. the broken png rendering is not my problem, see also https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192744 . you cannot force people to upload jpg, by deleting png: all it will do is stop png uploads. --Arnoseven (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoseven Another straw man fallacy. Anyway, a painting image with color deviation have no educational value. 0x0a (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK CityBus route 690 tour view from Exchange Square Hong Kong Central Admiralty Wan Chai Causeway Bay North Point Lam Tin Po Lam Tsui Lam Estate Hong Sing Garden September 2022 Px3.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted screenshot in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomon203: Is your argument that the arrangement of the sign is above the threshold of originality in Hong Kong, or is there some other aspect that you feel is copyrighted here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

photos of the Onikuru, uploaded by User:Atokuma[edit]

User:Atokuma uploaded 10 photos of the Onikuru building in less than 30 hours, but 4 of those photos (おにクル外観北西.jpg, おにクルぶっくぱーく６階.jpg, おにクルわっくる.jpg, おにクルもっくる.jpg) were deleted because of copyvio. There are significant doubts about the freedom of remaining 6 photos. --UCinternational (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer User:talk. --Krorokeroro (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potassium dihydrogen phosphate crystals (4).webm[edit]

Contains copyrighted audio, re-uploaded without audio version Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potassium dihydrogen phosphate crystals (3).webm[edit]

Contains copyrighted audio, re-uploaded without audio version Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:05, 2 March 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:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.jpg[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Are we really going through this again? This topic was discussed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg in November 2019 and, again, in November 2020 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugowra Mural.JPG, and each time the verdict was Keep. Tell me how these repeated failed attempts to have these images of murals in Australia deleted despite a broad consensus that they are not copyright violations is not disruptive behavior? Calistemon (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have cases like this was deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the image depicted but, I would say, because nobody else took any note of the deletion discussion, and you, despite being part of previous discussions that established the above mentioned consensus, went and nominated it for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Now covered by FOP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 02.jpg[edit]

Reopen. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg#‎File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg 2. Wikimedia Australia article does not treat Australian commercial FoP as covering street art, and the 2019 information sheet by the Australian Copyright Council specifically excludes graphic works as works that can be commercially exploited. Furthermore, as shown at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Please comment: proposal to delete text under FOP heading, a user also expressed some doubts if a scholarly article by Ms. Pila has explicit mention that murals are indeed works of artistic craftsmanship and can be freely exploited even if the muralists' economic rights have been harmed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:19, 2 March 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:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.jpg[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Australia A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Are we really going through this again? This topic was discussed in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg in November 2019 and, again, in November 2020 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eugowra Mural.JPG, and each time the verdict was Keep. Tell me how these repeated failed attempts to have these images of murals in Australia deleted despite a broad consensus that they are not copyright violations is not disruptive behavior? Calistemon (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have cases like this was deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the image depicted but, I would say, because nobody else took any note of the deletion discussion, and you, despite being part of previous discussions that established the above mentioned consensus, went and nominated it for deletion. Calistemon (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Now covered by FOP. --Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 01.jpg[edit]

Reopen. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg#‎File:Mural by Carol Clitheroe at Bayside Shopping Centre, Safety Bay, November 2021 03.jpg 2. Wikimedia Australia article does not treat Australian commercial FoP as covering street art, and the 2019 information sheet by the Australian Copyright Council specifically excludes graphic works as works that can be commercially exploited. Furthermore, as shown at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Please comment: proposal to delete text under FOP heading, a user also expressed some doubts if a scholarly article by Ms. Pila has explicit mention that murals are indeed works of artistic craftsmanship and can be freely exploited even if the muralists' economic rights have been harmed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PyorSuomessa.jpg[edit]

Is it actually safe to assume that uploader at OSM Wiki is also author? I admit that is quite likely but far from certain. Is say 95% chance good enough for Commons? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Leposavić.png[edit]

Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: kk.rks-gov.net/leposaviq AceDouble (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related deletion requests, by the same nominator for the same reasons.
Verbcatcher (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per given source, there can't be two systems for one municipality at the same time. These municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo and are bound to Kosovo's legal jurisdiction. AceDouble (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ali Ghanem Al-Hajri picture 2.jpg[edit]

unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of Ali Al-Hajri, Writer and diplomat. It was snapped for public use. Alimustee (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VOYAGE DE S. M. L’IMPÉRATRICE EN CORSE.08－Huitième reportage illustré, épisode final.jpg[edit]

The file format was changed from jpeg to png because the image quality was worse than the original file. 織原美津夫 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mart1ngu3st (talk · contribs)[edit]

File:Fire Action.jpg is not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Other image without EXIF-data, possibly copyvio as well

Estopedist1 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pepperdine master logo 2024.svg[edit]

Highly unlikely that Pepperdine University has released its logo under a CC license - such a claim requires strong evidence ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am employed by Pepperdine University and we recently had a rebranding and we are removing all of the old logs. Please refer to my email for emplyment verification. Pepperdineimc (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herb Jadwigi.png[edit]

No source, no context information, bad quality: Out of scope GerritR (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valéry Giscard d'Estaing emitiendo su voto.png[edit]

Although it was published in an Argentine newspaper, the photo was taken in a place outside Argentina and there is no evidence that it was the work of an Argentine photographer, so it could be a photo from some international agency (and possibly has copyrights). Taichi (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willy Brandt en Baden-Wurtemberg 1974.png[edit]

Although it was published in an Argentine newspaper, the photo was taken in a place outside Argentina and there is no evidence that it was the work of an Argentine photographer, so it could be a photo from some international agency (and possibly has copyrights). Taichi (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helmut Schmidt con pipa en mano.png[edit]

Although it was published in an Argentine newspaper, the photo was taken in a place outside Argentina and there is no evidence that it was the work of an Argentine photographer, so it could be a photo from some international agency (and possibly has copyrights). Taichi (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atys - scene Songes funestes (opera by Lully).png[edit]

It appears to be a copyrighted image (see here). Robert.Allen (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copernicus Crater and The Lunar Timescale (LROC238).jpg[edit]

Not a work from NASA but from Mark Robinson, a professor from Arizon State University: https://search.asu.edu/profile/957914 vip (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna 21 Lander (LROC15 - lander front).png[edit]

Not a work from NASA but from USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna 21 Lander (LROC15 - lander2).png[edit]

Not a work from NASA but from USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna 21 Lander (LROC15 - towardhills).png[edit]

Not a work from NASA but from USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luna 21 Lander (LROC15 - tracks2).png[edit]

Not a work from NASA but from USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeroport Findel Luxembourg terminal A 01.jpg[edit]

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:, LUX Luxembourg (Findel), Luxembourg PP1386538123.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 3[edit]

File:Don Beotti.jpg[edit]

Own work 45.250.252.151 01:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Não é de minha autoria Jpmarques (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Holzwarth.jpg[edit]

Own work photocopy 45.250.252.151 01:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Não é de minha autoria Jpmarques (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm afraid about the future of this file... 186.173.93.44 19:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:3d-brille spykids 3.jpg[edit]

The 3-D glasses don't use plain white background or any other color. Rather elements around the blue and red lenses are graphic and well produced. Too complex to be considered ineligible for copyright, IMO. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giancarlo Antognoni 1982.jpg[edit]

Bogus licensing, PD-Italy is only valid if its made by an italian photographer. Secondary source provides none of the relevant info Denniss (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andreas Brehme USA 94.jpg[edit]

Bogus licensing, PD-Italy is only valid if its made by an italian photographer. Secondary source provides none of the relevant info. Panini unlikely to be the creator of the source image Denniss (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniss: Key word: Unlikely. The photographer is currently unknown and the original image was likely taken by an Italian photographer given that no results that weren't from the Panini card could be found through a reverse image search. The cards themselves were also first published in Italy so Italian copyright applies here. I also really don't appreciate the hounding nominations for at least several of my recent uploads now. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 01:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Even if the country of origin was Italy, it is still copyrighted in the US because it was published after US entered in the Berne Convention in March 1st. The copyright term in the US is 70 years pma, thus it is still protected. Günther Frager (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andreas Brehme Italia 90.png[edit]

Bogus licensing, PD-Italy is only valid if its made by an italian photographer. Secondary source provides none of the relevant info. Panini does not make images, they license their use Denniss (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they own the copyright of the card as a whole AKA card design. That does not make them the author of the base image, usually they just have usage rights and pay for usage rights to Fifa/Uefa/etc. Just like Fifa series games from Electronics Art - they own the copyright for the game but the player images are licensed from Fifa/Uefa/etc. --Denniss (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniss: Sure, but many of the images are usually exclusively found within the cards themselves as for example, File:Gordon Banks en 1970.jpg this image of Gordon Banks isn't found anywhere except with his associated Panini card produced for the 1970 FIFA World Cup and it's likely that many photographers for the Panini cards are usually done in-house. This also doesn't dispute that these were first published in Italy and thus, Italian copyright laws apply if the original author is unknown. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 18:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Even if we assume the country of origin is Italy, it is not in the public domain in the US as required by our policy. The image was published after the US entered the Berne Convention (March 1st, 1989). The copyrighted protection is 70 years pma. Günther Frager (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandon Riley - We Are Young (Official Artwork).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as no permission (No permission since) I don't think it is complex enough to be copyrighted, could be PD simple Bedivere (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Below TOO, but unnotable. Not useful for an educational purpose. 0x0a (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mau988[edit]

Pas de fichier utile Mau988 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mau988, you don’t need to file a deletion request for your user page; you can just keep that page blank = empty. / Il n’est pas nécessaire de déposer une demande de suppression pour votre page d'utilisateur; vous pouvez simplement laisser cette page vide. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chemical reaction between iodophor and apple.webm[edit]

Contains copyrighted audio, re-uploaded without audio version Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intact blue fluorite mineral crystal, crystal bottom band rock.webm[edit]

Contains copyrighted audio, re-uploaded without audio version Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue de Miyamoto Musashi offerte par un artiste japonais aux habitants de Gleizé (宮本武蔵).jpg[edit]

COM:FOP France. eien20 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a student of the Niten Ichi Ryu School.
Saturday June 17, 2023: The Niten Ichi Ryu School donates the statue of Miyamoto Musashi to all the inhabitants of Gleizé.
Official website : https://www.memorial-heiho-niten-ichi-ryu.com/copie-de-sculpture
Best regards Forgottencompt123 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Forgottencompt123 no, we do not care who now owns that. What we need is that did you have commercial license permission from the sculptor? If not, then this is a copyright violation, considering France not allowing commercial Freedom of Panorama for commercial licensing of images of copyrighted public landmarks there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 LDF seat share.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 456legend as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: self nomination|day=3|month=March|year=2024: Content is older than 7 days and is in use, so per COM:G7 I'm converting to DR. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 10:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix, the file is no longer in use on that particular article as I have now replaced it with a new file. 456legend (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adriana Marais 1.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio Kat Grudko Photography 2015 Lutheraner (talk) 12:39, 3 March 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:Qoros3 2013.jpg[edit]

Useless stale pictures, only displayed on the user page, and the user has been globally locked . 123.195.96.79 09:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qoros3 2013.jpg[edit]

While kept for 4 years, there are some concerns in regard to COM:FOP China (usually considered not OK for 2D artworks) and COM:TOO China (some calligraphic texts shown) about this file, as someone pointed me externally Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: Am I providing a valid reason now or not, sir? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by User:Intomieli[edit]

These are derivative works. All three memorials/ statues are still copyright protected, not in PD yet. There is no Freedom of panorama in Finland for sculptures. Memorial in first photo, Karjalaisten hävittäjälentäjäritarien muistomerkki, unveiled in 2004, is work of Finnish sculptor Erkki Eronen (1926-2018, Wikidata:Q11858276). Statue in second photo, Reikäenkeli, unveiled in 1960, is work of Finnish sculptor Kauko Räsänen (1926-2015, Wikidata:Q11870517) and relief in third photo, Jääkärimajuri Kaarlo Armas Ståhlbergin muistomerkki, unveiled in 1965 was made by Finnish sculptor Erkki Pitkäpaasi (1908-1978, no wikidata). All photographs are now uploaded in fi-wiki. --Htm (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Лившиц Соболева в саду.jpg[edit]

Obvious copyright violation. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! Это фотография, которая нигде ранее не публиковалась, из личного архива внучки Лившиц, которую мы (авторы статьи) с ее позволения используем. Извините, если что-то не так, но хотелось бы сохранить статью со всеми фотографиями, это важно для нас и для больницы. SlstYY (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Необходимо получить разрешение от фотографа или его наследников. В больнице работают юристы, которые могут оказать вам помощь в подобных вопросах. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Переславль Лука и персонал больницы.jpg[edit]

Image taken from copyrighted site. No proof of pre-1917 publication. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте! Фотография сделана до 1917 года, так как еще до октябрьской революции Святитель Лука покинул Переславль и перебрался в Ташкент. Следовательно, это фото не могло быть сделано после 1917 года. 83.242.179.119 08:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Этого недостаточно. Фотография должна быть опубликована до 1917 года. Если фотография была опубликована в СССР или РФ, она охраняется авторским правом. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:37, 5 March 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 Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)[edit]

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/madam-chiang-kai-shek-makes-statement-about-japanese-news-footage/98441957 "Madam Chiang Kai Shek makes statement about Japanese bombing raids in Nanking and elsewhere in China / She asks for boycott of Japanese goods / Chiang Kai-shek stands by her side. Madam Chiang Blasts Japanese War Terrorism on October 13, 1937 in Nanking, China" "Credit:Film Audio Services - Footage. Editorial #:98441957"

probably still copyrighted.

RZuo (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's unclear who's the copyright owner. it's also unclear whether this footage was "first published in china", so chinese copyright rules may not apply. https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVAA9ZQN9GEVOJ0WJOE65FYIVU3W-CHINA-DEFENCE-CHINA-FIGHTS-ON is the same clip, and they claim this is owned by reuters and british pathe?--RZuo (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The information at British Pathe suggests that this was first broadcast as part of the British Paramount Newsreel, so the place of first publication seems to be the UK. This will make it protected in the UK on the URAA date and thus protected in the US unless it was simultaneously broadcast there without a copyright notice. Felix QW (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Imho it is higly likely that this film, dating 1940, has been lawfully published in China at some moment, but more then 50 years ago, so the film is in pd per {{PD-China-film}}. Therefore I decided to keep the file. --Ellywa (talk) 23:09, 24 March 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.

Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)[edit]

4m0s still copyrighted 1943 TIME cover. 5m30s TV series screenshot? full speech (20+min) available File:Madame Chiang Kai Shek of China Addressed the House of Representatives on 18 February 1943.mp3.

RZuo (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: imho the 5m30 possibly TV screenshot can be considered "de minimis" for the full film. --Ellywa (talk) 23:13, 24 March 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.

Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)[edit]

04:00-04:30 = 30s . 05:30-06:00 = 30s . (30+30)/657 = 9.13% . The images taking up the whole screen lasting for 30s each are not "incidental inclusion". 9.13% is not de minimis. And these are only two of the obvious copyvios. Whole video is full of unsourced photos.

RZuo (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, use File:Madame Chiang Kai Shek of China Addressed the House of Representatives on 18 February 1943.mp3 instead. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)[edit]

includes footage not produced by VOA.

RZuo (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Howard61313 (talk · contribs)[edit]

https://ivod.ly.gov.tw/Copyright "使用者下載或拷貝「立法院議事轉播網際網路多媒體隨選視訊系統」網站（以下簡稱本網站）的內容或服務僅供個人、非商業用途之使用。使用人利用時必須遵守中華民國著作權法及國際著作權法律的所有相關規定，不可變更、發行、播送、轉賣、重製、改作、散布、表演、展示或利用本網站上局部或全部內容及服務以賺取利益。"

RZuo (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian checkpoint near bridge over Hakari river.jpg[edit]

Это не оригинальная фотография, загруженная на Викимапию. В правом верхнем углу видно пиктограмму. Следовательно, это скриншот с какого-то сайта. В левом верхнем углу видем логотип "Радио Свобода". Это отмываание лицензии через Викимапию. — Redboston 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Удалить. Был возможен вариант, что в исходной публикации "Радио Свобода" фотография размещена под свободной лицензией, но пока её найти не удалось. Таким образом, исходим из того, что имело место нарушение при загрузке пользователем фотографии в Викимапию. Dinamik (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Комплекс застройки.JPG[edit]

We see that this is a photograph of a model (a diorama or something similar). Therefore it is an artwork, but not architecture. The is no FoP in Russia for artwork. See: COM:FOP Russia. — Redboston 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sayyed Razi Mousavi.jpg[edit]

The person depicted was someone whose name and face was classified before death. Zero percent posibility that Tasnim has created this photograph. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Land Rover Discovery 2020.jpg[edit]

Low quality, likely taken from website. Vauxford (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what it seems. Unlikely somebody called “Daniel Games DG” took this photo. Also Vauxford you haven’t taken any car pictures in around a year. Is everything alright? 750h+ (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete Copyright volation. A screenshot of copyrighted Youtube video. --0x0a (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BreachPen Thermal Breaching Tool.jpg[edit]

Watermarked to J5 Rescue, with no evidence of permission. Uploaded by a user apparently promoting that company on enwiki - they may be operating under instructions to release company images under free licences to help promote it, or they may be acting without that specific authorisation. Belbury (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grb-leposavic.gif[edit]

Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: kk.rks-gov.net/leposaviq AceDouble (talk) 21:45, 3 March 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:Serie 7000 2.jpg[edit]

unnecessary SerrgioFdezz (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serie 7000 2.jpg[edit]

G7 SerrgioFdezz (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "because I already have similar photographs" is not a deletion reason, nor is "I shouldn't have posted those photos in particular to Wikimedia". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reply. It's okay. So, in other words; there is no way to freely delete OWN content uploaded to commons, right? In no way, nor can the account be deleted. So all the data (photos, illustrations) uploaded here remains forever. I'm wrong? SerrgioFdezz (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Собеседник, №7(1987), 21-27 февраля 2024 года, ISSN 0235-4268.pdf[edit]

Probably false license. IMO no reason to apply PD-US. It's a Russian newspaper issue with lots of potentially unfree texts and images, including the Navalny image on the title page. For each image you need a permission by the respective copyright holder. A.Savin 22:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There'are no legal reason for deletion:
  1. The servers of Wikimedia Commons are located in the USA, so the US law is applicable in this case. According the US law, the news are not subject matter of the copyright laws in the USA.
  2. According the paragraph 4 of the part 6 of the article 1259 of the Russian Civil Code, a reportings of events and facts of a purely informative nature are not subject of copyright. As for photographies, it should be taken into account, that according the part 1 of the article 1274 of the Russian Civil Code, for informational, scientific, educational and cultural purposes, it is admitted to use the legally published works and excerpts from them to the extent justified by the purpose of citation - without the consent of author or another legal owner, and without the payment, but with an obligatory indication of the name of the author. This rule applies including to photographies in newspapers. All rights to the photography of Navalny belong to the photographer, who has done this photography, or to the employer of this photographer, if he had done this photography in the exercise of his labor duties. The holder of the rights to the photography is indicated near the photography - you can prove it to yourself by taking a look on the relevant page of the newspaper. Thus, in this case, the Russian law is not violated too. K8M8S8 (talk)
    Sorry, but a permission "for informational, scientific, educational and cultural purposes" is not enough for Commons. --A.Savin 23:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The law makes no exceptions for Wikimedia Commons or someone else. From the moment when the holder of the rights has published the photography, anyone, including the Wikimedia, can use this photography for aforementioned purposes. K8M8S8 (talk)
    Please read policies. Not the law is the more restrictive part, but the Commons' policy. Sorry --A.Savin 19:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According the Wikimedia Commons policy, media are accepted if they are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. The photography of Navalny, which is used on the first page of the issue, is marked "Photo: RIA Novosti". According the RIA Novosti policies (you can read it on their website), thise mark is used by printed media, when they use the provisions of the current legislation [Russian legislation] allowing the free use of content [highlighted by me] (point 2.3.1. of the their copyright policy). Thus, this photography is in public domain by the decision of its owner (RIA Novosti), and the newspaper Sobesednik had used this photography on the free license ground, when they published this issue; the issue by itself is not the subject matter of the copyright law, because it is a news material. Are there any other questions? K8M8S8 (talk)
    Yes the question is, how do you come to all this nonsense. It's been very long time since RIA Novosti had donated some of their content to Commons as freely licensed, and none of their content is or ever was PD, as far as I know. BTW, please sign your posts properly. --A.Savin 22:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch your mouth, you! Who are you to talk with me like that? Why did you even think that you could have any discussions with me? Are you copyright lawyer or maybe think that I have no other tasks than to cast pearls before swine? I don't care about, who, what and where has loaded up. The status of the work in public domain doesn't depend on the fact of its loading into Wikimedia Commons, but the contrary - such status is a necessary condition for such loading. In this case, the newspaper has used the aforementioned photography in the issue and marked the photography by a label of a work in a public domain according the cited above rules of its holder. The newspaper's issue but itself is not the suject of copyright law. Do you have any information about holder's legal claims against the newspaper in relation to this photography? No? Thus, until proven otherwise, it should be considered that the photography is in public domain. The matter is closed. And keep your 5 kopecks to yourself. K8M8S8 (talk)

File:Holli Edwards' night out.jpg[edit]

Creation by a sockpuppet and globally locked account from enwiki. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We care about copyright and scope. We will delete for those reasons only. 186.172.46.88 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example is , so it can still have a possibility for deletion. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 千葉と千尋 (talk · contribs)[edit]

really own work? cartoon from where?

RZuo (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Can be found elsewhere on the Internet [3]. Possible copyvio. 0x0a (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot 20170821-103235.png[edit]

Background image is copyrighted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Android 8.0 Oreo Pixel.png (which could probably be used instead) Nutshinou Talk! 23:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunokhod 1 Revisited (LROC402 - L1 d03 s07 p19g edit).png[edit]

Not a work from NASA but USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simpsons 500th Episode Marathon (6804832394).jpg[edit]

Derivative work Trade (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Lunokhod 1 Revisited (LROC402 - lunokhod 1 big).png[edit]

not a work from NASA (unknown (soviet?) artist) vip (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fusajiro Yamauchi.png[edit]

Upon closer examination, there are significant discrepancies regarding the identity of the individual depicted in the image, as well as concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by the uploader.

The image is purportedly of en:Fusajiro Yamauchi, the founder of Nintendo, who would have been approximately 80 years old around 1940. However, the person in the image appears far younger than this age, leading to doubts about the image's authenticity in representing Fusajiro Yamauchi.

The original listed source of the image is a Brazilian website, where the photograph was not dated. Contrarily, the uploader has arbitrarily dated it to "circa 1940" without providing any verifiable source or rationale for this specific timeframe. This discrepancy raises questions about the reliability of the information accompanying the image.

The individual in the photograph might actually be en:Hiroshi Yamauchi, a subsequent president of Nintendo, rather than Fusajiro Yamauchi. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of available photographs or portraits of Fusajiro Yamauchi for a direct comparison, further complicating the verification process. The apparent age of the individual in the photograph aligns more closely with Hiroshi Yamauchi than with Fusajiro Yamauchi in 1940. Comparing with the File:Hiroshi Yamauchi, Nintendo president.jpg photo of Hiroshi, this might be well the case, considering the quirky brows. However, because there's no verifable date of the photo, we might not be able to use the `PD-Japan-oldphoto` template too.

- Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sleeps-Darkly In that image he does not look young, it is seen that he is already an elderly person, instead of nominating him for elimination, it is better to be cautious and change the image name and license. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close to be 80 years old, though. His grand-grandson Hiroshi Yamauchi at the same age was fully grey-haired and wrinkled. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. It seems like the author of the Nintendo Blast article is still active on the Internet (see https://twitter.com/jaimeninice ). Anyone want to volunteer to message him and just ask where exactly the picture came from and what its provenance is? (Note that Yamauchi died in 1940 so I suspect the uploader meant "at the latest, 1940", so Yamauchi appearing not as old as expected is not necessarily a huge problem if the picture is really from 1930 or something.) SnowFire (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suspecting that the article isn't the earliest example of that, because the similar image that is uploaded at https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/History_of_Nintendo was uploaded earlier than the article; the article is July 2014, while that upload is March 2014. Like the whole mess is from something else. So in my own opition the mentioned nintendoblast article isn't the original source, so isn't even really relevant. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are we sure this image was taken in 1940 ? I am working on Fusajiro Yamauchi article and I believe he may have died in 1929 and not in 1940. Finding the exact date and source of this picture would be a nice event. - DanganMachin (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 4[edit]

File:Lunokhod 1 Revisited (LROC402).jpg[edit]

not a work from NASA but USSR vip (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunokhod 2 Revisited (LROC699 - l2 d01 p12m crop).png[edit]

not a work from NASA but from USSR/Roscosmos/Russian Academy of Sciences/planetology.ru vip (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:台中市第四信用合作社中山路分社遷移紀念 19510801.jpg[edit]

Flickr user most likely does not have rights to this photo; uploads no original content as far as I can tell mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1951 photograph, PD-Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is remake made by the Flickr user, but the original photographic work is taken in 1951 and 73 years have passed since the year the work was created, so I think that it's not unlikely to be a copyright violation. For more details, please read the Copyright Law of Taiwan: Article 30, Article 31, Article 32, and Article 35.--125.230.86.143 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chainsaw Man logo.svg[edit]

It's a depiction of a chainsaw that is above COM:TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can still use the accurate logo locally if this is kept in modified form here. Also, not all projects give themselves the option of using non-free media. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Most projects don’t have a fair use policy like English-language Wikipedia does. RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose of the status quo – what is there now is a fictitious logo. I am not qualified to determine if it has or has not a value, but if it is kept, it should be renamed and prominently described as unofficial.
Personally, I think this simplified version should not exits at all. I regard it as of a very limited illustrative value (if any) and potential irresponsibility of its reusers to mark it as (or even learn about it being) unofficial and Commons-invented might result in spread of a false information that this is the real logo. I think no logo on Commons is a better alternative to simplified logo on Commons. Janhrach (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIA WEC Logo 2019.svg[edit]

Exceeds COM:TOO France; it's home country, and fonts are also copyrighted in France as well. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:24 Hours of Le Mans logo (2014).svg[edit]

May exceed COM:TOO France which is the home country of this sporting event and logo. Fonts are not public domain there, and the 24h mark may have some creativity that puts it above France's low Threshold of Originality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stihl (Unternehmen) logo.svg[edit]

Duplicate of this, which is the current official vectorization of the Stihl logo. Delete and turn this title into a redirect of the new logo. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you upload this duplicate (to a new file name) yesterday? --Leyo 13:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was because I wanted to upload the stihl svg after I saw it in the official website. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stihl (Unternehmen) logo.svg was also taken from the official website three years ago. The only visible difference between the two versions is that one has a small (intended) margin. --Leyo 08:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ダブルダッシュロゴ.png[edit]

Metallic finish may be above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg[edit]

I want to delete this file because a rectified vector version of it[4] exists. So if anyone is reading this, please delete this file OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I uploaded this file right before the rectified version exist. You can replace it with a new version. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrari 275 GTB (52760741791).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Ketil3 as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: File:Ferrari 275 GTB-3509 (52371357218).jpg - Not an exact duplicate, but looks like a weirdly color-adjusted version instead. Probably not needed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't say 'weirdly colour adjusted', I prefer the ...191 version to the ...218 as it's not so burned out in the sunlight areas.
These are taken from two Flickr copies, uploaded originally (and differently) by the Flickr photographer. I don't know how sacrosanct we regard Flickr photographs as, should we ever adjust colours or crop them, or choose one image over the other in a case like this?
Personally I would  Keep this one and delete the other. As we're unlikely to ever see agreement on that, then I think we'd keep both. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabel Richer aux prix Gémeaux de 2019.jpeg[edit]

Quality issues. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isabel Richer aux prix Gémeaux 2019.png Herbert Ortner (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For scope issues it is (see COM:INUSE). Commons does not make content decisions for other projects. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its in use only at haitian Wikipedia, inserted by the "photographer" himself. And I don't actually believe his "own work" claims on most of his sub-thumbnail sized files. Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... on a page that has two editors ― namely the creator of the page and the uploader of the file ―, watched by less than 30 (most probably the same 2, given that even the French page has only 5) and that has seen 48 visits in the last 4 years. Let's not pretend that Bull-Doser addition of his own material on Kreole Ayisyen WP has nothing to do with Commons. Webfil (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why you seem to be implying that Haitian Wikipedia is a less important project or why the number of editors on a page is of any relevance. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against small projects but isn't it obvious? This is nothing but strategically dropping one's pixel garbage into a small project where nobody cares just to make them keepers forever. Just check his other contributions! Unfortunately the uploader seems to be resistant to suggestions concerning his photographic abilities. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep COM:INUSE. One thing to add is that there doesn't seem to be a better-quality image of her and if there was then that photo-use should be replaced and only then can the file be deleted for quality issues. The delete-votes here make no sense at all and ignore policy. Prototyperspective (talk

) 23:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:My meal had a name 近江牛 2008 (2761261149).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo of paperwork from Yoshida Steak House in Kyoto, Japan. Japan has been a member of the Berne Convention since 15 July 1899 per COM:JAPAN. Yann (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babaknahrain-comedian.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:فرزاد فرزین 2022.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohsen yeganeh live2018.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babaknahrain 2018.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller copy of File:Babak nahrain - 2018.jpg, for which I can find any older copy on the Net. Yann (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohsen yeganeh live 2022.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Where is the proof? Yann (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:زینعلی ۲۰۲۲.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Where is the proof? Yann (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:مهران رجبی.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ناصر زینعلی.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Where is the proof? Yann (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علی عطشانی.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جواد عزتی ۲۰۱۹.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جواد عزتی.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://ketabdari66.blogsky.com/1393/06/16/post-163/ Yann (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:اکران عمومی پارادایس در تبریز.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naser zeinali 2022.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work Yann (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galeopsis angustifolia inflorescence (05).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Leoboudv as no source (No source since) Rasbak (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Op https://www.tela-botanica.org/flore/france-metropolitaine/ zijn veel afbeeldingen verwijderd, waardoor verificatie niet meer mogelijk is. Indertijd was deze afbeelding nog te vinden met de bijbehorende licentie. Dus graag laten staan.Rasbak (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Op https://www.tela-botanica.org/flore/france-metropolitaine/ zijn veel afbeeldingen verwijderd, waardoor verificatie niet meer mogelijk is. Indertijd was deze afbeelding nog te vinden met de bijbehorende licentie. Dus graag laten staan.Rasbak (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VisutChai.jpg[edit]

The picture does not originally publish by Chom pla celebrety, The original author is พรรคเพื่อไทย KaiserO5 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakornwut.jpg[edit]

ประชาไท (Prachatai) is not the original author of the picture, The Thai Parliament Television (TPTV) is the original author and does not allowed to be use freely KaiserO5 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:88.30.9.225[edit]

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonsagrada#/media/Archivo:Casa_do_Concello_da_Fonsagrada,_Lugo.jpg CulturaFonsagrada (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Нагрудный знак премии совета министров СССР.png[edit]

Missing photographer's permission, non-free photo of a 3D object. Quick1984 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrie Crowley at DIFF 2024.jpg[edit]

This is NOT A PICTURE CARRIE CROWLEY Youdepiela (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say, for sure. User:James Kevin McMahon uploaded it from a video of DIFF day 1. I watched the video and she's in it, but there's no narration identifying her as Carrie Crowley. I reviewed older images of Carrie Crowley from the web, the most recent being from 2023. All the web images (including the 2023 one) show her as slimmer, but (within the limits of the resolution) the subject of this 2024 picture seems to have similar hair and facial features to the woman in the older pictures. She's 59 now and maybe she's put on a few pounds. But I'm still not sure. -- WikiPedant (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I got this one wrong, I am reassured that others are checking my work, I think on this occasion , I had too many videos on the go, I learnt to just concentrate on one video at a time. Apologies and thanks for the correction.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep Keep of course, but @James Kevin McMahon: now the uploader seems to admit that the lady in the image is NOT Carrie Crowley, the image should speedily be renamed and removed from the Crowley articles. Vysotsky (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Carrie Crowley articles. Description updated. I will rename the file as soon as the correct name of the woman in the image is known. Vysotsky (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Poor quality photo of an unknown person. Not within SCOPE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Not many "unknown persons" are in flash photography on the red carpet (DIFF video at 0:37 min.). Her name will pop up. Vysotsky (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Les régions naturelles de France.jpg[edit]

remplacé par une nouvelle version Rayman78 (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Those Were the Days - Turn! Turn! Turn! - ad 1968.jpg[edit]

Risk of copyright violation. The US public domain claim may be invalid because this image may have previously been published outside the US (most likely the UK), so the US would not be the country of origin. The same image was published in the UK magazine Melody Maker a few weeks earlier than the date in this file.[5] . The image was used in several European record covers in the same year.[6] As Mary Hopkin was a UK singer it is unclear that this would have been first published in the US. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dhanbad picture collection.jpg[edit]

Collages need source and license for every used image. Taivo (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosenfels (5486610837).jpg[edit]

image might not be by uploader, particularly consider lack of Metadata attatched SecretName101 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ariane Labonté au Jockey.jpg[edit]

Poor quality. Not reasonably useful. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Terrible quality, nowhere near usable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not in use, not realistically useful, as we have a better picture of the subject. Poor quality (high amount of noise, low resolution, bad lighting). Out of scope. --Webfil (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Completely useless -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cya.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search Yann (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, here's a link to the original image: https://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/photo-d%27actualit%C3%A9/american-civil-rights-campaigner-martin-luther-king-photo-dactualit%C3%A9/3362897 -- Nutshinou Talk! 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. There is a possibility to be in the public domain for lack of copyright notice. That's the case for a number of images from Hulton Archive. That's why it is not eligible for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after a week if no more information is provided. Yann (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as lacking a copyright notice. The English US version of that page is here (I clicked on "France" as the last link in the first column of the footer and chose "United States"). Of course, if William Lovelace, Daily Express, or Hulton Archive registered or renewed the copyright, that info would be helpful.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudo de Villafrades de Campos (Valladolid).svg[edit]

Este escudo no pertenece al municipio de Villafrades de Campos según la documentación en poder de la diputacion de Valladolid. Es el escudo de armas de la familia Villafrades 77.230.24.182 18:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peru road sign P-60.svg[edit]

This page, not file should be removed to rename the file from Peru P-60.svg to Peru road sign P-60.svg WWBM (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a deletion request or should it actually be a move, merge or split request? (I reverted your changing the tag to SD because this page had already been created.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it should be actually a move of the File:Peru P-60.svg from Peru P-60.svg to Peru road sign P-60.svg WWBM (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly then, when Túrelio deleted the file that was once here, as a duplicate of File:Peru P-60.svg, you believe it was the wrong one or that this is the better name? I’m not sure how best to sort it out; it may require an admin to look into the history.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant removing the redirect per Speedydelete. So it was a mistake that I nominated this file redirect for deletion instead of Speedydelete WWBM (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HabilHumbatov.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Nemoralis as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: File 10: Personal photos by non-contributors Yann (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:義元大蔵（2024年3月・新橋にて）.jpg[edit]

No META data of a thumb size photo. Likely from a website with unknown copyright status. Pierre cb (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julio Adalberto Rivera.jpg[edit]

not an own work, not PD, from 1960s, copyright vio PizzaKing13 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodolfo Cordon.jpg[edit]

not an own work, from 1960s, copyright vio, not PD PizzaKing13 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Directorio Cívico-Militar.jpg[edit]

copyright vio, from 1961/1962, not PD PizzaKing13 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie Réache et Alexandre Fabre.jpg[edit]

Non respect des droits d'auteur (publication initiale : https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2015/01/27/2037030-marie-reache-heroine-de-plus-belle-la-vie.html) LucasD (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marie Réache et Alexandre Fabre.jpg[edit]

Non respect des droits d'auteur (publication initiale : https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2015/01/27/2037030-marie-reache-heroine-de-plus-belle-la-vie.html) LucasD (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Théophile Lognoné au milieu des médaillés rescapés du Chemin des Dames..jpg[edit]

The uploader's claim of authorship is dubious and the contradicting claim of PD-no disclosure needs to be sustained by a first publication date more than 70 years ago. — Racconish 💬 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed at one point that I am the heir to the Théophile Lognoné archive and the copyrights, those images were taken by my ancestors : Théophile Lognoné (1869-1920) or Théophile Julien Lognoné (1895-1974). You can switch those to {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} from their current CC license Kevlo007007 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sitter and the owner are not the author. — Racconish 💬 21:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I file a VRT claiming that all the images were taken by Théophile Julien Lognoné or Théophile Joseph Lognoné and I am the heir and are releasing the images under a Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs license. Kevlo007007 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marguerite Marie Chanvril (1901-1983) portrait.jpg[edit]

No indication of an anonymous author in the Flickr source (which claims copyright) and no indication of a first publication more than 70 years ago. — Racconish 💬 20:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep We usually assume that old documents were published at the time of creation. At that time, a picture leaving the photographer's custody constituted publication. Pre-1936 French pictures should be OK with {{PD-France}} + {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We have no reason to assume the work was published anonymously, i.e. the author decided to hide their dentity. It is either a work for which the uploader ignores the identity of the author, which does not mean the author is anonymous, or a work for which sufficient but unsuccessful diligence to find the author can be proven, i.e. an orphan work which nevertheless cannot be considered to be PD in France and PD-France is therefore not applicable. — Racconish 💬 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Yann. "anonymous" and "unknown" and using a pseudonym have the same legal ramifications in the EU and in the USA. However I believe a VRT has been filed where a family member is claiming that another deceased family member took the images and he is the heir to the copyrights. --RAN (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Anonymous (or pseudonymous) and orphan are not the same in French copyright law. Cf. CPI art 113-10 of French copyright law [7]. In practical terms, the orphan work is protected but can be used under some conditions, in particular, only for cultural, educative or research purposes and not for profit which is not compatible with Commons licenses. — Racconish 💬 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre Eugène Lognoné (1930-2022) portrait.jpg[edit]

No indication of a publication which is requested for PD-EU-no author disclosure. — Racconish 💬 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment May be PD in Europe, but still under a copyright in USA. Yann (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kashmar2023-12-16 11.jpg[edit]

Upload request, Damaged photo and the availability of alternatives {{User|POS78}} talk 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ikan Kekek Yes, all pictures are of the same building! I'm a little confused, sorry. :) {{User|POS78}} talk 17:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek Actually, I almost took the photos with the coordination of the university official. They even took my phone number and I should have uploaded the pictures and sent them, otherwise they would have sued me! Because I had taken pictures without permission and I got in trouble and I had to prove to them why I wanted the photos! Anyway I showed them I uploaded the pictures here and they trusted me. I really am an idiot!^_^ {{User|POS78}} talk 17:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not an idiot at all. It's totally understandable not to immediately think of needing permission from the architect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 5[edit]

File:Hans Günter Wolf.png[edit]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - laut Beschreibung im Wikipedia-Artikel zur Person wurde das Foto ca.1963 aufgenommen, der Hochlader, welcher über ein verifiziertes Konto verfüg,t wurde allerdings erst 1978 geboren. daher kann er nicht Urheber des Fotos sein. Lutheraner (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1956, najmlajši v družini štirih otrok.jpg[edit]

No clear evidence of permisson for the rest of four children ModriDirkac (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Seal of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity.png[edit]

Contested speedy deletion, original rationale was –Incorrect PD tag – authorship cannot be inferred from current user. Permission from the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity in the Philippines (https://peace.gov.ph/ needed via OTRS. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Office of Pres Adviser on PRU.svg[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. Original rationale is – Incorrect PD tag – authorship cannot be inferred from current user. Permission from the Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace, Reconciliation and Unity in the Philippines (https://peace.gov.ph) needed via OTRS, especially given the Copyright tag on the source website. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Vano Siradeghyan.jpg[edit]

This does not fall under the non-protected works described in article 4 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights of the Republic of Armenia. I am the uploader and I made an error in uploading this. Revolution Saga (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official Military Portrait of Zia ul Haq.jpg[edit]

The disclaimer page https://pakistanarmy.gov.pk/Disclaimer with cc license shows different picture wich is already uploaded on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:General_Muhammad_Zia-Ul-Haq.jpg and not this picture without cc license Shadow4dark (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20231112T143345 第32回桜泉祭.jpg[edit]

COM:DM eien20 (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mammaprivat.jpg[edit]

Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simon Moskon ProgPower USA 2023.jpg[edit]

no permission of Stephen Schmidt visible Alabasterstein (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wir haben die Freigabe von Stephen Schmidt an permissions-de@wikimedia.org geschickt
liebe Grüße Simon Moskon (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pueblo Legend with Charlie Jojola.ogv[edit]

has nonfree video, audio, and text captions during the first nine minutes:

Extended content
starring Mary Pickford
with introduction by Casey St. Charnez & Charlie Jojola
Casey St. Charnez: Hi everybody, I'm Casey St. Charnez, here on location at Isleta Pueblo with Charlie Jojola. You are about to see the 1912 Biograph release A Pueblo Legend, with Mary Pickford as an Indian maiden. But first, to set the scene, I have a few questions for Charlie about the making of the picture and how its acceptance on the Pueblo would be taken today. Charlie, you weren't around for the making of the picture, but I'm sure you have a lot of memories of things that have been told to you about it. Uh, what is your outstanding recollection of what movies were like in 1912?
Charlie Jojola: Ah, at the time it was during the frontier days of the filming industry, and I don't believe anyone in the Pueblo had seen a picture; I myself didn't know anything about it until they showed me the tape from the New Mexico State Library.
CSC: So there were no theaters around here, and people on the Pueblo largely did not even know what the film medium was?
CJ: Yeah, that's right.
CSC: So when Griffith marched in with his troupe of players and his crew, people really didn't know what to expect. What kind of reception do you suppose they were given?
CJ: I suppose they came in here, and from what I've read about the film, I think they may not have had proper clearance with the tribal authorities to proceed with the filming, because later, immediate tells were...they were offended by the costume they were wearing, where one of them came dancing through with this skirt with bells down the bottom. And the people thought that they were being made fun of. So they had to stop it, and they told them to clear out of the reservation, and they detained D. W. Griffith for about four hours in their court chamber, and he tried to buy his way out for $2000.
CSC: That's quite a sum.
CJ: Nah, but they didn't accept; all the money that they had, the tribe did not accept, so they secreted the film — got word to Mary Pickford and secreted the film, and she was asked to march out like she was, uh, they were still filming. And he tells about where she was so scared that people were looking at her through the crevices and every which way, and expect just about anything to happen. So, ah, she went — so they cleared away, and the film was...I don't think, like I said earlier, that people knew anything about the film.
CSC: I take it the film was not very well researched.
CJ: I don't think, yeah, it was not researched. They admit that. It was just one of those overnight ideas, about doing something like they did in the film.
CSC: What was their intent, then, just mindless entertainment for the masses?
CJ: No, I suppose...I suppose like anything that's being invented or developed, you know, will have some meaning. Right now the film does not make sense. It's a silent-type picture, and they do their act, but it's pantomime, more or less; you have to figure out what they're doing.
CSC: We are standing in front of what could very easily have been the set for Pueblo Legend. Now, this was not a real set, this was somebody's home; I use the word 'set' very loosely because Griffith just waltzed in with his crew after getting off the train in front of the Harvey House in Albuquerque. Ten minutes later they were here in Isleta Pueblo, and fifteen minutes after that, they were shooting, using everything they could find as a real location. What do you suppose their intent was in shooting a picture on-location like this?
CJ: Well, the intent of course was to satisfy the people viewing it.
CSC: What kind of errors did the filmmakers make?
CJ: Well, really the type of apparel that the cast was wearing was not anything — it was near, but not what people wear as a custom. I understand that one of the — well, the Frenchman that was in a role, came down here wearing a skirt with bells on them, down the bottom, which offended the tribe, the Indians.
CSC: Were any of the costumes or the dances accurate?
CJ: No, they were not; even those were not accurate. We do have similar dances, but it's usually men and women dancing; this was nowhere near that.
CSC: So they just made everything up.
CJ: They made everything up.
CSC: No wonder the council threw Griffith out. After a couple days, I would too.
CJ: Yeah, I guess so.
CSC: What do you think people would think today, seeing it?
CJ: Well, I think it would be comical, more or less, than entertainment to make anything out of it. It's just...people, the people taking part in the picture just doing their act, which is very very funny in my way of thinking.
CSC: You laughed, you thought it was funny (I thought it was funny!) but do you think there would be any anger towards the film?
CJ: Except if it's trying to depict the wrong image, against the tribe. Many of the films that are developed in the past were so that it was not...they were not real to what the Indians should be, or could be.
CSC: What do you suppose it would be like if a movie company drove in today and said that "we want to shoot a movie on the Pueblo", what would the council and the governor say to that?
CJ: Well, we have a better system now, where we have to clear through the authority to make any pictures in the village. And then of course we have to be aware of the privacy of the people. We don't take their picture if they walk across the road or something like that. So it's entirely private; but they did make a picture here awhile back, I'm not sure what the name of it was, but it was taken near or around the plaza.
CSC: And the filmmakers managed to survive that one without being thrown off...
CJ: Yes. Yes, it was more current than the time when all of this was 'foreign', you know. There's no such thing, I guess; even in my days in the city of Albuquerque they had one theater which they called "Pastime" that they, I did see silent pictures like this.
CSC: Do you think that the image of the Native American has changed at all in motion pictures since this picture was released in 1912?
CJ: Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. Sometimes it benefits the Indians. I may go back a bit and try to relate this with earlier history when the frontiersmen came west of the Mississippi, and they made contact with the Indians. At the time they seen the Indians, most were nomad Indians up in the north around the Sioux country and that sort. They began to form an idea which they related back to so-called civilization of the colonies, that the Indians were shiftless, they were lazy, they were savages, and the like. Now, then again, in the eastern part of the nation, where they met up with Indians from there, those Indians were sort of dramatized. With their appearances and the lifestyle that they had, which today sometimes they try to imitate when they make pictures of a nice background of the red man in the back or whatever they're trying to dramatize.
CSC: Well, certainly Griffith did not invent these errors, he was only compounding them, some of which are compounded even 'til today. But still and all, we've said just about everything we can say about this picture. Now we'll let the movie speak for itself.


I cropped to the PD part and uploaded to file:Pueblo Legend.ogv. Arlo James Barnes 10:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:محمدرضا فلاح تفتی2.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work
Converted to regular DR, as no evidence was provided. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

تصویر فوق از جایی کپی برداری نشده است و کاملا متعلق به اینجانب می‌باشد — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.dorchei (talk • contribs)

File:Ebtehaj Navaey slika 1.jpg[edit]

زیرا صفحهٔ جدیدی باز شده است. Navaey (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ForumWare43 1 2.png[edit]

Wahrscheinlich Urheberrechtsverletzung, denn bei diesem cover dürfte Schöpfungshöhe vorliegen Lutheraner (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Ausgabe wurde von mir als Grafikerin erstellt und außerdem bin ich Vertreterin der Herausgebergesellschaft. Ich besitze somit alle Rechte zur Veröffentlichung. Karde68 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dann bestätigte das bitte wie bei COM:VRT beschrieben, dann sind wir hier auf der sicheren Seite. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brynica Sosnowiec.jpg[edit]

G7 - as an author i want delete this unused, bad quality image KrzysztofPoplawski (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LA Realtor.jpg[edit]

likely copyvio, no proof of authorship submitted via OTRS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This actually just needs account verification. If this is not a fake account, it would probably be entitled to upload the file. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, please write COM:VRT or at least COM:OTRS, which redirects. Otherwise, if someone doesn't know about VRT, there's a risk that they'll never figure out what you're talking about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koffie Hag-album Zeeland[edit]

All images are taken from www.ngw.nl (now www.heraldry-wiki.com) and scanned by me in the late 1990s and uploaded to then www.ngw.nl in 2005-2007. They are not scanned in 2006 as stated in all cases, but taken from my site in 2008 without permission. This is also the case for all other images taken by user Troefkaart from the Koffie Hag albums. All images can be see on the versions of www.ngw.nl in the web archives.

Although the images in principle are free of copyright, these scans are made by me and not by the uploader and taken without permission. Contact : webmaster@heraldry-wiki.com — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:A466:F20E:1:7144:9CF8:F048:A3A2 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep From what I gathered, these are ca. 1927 works by nl:Sytze Gerke van der Laars, who died in 1938. So in the public domain in both the Netherlands and the USA. Scanning them does not give you any rights to these drawings, and there is no permission required to use the scans and upload them here. If they were not directly scanned from the books by the uploader as you say, but taken from you web site, the source description of the files should be amended. --Rosenzweig τ 07:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Ashashyou[edit]

Screenshots from social media. Unused. --Adsci8 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These screen shots documents very impirtant era in Egyptian history.
The libration organization period.
Suggest to Keep.
Regards Ashashyou (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. If the film is historically significant and freely licensed, then it should be uploaded without all of the overlaid nonsense (video player controls, someone's Facebook username, a bunch of other thumbnails along the bottom, etc). As it stands, these images are a total mess, and the copyright status is unclear. Omphalographer (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trichy new international Airport 7 Pascall Watson 4 2 5.jpg[edit]

The image comes from the website of the architectural firm Pascall+Watson as indicated in the file source. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trichy New international airport Terminal for road side view.jpg[edit]

The image comes from the website of the architectural firm Pascall+Watson as indicated in the file source. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Napier coa.jpg[edit]

Not sure if stated copyright status is correct, source seems to be a different image TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The date of 1951 you are using is when the CoA was recognised by the College of Arms, the design itself is much older and was used prior to Napier's proclamation as a city in 1950. Kiwichris (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
isnt this drawing of the CoA by the college of arms for the city of napier though? like presumably that was done in 1951 (i think date it was published would be relevant which is def 1951). different depictions of a coat of arms based on the same blazon have separate copyright. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CoA was designed locally and, eventually, approved by the College of Arms in 1951. Successive councils declined to approve funding to pay the College of Arms to legally recognise the city's heraldry. The issue was finally resolved in 1950 when the mayor, Bill Hercock, paid the College of Arms fee out of his own money thus ending the saga. An interesting story actually. Kiwichris (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for this? Would be interested in reading more. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From memory I recall reading it in the book Story of Napier, 1874-1974 Footprints Along the Shore. There is a digitised article here which says that actually it wasn't the mayor but a Mr. Wilkie who was the one who paid the legal costs to for official recognition. Kiwichris (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora, here implies that there wasn't already a coat of arms. I'll try to read that book you mentioned tomorrow. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or it could be they were wanting a completely new one rather than keep using an existing one. A bit vague. Kiwichris (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went and skim read that book. There's actually a photo of the Napier Borough Council building with a clearly different CoA on it in the book. Otherwise it talks about the design of the current CoA as new, and that there was a poll for the motto so this rendition with the motto has to be new. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the picture on page 58, that is the CoA of the Hawke's Bay Provincial Government who built the building. The building was later used by the council. Kiwichris (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, still, it seems to me this was created around 1951. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Paintings in the Lenbachhaus[edit]

copyvio; contemp. art; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doina Gherman-Headshot-scaled-e1646028101844-332x332.jpg[edit]

See EXIF. Despite coming from state.gov, the file is NOT "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". Note that state.gov's Copyright Information page states – in a rather precautionary manner – the following: "If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the “alt tag” for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain." Gikü (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 6[edit]

File:Arena Kuzneckih Metallurgov Olega Korolenko - Novokuznetsk. Metallurg - UGMK Gornyak.jpg[edit]

found elsewhere at [8] prior to upload to Commons, unlikely to be own work. 0x0a (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source took this photo from vk.ru (where this photo was published in my group) and attached a link to the source where this photo was not published. Dvp777 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you edit the post to include a statement declaring that it is published under a free license? 0x0a (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza prefettura potenza.jpg[edit]

Falsa paternità della foto. L'autore sono io e non l'utente che l'ha caricata Giuseppe Flace (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrefour 1992 4.png[edit]

Because it is Logo steveprutz (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izogiz.gif[edit]

Not a simple logo. Quick1984 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefan Policinski.jpg[edit]

Random date of creation, missing date of publication, dubious PD rationale. Quick1984 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-PRL}} — it’s done and published before 1989, so don’t need exact date. He died in 1978 [К𝖗𝖆к𝖆𝖚К𝖗𝖆к𝖆𝖚] (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the subject died in 1978 does not mean that the photo was published before 1989. Do you have evidence? --Quick1984 (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the date. Probably taken in the 1940s. Yann (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Uploaded here in 2019 but available online in 2018.[9] Is this a scan directly from the family archive or copied from the website and cropped to remove the watermark? I can't tell. Was it "published without a clear copyright notice prior to 1994" as required by the current licence template? I am not sure how we can say. Images from family archives were often held privately and didn't see publication in the subjects' lifetimes. Was this one of the exceptional ones and the family archive kept a copy of a published photo? From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Files from bookcity.org[edit]

"All content on this website is published under the Creative Commons 4.0 License". It's not clear if it is by/by-sa or a nc/nd license.

Hanooz 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The remark ("It's not clear if it is by/by-sa or a nc/nd license") sounds a bit far-fetched. If I would want to prohibit commercial usage (and sell my images), I would definitely make that quite clear, and be sure to mention the NC mark. Vysotsky (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Last updated[edit]

This template is undocumented and only transcluded once. Furthermore, it does not work as intended (see File:Interrupce CZ.svg). Leyo 21:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BarrandovStudio-black-RGB.png[edit]

The logo is too complex for {{PD-text-logo}}. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Devon Hulsmans (talk · contribs)[edit]

Animated weather maps should not be a still with an animation effect. Really bad, sensationalist "weather forecasts". Educational use seems highly unlikely to me - from the hand-MSPaint-ed numbers to the animation.

Enyavar (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eric guitar.jpg[edit]

The guitair might be ok, but the photo above it is copyrighted and I do not think de minimis can be applied here. Xia (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Former Gosen Niigata chapter.gif[edit]

Extremely low quality, unused, superseded by File:Emblem of Gosen, Niigata (1950–2006).svg. See also this and this deletion request. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Parviz Tanavoli[edit]

Artwork by living artist, needs permission from artist via COM:VRT.

P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepThe deletion reason is totally nonsense. If that's the case, all pictures of works of living artists should get deleted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also, it seems photos with "Nothing by parviz tanavoli photo by pouria afkhami" name are taken in a public place and they are public art and don't need a permission.
Specifically, Parviz Tanavoli.jpg has a confirmation email from the creator of the work. But P 1 9 9 has nominated it for deletion.
Do you think when an artist sits next to his work and takes a photo, he doesn't know and doesn't give a permission for his work to be published? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, though not for reasons given above (works of art by living artists are copyright and therefore not generally eligible for Commons, even if publicly accessible). However these are all 3D works in Canada and the UK, where FOP applies for 3D works (COM:FOP Canada and COM:FOP UK), and as far as I can see the photographer of these works has released the image as cc-by-sa. Voice of Clam 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Uploader has been WMF global banned. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: There are multiple uploaders of images in this category. Which one are you referring to? Voice of Clam 22:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voice of Clam The Mardetanha Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any Commons policy that states that images uploaded by users who are subsequently blocked/banned should be deleted, with the possible exception of block evasion (I can't immediately see why this user was globally banned). In any case that's not a reason for deleting all the other images in this category. Voice of Clam 06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely a false accusation and total hostility. That banning is for over 8 years ago and expired within 3 months. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shkuru Afshar 8 years ago and expired within 3 months? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I thought you mention me. Apologies. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 7[edit]

File:Volta della Sora Laura.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Caulfield as no source (No source since) Krd 04:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xavier Léon Lognoné (1924-1994).png[edit]

The uploader's ignorance of the author's identity does not imply the latter wished to be anonymous. — Racconish 💬 07:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please restore ? Kevlo007007 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Düsseldorf altes Carmelitessenkloster-Krankenhaus, Quedenfeldt, 1915.jpg[edit]

lower resolution of File:5974771.Erwin Quedenfeldt.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of the file size of images is not a relevant reason for delation!
Reasons for deletion: Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. Jula2812 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reason for deletion, see Commons:Deletion_policy/en-gb#Redundant/bad_quality Carl Ha (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Düsseldorf, unterer Teil der Mühlenstrasse, Erwin Quedenfeldt, 1915.jpg[edit]

lower resolution of File:5974772.Erwin Quedenfeldt.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reduction of the file size of images is not a relevant reason for delation. Jula2812 (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Location of Sandy Valley in Clark County, NV.jpg[edit]

This appears to be based on a map from Google Maps, which is nonfree. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a more detailed explanation on the uploader's talk page. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 08:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riggs-mike-image.jpg[edit]

Looks like this low res cropped photo may have been taken from https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mike-riggs.html, a website that uses 300x300px profile pictures usually titled surname-forename-image.jpg.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210619065828/https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mike-riggs.html doesn't provide a 2021 copy of the image (it shows this photo, but seems to be displaying a March 2024 copy of the image file), but it does show that the page was illustrated with a file called riggs-mike-image.jpg as far back as 2021. Belbury (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kanish sharma in 2017 01.jpg[edit]

Own work? 186.175.2.240 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment there will need to be a stronger argument for deletion that presented.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lower resolution version was posted on https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=176558518246194&set=a.176558488246197, and this file was previously deleted on that ground (Special:Undelete/File:Kanish sharma performing at Rajiv Gandhi auditorium.jpg).
@KBhardwaj4: If you took this picture, please fill out the form at COM:RELGEN and email it to us. If you didn't take the picture, but know who did, and they are willing to fill out the form and email it to us, that would be good too. Otherwise, please let us know. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gaziantep Zeugma museum Sulumagara mosaic sept 2019 4179.jpg[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE as pure text, and/or a copyvio of a museum's text description. Belbury (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a “and/or" motivation is a weak one. The nominator wants the file gone, but does not know if either of his two reasons is valid, so he lets others chose. A shotgun approach, fitting a lord.
I start with the museum’s aspect. I have been praised for my pictures in a letter written by the “Genel Müdür” (General director) of the Ministry for Culture and Tourism about twenty years ago. That was after some pictures by me appeared in a book (Die andere Türkei) with a foreword by President Erdoğan (and one by the German Chancellor Schröder). So my activities are without a doubt well known by the Turkish authorities. They never complained about my representations of museums. I do not think any Turkish museum would claim copyright for the many notices they use to inform visitors. So I think a “copyvio” is not an issue for anyone except for Belbury.
As for text: I claim this is a case of what is mentioned as “scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope.” What I mean is: deleting a picture like this (and you can find hundreds, probably thousands, of them by many other users) would force the uploaders to transcribe the same text to a word-file, then add it to relevant pictures. A waste of time.
I leave it at that. My commiserations with the loss of his lordship’s title. Dosseman (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're making strange jokes about me dropping the "Lord" prefix from my username a couple of years ago. Do we have some history I'm unaware of, that is relevant here?
I'll strike the "or" from my request if that helps. This is pure text where the copyright belongs to the museum. It's nice that a museum director liked your photography twenty years ago, but we can't assume that they continue to monitor and tacitly approve of each of your Commons uploads.
I would expect a museum to object if somebody were to collect the text from all of their displays and publish it as a book under their own name. I don't see any exceptions to that at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Turkey. There are other ways to use these photographs for verifiability discussions on Wikipedia projects without releasing their text under a CC-BY licence. --Belbury (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We indeed have no history. The count and baron I knew never used their title, almost none of the many academics I know use their title (and neither do I), so using a title in Commons was a bit over the top to me.
I would like to make it clear that the letter was not by some museum director but by the top dog of the ministry. I am known for a private website and been in touch with hundreds of authors from all over the world, just added the 129th publication to a list of books that used my work. The site has been mentioned in four articles in Turkish national newspapers, has seen 137076259 pictures views, I got 1003 private messages and 14079 comments. Only during the last years I publish my pictures on commons, most people know me from my site. I often receive mail from authors from major universities or publishers. Is Harvard, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, Libreria Vaticana and many more or BBC, Penguin, Brill good enough for you? My work was used by Louvre, British museum and others for exhibitions. My correspondents often complain they have tried to contact some Turkey museum with a request for pictures or otherwise and never received an answer. As for myself, I have left my calling cards at many museums or sights, have spoken with the director of Topkapı, the curators of the Ankara Museum and some others. I recently was interviewed by Anadolu Agency, the national news agency. In October I was guest speaker at the Turkic Wikimedia Conference 2023 in Istanbul, where I received applause for a speech about my pictures and about how to present a country well.
So I stick to my guns. Your supposition “I would expect a museum to object if somebody were to collect the text from all of their displays and publish it as a book under their own name.” is wrong, it is not I who writes books, but major authors. I can assure you they don’t need a text like to one you complain about. And no museum ever complained. Dosseman (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I'll flag up these other photographs of lengthy text descriptions taken from the same museum:

--Belbury (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete all. Pure text images are out of scope of Commons. As for copyright, that still applies even if "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work" (per COM:PRP). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nellie Stone Johnson statue-MN State Capitol.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation of the sculpture, we need evidence of permission from the sculptor. Freedom of panorama does not apply to artworks in the US, see COM:FOP US Verbcatcher (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete the related file File:Nellie Stone Johnson Statue-MN State Capitol-detail.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Virginia-Civil-Rights-Memorial-E-face.jpg Myotus (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That file also appears to be a copyright violation, for the same reason. I plan to propose deletion of it and the other photos of the same monument. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:"Never Forget" tapestry at 911 Memorial in NYC IMG 5792.JPG
Category:Olympic Gateway (sculpture)
I appreciate the work you are doing to keep Wikipedia free from violations.
But please do better than others that go after violations. Too many editors hold contributions from "US Fly-over-county" to a high standards but then turn a blind eye to violations from coastal areas. Why? maybe because most US editors are from coastal areas, or because they are worried about push back from areas with high concentration of editors over local content. Please do not be biased in your deletions. Myotus (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs of the Olympic Gateway look like copyright violations. You could nominate them for deletion, preferably using a mass deletion request, or I might get around to this myself. The photo of the tapestry might be allowed under the threshold of originality and deminimis rules, see COM:TOO and COM:DM. This is because the lettering, the bird symbols and the US flag are probably public domain and the faces are very small. However, I am dubious that this argument would stand up, and you could nominate the file for deletion.
Regarding the geographical issue, I have not been aware of this concern, although I am British and live in England. Commons editors are probably not evenly distributed in the US, and I suspect that they are more concentrated in the coastal areas and that this might lead to systemic bias. However, I would expect more checking of outdoor photos in areas where there are more editors, who would see the things in their daily life. I occasionally suspect a political bias in deletion nominations, where editors can target files for political motives. Potentially there might be an effect of editors in 'blue states' targeting files in 'red states' but I have not seen any evidence of this. I assure you that I did not select this file based on its location or my politics. However, I sometimes check files in related categories which could result in a burst of deletions of files in Category:Minnesota State Capitol artwork, but you should not see this as inappropriate. I encourage you to become more active here, and you would be particularly welcome if you helped increase the diversity of editors. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do many things on Wikipedia, I create and edit articles, add photos, create and add maps and artwork, I even run Wikipedia Edit-a-thons here in Minnesota but I do not regularly nominate files for deletion. That is a skill set that I appreciate that others have and why I have suggested them for you. BTW, I agree with you the "Never Forget" tapestry may be problematic but this sculpture is not, Category:Fire Department of New York Memorial Wall.
You are correct in your assumption of systemic bias against non-urban areas and those areas without intensive media coverage. Wikipedia policies support and encourage institutionalized urban bias in both media and articles but Wikipedia has yet to even acknowledge the issue. New York is an echo chamber of news with 12 percent of all U.S. newsroom employees—reporters, editors, and photographers, living in New York City. This includes London's "The Guardian" which has several correspondents based New York City. There may be more people their to monitor for violations in both media and articles but from what I have experienced it also means more people to defend and attack bad submissions, as Wikipedia too often becomes a game of who can monitor and battle it out the longest.
What I am seeing is less due to "Red State" "Blue State" politics but more because of people focusing on deleting files and articles on areas of the United States that will not offer much resistance so they can get easy wins/deletes (one of my pet peeves are Wikipedians that like to post their editing stats on their user pages).
I won't challenge on the deletion of Nellie Stone Johnson statue - (BTW, the copyright is owned by the State of Minnesota - not the artist), however, I do strongly encourage people who nominate files for deletion regularly do start taking on the task of nominating files for deletion that violate copyright from the coastal areas as well as "flyover country". Myotus (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Melanchthonkirche (Ludwigshafen am Rhein)[edit]

copyvio; contemp. artworks, no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop angefertigt; Dieser ist jetzt bildrechtlich einwandfrei! --Orgelputzer (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ja, da hast Du leider recht.. Bis auf Ludwigshafen 03 (retouched) (cropped).JPG (der Crop von Orgelputzer) --Subbass1 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:P 20221107 205156 vHDR Auto.jpg[edit]

the cropped one, File:P 20221107 205156 vHDR Auto (1).jpg, should suffice Enyavar (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sfantul Ioan cel Nou de la Suceava.jpg[edit]

copyvio: http://www.cuvantul-ortodox.ro/mitropolitul-teofan-sf-ioan-cel-nou-suceava-video-text-sfaturi-atentionari-importante-pentru-zilele-noastre-pregatire-rezistenta-valurile-care-vor-veni-liturghie-impartasanie-rugaciune-grup-prieteni/ Sîmbotin (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The style suggests much recent creation. The {{Own}} claim is either incorrect or these are fan arts of historical figures.

Mys_721tx (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playmobil Knight of Malta (25153645874).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. COM:TOYS Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another abuse of speedy deletion. This is not a toy. This is also a case that falls within FOP, where speedy deletion is specifically noted as not applicable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Actually a statue avaliable in a public place, not acceptable under COM:FOP Malta. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Landappbw 493937 1823 Feuerwehrwache Feuerwehrwache mit "Wachmann" LE-Musberg.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaguar Land Rover logo 2023.svg[edit]

May infringe on the low COM:TOO UK. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaguar logo 2022.svg[edit]

The public domain status of the jaguar hood ornament is not inherited in this depiction of the jaguar logo, which is the property of JLR, and the jaguar is clearly above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FRODEBU leaders 1993.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melchior Ndadaye speaking to RTNB at Bujumbura airport.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melchior Ndadaye.png[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Ndadaye shaking hands with Prime Minister Kinigi at Bujumbura airport.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation. According to the YouTube source link of the file, the video was re-posted in YouTube by a user named 'sagarara'. No evidence to suggest if the user is affiliated to Burundi National Radio and Television, and if permission exists in licensing the files of Burundi National Radio and Television in Creative Commons. Bookish Worm (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is not a repost. As can be seen in this archived link, the channel was originally named "RTNB Burundi". Annoyingly, they recently rebranded their YouTube presence, creating confusion. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 8[edit]

Files in Category:Diagonal divided hybrid flags[edit]

These hybrid flags (non-real flags) are either entirely unused or are only used in userspace galleries of hybrid flags. Out of scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Only for fusion national flags since they can be used for international relations. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Only for fusion national flags since they can be used for international relations. Diego HC (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I know you kind of agree with me but you need other reasons too. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd and Diego HC: Except they're not used like that currently. Articles like en:Japan–United States relations (and all the other languages I checked) use the two individual flags. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep most of them as they allow to symbolize the relations between two nations, also including the EU-relations to its member states. But  Delete for a few controversial hybrids: a) the two DACH-maps with the UK are weird and I cannot imagine where these would be used. b) The "Nordic Union" hybrid is definitely missing Iceland, or is this something other than the en:Nordic Passport Union? c) The Andorra+Catalonia flag doesn't match two souvereign nations.  Neutral on the protest flags of BEL+RUS, and on the pride flag combos: those are potentially useful. --Enyavar (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:SVG flags with diagonal divided hybrid parts TL[edit]

These hybrid flags (non-real flags) are either entirely unused or are only used in userspace galleries of hybrid flags. Out of scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection if these need to go, although given other half-and-half flag images are used in some projects I'm not sure they're out of scope.
These were part of a request on the graphics lab but only a handful ended up being used. The remainder that are in use could probably be combined into a single file if necessary. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 10:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pehr Klockars (c1752-1814), Porvoon valtiopäivät 1809.png[edit]

There is no source and I am pretty sure this is not uploader's own work, no work of Miss Anonynous. First I thought this was derived from File:Diet of Porvoo.jpg, but it's not work of any anonymous. 93.106.151.203 08:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Porvoon_valtiop%C3%A4iv%C3%A4t_1809_by_Emanuel_Thelning.jpg

File:2628194600 Jpg (165458367).jpeg[edit]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in France. The work was completed in 1974 and authored by architecture firm w:en:Harrison & Abramovitz. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And looks like 99% of other buildings...
No minium originality for copyright protection. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton no, there's minimal part on other buildings. A huge part (50%) is the copyrighted work of Harrison & Abramovitz building designer fiem. Not de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not de miniums rules symple geometry.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton nothing in French jurisprudence dismisses the eligibility of simple geometry. The only criteria to deny building designers' copyrights as per COM:FOP France are: purely functional buildings meant for series like housing developments, random use of lines and styles, use of technical knowledge instead of aesthetic knowledge, and building types that are commonly found throughout the country. w:fr:Tour CB21 is a well-designed building and it is not a simple box-type work, as you can see in the local image at French Wikipedia (local images of buildings exist on that wiki, and with warning tags not to transfer those here). It is certain Harrison & Abramovitz will win and the commercial postcard maker or website developer will lose should a copyright case be filed in French courts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Domenica Lazzeri portrait (tableau - painting).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search PD-Art? Yann (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: How old is the painting?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She died in 1848, so there is quite a possibility that this is old enough. Yann (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Conrady.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by K.e.coffman as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Bogus licensing claim Yann (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hastings Clock Tower model photograph by Lovell Smith.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by TheLoyalOrder as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|Lovell-Smith died in 1948, meaning photo isnt public domain in the United States until 2043 Yann (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Date of death doesn't matter in USA. Date of publication matters as well as copyright notice and renewal. Was there a copyright notice? Was the copyright renewed? Probably not. Yann (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Hirtle chart according to this - "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations - 1929 through 1977 - Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date - Copyright term = 95 years after publication date" TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as you mentioned USA, I thought it is a US work. But your calculation is still wrong. And then Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand matters. Copyright of the picture expired in New Zealand in 1998. And what's the copyright of the model made by Chaplin, Sidney George 1905 - 1990? {{FoP-New Zealand}} may apply. Anyway, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has to be public domain in New Zealand and the United States to be on Commons - its clear its public domain in New Zealand but I dont see how its public domain in the United States? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irish passport card - back (2021).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Guliolopez as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/IRL-TO-01003/index.html |reason=The copyright statement on the consilium.europa.eu website expressly gives that "you must under no circumstances: [..] distribute, use or make copies of, or otherwise duplicate any materials contained on the PRADO section, except as expressly authorised here below or authorised by the GSC". This content is from the "PRADO" section. Yann (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As discussed on my EN Wikipedia User talk page, and as seemingly acknowledged by the uploader Drumstick21, the file isn't Commons eligible. In short, and while the European Council copyright page states that most content on that website "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source", further down on the same page the text confirms that the licence applied to content from the PRADO ("Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online") section of the website is much more restrictive. To the extent that it is NOT Commons-compatible. Stating that reuse/republication (and even "framing") requires "express written authorisation from the GSC" and cannot be used for anything other than "other than official and non-commercial use". These are not Commons-compatible requirements/restrictions. As the file under discussion is an "identity and travel document" and comes from the "PRADO" section of the website (consilium.europa.eu/PRADO/en/IRL-TO-01003), it is NOT Commons-eligible.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I also note that the licence tag used is one that applies to ec.europa.eu and the European Commission. The images uploaded are from consilium.europa.eu and the European Council. The European Council and the European Commission are related. But are not the same thing. Notwithstanding the mis-read (incomplete read) of the source website's copyright terms, the tag also doesn't seem correct regardless... Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The EU council clearly does not own the copyright on Irish (nor any other) passports. If at all, that copyright would belong to the Irish government. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I understand the point about the European Council, potentially, not holding the underlying copyright for all the identity and travel docs published on its Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online (database), how would that (automatically) make it Commons-eligible? If the copyright is owned by the Irish government, where is the evidence that the Irish government's rights/terms are Commons-compatible? On EN Wikipedia, the uploader of this similar image believed that only "non-free fair use" could apply. And other previous deletion discussions (on images of Irish passports on Commons) were that they should be deleted (on copyright grounds). Is it not a leap from "European Council copyright terms don't apply" to "No(?) restrictive copyright terms apply"? Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true and may apply here as well. I don't know the details about Irish government documents (and the previous DRs don't really answer that, either), but it could be PD-Ineligible for a number of reasons (e.g to simple, because it's an official document, etc.). My statement was merely about the fact that the copyright terms of the EC are irrelevant in this case, as they're not the owner of the copyright and cannot specify any terms for the usage of this picture. PaterMcFly (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine. But the uploader's basis (for uploading the image here) was that the images were believed PD-eligible precisely BECAUSE they were available on the Commission/Council's website. If the copyright terms of that website are irrelevant, then they can't be a basis for retention either. (IE: If the basis for the PD claim is irrelevant/invalid, then surely it's safer/better to start from a default basis that it's NOT PD-eligible. Rather than starting from a basis that it could/might be...) Guliolopez (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irish passport card - front (2021).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Guliolopez as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/IRL-TO-01003/index.html |reason=The copyright statement on the consilium.europa.eu website expressly gives that "you must under no circumstances: [..] distribute, use or make copies of, or otherwise duplicate any materials contained on the PRADO section, except as expressly authorised here below or authorised by the GSC". This content is from the "PRADO" section. Yann (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As discussed on my EN Wikipedia User talk page, and as seemingly acknowledged by the uploader Drumstick21, the file isn't Commons eligible. In short, and while the European Council copyright page states that most content on that website "Reproduction is authorised, provided that the Council of the EU is always acknowledged as the original source", further down on the same page the text confirms that the licence applied to content from the PRADO ("Public Register of Authentic identity and travel Documents Online") section of the website is much more restrictive. To the extent that it is NOT Commons-compatible. Stating that reuse/republication (and even "framing") requires "express written authorisation from the GSC" and cannot be used for anything other than "other than official and non-commercial use". These are not Commons-compatible requirements/restrictions. As the file under discussion is an "identity and travel document" and comes from the "PRADO" section of the website (consilium.europa.eu/PRADO/en/IRL-TO-01003), it is NOT Commons-eligible.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I also note that the licence tag used is one that applies to ec.europa.eu and the European Commission. The images uploaded are from consilium.europa.eu and the European Council. The European Council and the European Commission are related. But are not the same thing. Notwithstanding the mis-read (incomplete read) of the source website's copyright terms, the tag also doesn't seem correct regardless... Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old-bell-system-intercept-recording.ogg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Awesome Aasim as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Everything is copyrighted by default, even this recording from the Bell System. This is an invalid reason unless if the file was released before 1977 without a copyright notice or released by AT&T otherwise. Yann (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I assume this delete request has been rejected? I would hope so because this recording IS in the public domain. YborCityJohn (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that it is in the public domain? While the individual transcript of the recording may be uncopyrightable, the recording itself can still be copyrighted. What might be applicable depending on when the recording was made is {{PD-US-no notice}}, but otherwise it is probably not. Aasim (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fleshlight-Eigenbau.jpg[edit]

Dickpic, unerwünscht, übergriffig, bitte entfernen Llydia (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castro,Kaji,Inoki in 1990.jpg[edit]

COM:DP#CV. the uploader says creator is '原悦生 (latn:Hara, Essei)'. they are living. the uploader don't provide essential information. eien20 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tegan Nox in March 2020.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by CeltBrowne as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source is video re-uploading copyrighted content |source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6lC6bT7OWM The license was free, but the video was removed from YT. I wonder if the license was valid. Not eligible for SD. Yann (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tegan Nox in March 2020 (cropped).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by CeltBrowne as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source is video re-uploading copyrighted content |source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6lC6bT7OWM See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tegan Nox in March 2020.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cadillac model cars by Hot Wheels[edit]

Delete per COM:TOYS

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Chevrolet model cars by Hot Wheels[edit]

COM:TOYS

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following, which are converted from speedy deletions also filed by Grandmaster Huon at around the same time:

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Clearly the nominator's aim is to remove all Hot Wheels model cars on Commons, but my question (as in another DR): (if Commons:toys) also states: "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States"., so where are the distinctive elements on these cars? IMO most of them are pretty accurate reproductions of their real life counterpart.
 Delete only for File:Hotwheelcar02.jpg, File:S267 Chevy Lumina - USA generic Police (4357289424).jpg, and File:S256 Chevy Lumina - USA Hot Wheels Police (4179282317).jpg (if we consider the flames as copyrighted elements). Fma12 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fma12 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hot wheels are not exact replicas of their source material, they are distorted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Dodge model cars by Hot Wheels[edit]

COM:TOYS

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Pontiac model cars by Hot Wheels[edit]

COM:TOYS

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Same question as in another DR: (if Commons:toys) also states: "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States"., so where are the distinctive elements on these cars? an exception could be File:69 Pontiac GTO hotwheels.jpg, but the rest are pretty accurate reproductions of their real life counterpart. Fma12 (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toy Cars and Trucks.jpg[edit]

Delete per COM:TOYS. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got toyophobia? Nothing explicit here. KEEP. 186.172.103.190 16:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep no reason For deletion, i only see a brunch of toys with no visible detail. Probably there is some toyphobia in this DR. Fma12 (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danganronpa 2 English logo.svg[edit]

crosshairs above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danganronpa 2 English logo.png[edit]

per this Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Power Rangers logo.svg[edit]

3D lightning bolt may be above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. Shading to indicate 3 dimensions is not sufficient to push something above COM:TOO US. Compare the Discover Card logo for example. Given that a lightning bolt is a relatively simple shape and the shading is also relatively simple, I think this falls below the threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eight Bit logo.png[edit]

Mosaic dot layout is above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feel logo.png[edit]

Film reel abstraction borderline TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foto von Max Elsas.jpg[edit]

Not own work. Maybe PD, but if the photo is from 1938, more information is required. Didym (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Datei wurde durch Abfotografieren(!) der S. 378 in Hahn (1998) angefertigt, somit schon "own work" ;-) Zum Passfoto selbst habe ich beim Stadtarchiv Ludwigsburg angefragt und folgende Auskunft erhalten:

Betreff: AW: Foto von Max Elsas
Datum: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:45:44 +0000
Von: Karzel, Simon <S.Karzel@ludwigsburg.de>
An: 'rolf_acker@wikipedia.de' <rolf_acker@wikipedia.de>


Guten Tag Herr Acker,

vielen Dank für Ihr Interesse an der Fotografie von Max Elsas. Bedauerlicherweise konnten wir bisher nicht die mit diesem Foto verbundenen Urheberrechte klären. Zwar befindet sich dieses Passfoto als Bestandteil eines Kennkartenantrages im Stadtarchiv, wir wissen jedoch nicht, wer der Fotograf war. Somit können wir nicht berechnen, ab wann das Foto gemeinfrei ist. Die bisherigen Veröffentlichungen fanden unter der Auflage statt, dass der Nutzer selbst überprüft, inwieweit Urheberechte durch die Veröffentlichung tangiert werden.
Ich bedauere, Ihnen keine zufriedenstellendere Antwort geben zu können.

Freundliche Grüße
Simon Karzel
__________________________
Dr. Simon Karzel
Stadtarchiv, Leitung

STADT LUDWIGSBURG
FACHBEREICH ORGANISATION UND PERSONAL
Abteilung Stadtarchiv

Geschäftsstelle des Historischen Vereins für Stadt und Kreis Ludwigsburg e.V.

Mathildenstr. 21, 71638 Ludwigsburg
Telefon 07141 910-2412
Telefax 07141 910-2342
s.karzel@ludwigsburg.de www.ludwigsburg.de/stadtarchiv
USt.-IdNr.: DE 146128114, St.-Nr.: 71385/00805
Ausgezeichnet als Vorreiter-Kommune des Landes Baden-Württemberg „Auf dem Weg zur Klimaneutralität“


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: rolf_acker <rolf_acker@wikipedia.de> Gesendet: Montag, 11. März 2024 21:16
An: Stadtarchiv <Stadtarchiv@ludwigsburg.de>
Betreff: Foto von Max Elsas

Hallo,

im Rahmen eines Kompaktseminars haben sich Studenten der PH Ludwigsburg in Kooperation mit dem PKC Freudental und Stuttgarter Wikipedianern letzte Woche mit jüdischem Leben und jüdischen Spuren in Ludwigsburg beschäftigt. Unter anderem mit der Biografie von Max Elsas.

Hierzu meine Frage/Bitte: Ist es möglich, das veröffentlichte (Pass-?)Foto von Max Elsas gemeinfrei im Online-Bildarchiv des Stadtarchivs Lbg. zur Verfügung zu stellen? Analog der Datei S23_005223-002.jpg für Dr. Walter Pintus: https://ludwigsburg.fotoware.cloud/fotoweb/archives/5002-Bildarchiv/Folder%2016/S23_005223-002.jpg.info

Das Elsas-Foto ist in Joachim Hahn (1998) "Jüdisches Leben in Ludwigsburg", S. 378 abgedruckt und auf S. 558 in Fußnote 259 mit dem Bildnachweis "StadtA LB L32 Bü. 86 (Kennkartenanträge 1938 ...)" versehen. Offensichtlich wurde das Foto zudem z.B. bei der Opferbiografie auf den Seiten der Stolperstein-Initiative Ludwigsburg in einer Fotomontage verwendet: https://stolpersteine-ludwigsburg.de/max-elsas/

Hintergrund: In der Bilddatenbank "commons" der Wikimedia-Projekte (wozu auch die deutschsprachige Wikipedia gehört) können nur solche Fotos hochgeladen werden und dauerhaft verbleiben, die unter einer freien Lizenz wie z.B. CC-BY-SA 4.0 zur Verfügung stehen. Ein Portrait-Foto von Max Elsas könnte in mehreren Wikipedia-Artikeln sinnvoll zur Bebilderung verwendet werden. Mit der Bitte um wohlwollende Prüfung – Danke.

Freundliche Grüße

rolf_acker
Autor der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia

Falls die Original-Email des Stadtarchivs benötigt wird, bitte kurze Rückmeldung inkl. Mailadresse, wohin ich sie schicken soll. Danke.
cc: Didym, Anni2911
--rolf_acker (Diskussion) 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Man kann hier davon ausgehen, dass der Autor bzw. Fotograf anonym ist (was das Archiv auch bestätigt hat) - und die deutsche Schutzfrist für anonyme Werke beträgt Veröffentlichung +70 Jahre, also 1938+70=2008 - passt also. Lizenz sollte zu {{PD-scan}}+{{PD-anon-70-EU}} geändert werden.
////// (It can be assumed here that the author/photographer is anonymous (which the archive has also confirmed) - and the German term of protection for anonymous works is publication +70 years, i.e. 1938+70=2008 - so it fits. License should be changed to {{PD-scan}}+{{PD-anon-70-EU}}.) TheImaCow (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1924 Presidential Election in North Carolina.svg[edit]

Redundant with File:North Carolina Presidential Election Results 1924.svg 2600:1009:B062:4DA0:A1C7:ECA0:C11D:BCCB 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are distinctly different ZackCarns (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete & replace File:North Carolina Presidential Election Results 1924.svg where it appears that two county borders are a bit off for some reason TheImaCow (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1928 Presidential Election in North Carolina.svg[edit]

Redundant with File:North Carolina Presidential Election Results 1928.svg 2600:1009:B062:4DA0:A1C7:ECA0:C11D:BCCB 17:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete & replace File:North Carolina Presidential Election Results 1928.svg where it appears that two county borders are a bit off for some reason TheImaCow (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHT Saggitarius A black curated with advanced image processing and data science tools to reveal intricate details and patterns.tif[edit]

It's just an extremely unsharp masked image; none of this is "real" information. 2601:602:8900:1D7C:ACA8:70B:FF9C:1018 18:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The "intricate details and patterns" seen here are almost certainly image processing artifacts, not real structure. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It's just an extremely unsharp masked image; none of this is "real" information".....This is an "extremely 'unsharp', arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, premature, agenda driven, unthoughtful, tunnel visioned statement". @Omphalographer The author of this image requests further `evidence` to back the above statement up by actually performing unsharp mask filter on this very publicly available image or withdraw the statement by acknowledging the mistake. Wikipedia is supposed be a free and open place for expansion of human knowledge and new discoveries. Debates are welcome but prejudices are not. Serious people should read this paper on how hidden features are revealed without introducing (or negligibly small) artifacts. The author of the image would eventually publish it (or similar images) on a high quality peer-reviewed journal like the one below.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47053-4
Since peer review is very time consuming and expensive process this wikipedia contribution was made with the intention of expanding our knowledge. Also @Omphalographer is requested to to have a look at the simulation results and the above image curated from raw data published by EHT team.
https://www.space.com/black-holes-event-horizon-explained.html
PrasantaPal 03:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasantapalwiki (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of the Iraqi Air Force.svg[edit]

Copyright infringement. Original source https://www.airliners.net/photo/Iraq-Air-Force/Antonov-An-32B/1886029/L clearly says "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission." Buckshot06 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the photos are somehow judged not to have copyright status, there is no Public Domain status for government symbols in Iraq, and the Iraqi MOD site displays copyright symbols prominently.
The individual objects that appear within the photos - the Air Force symbols - are infringing Iraqi Ministry of Defence copyright.
What we would need is a specific photo which was released free of copyright, not drawings based on copyright photos (amended).

Buckshot06 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep @Fry1989; @FOX 52; @NorthTension. The script relating to copyright refers to the individual photographs ("This photo...") as a whole published on the site and not to what appears within them. The logos which are in svg format (and not extrapolated from the original) are in the public domain (due to their widespread diffusion) as are the flags of the various countries that appear in the various photographs (Iraq, Ukraine, Germany, United States, etc...) which otherwise should also be deleted from Wikipedia Commons. It is the photographs in their entirety that must not be published without permission of the relevant author, but the individual objects that appear in them can be reproduced in svg format. Should we perhaps delete not only the roundels and the flags but also all the military aircraft present on Wikipedia Commons, if they are of the same type or model as those in the photographs used as examples? It is always advisable to know how to interpret the warnings relating to copyright in a non-extensive way and above all without getting caught up in paranoia. FDRMRZUSA 9 March 2024.

March 9[edit]

File:Causeway Link Logo.gif[edit]

Appears to be above TOO. (For the record, this is a Malaysian company. See w:en:Causeway Link) S5A-0043Talk 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPC-1000.JPG[edit]

Seems like it was pulled out from an ad, unlikely to be their own work. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again (I'm not the original uploader), I suspect it could well be and maybe gave it too much of the benefit of the doubt last time.
I can't find any definitive evidence that this is the case, but the suspiciously low dimensions are a very common red flag with copyvios (anyone inclined to put that much effort into setting up an image would be unlikely to waste it on such crappy resolution).
OTOH, it could be a museum setup and (ironically) it's harder to judge that from such low resolution. So questionable whether evidence warrants PCP or not. Ubcule (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Ford Mustang model cars by Hot Wheels[edit]

COM:TOYS copyvio.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre Raby at Italian disco Gerardmer.jpg[edit]

protection Sidirdnaxela (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotwheels custom decal TD special edition.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. COM:DW of copyrighted COM:TOYS. This appears to be a custom design by the uploader, per the description and the nonstandard art. The questions are whether it's in scope, and whether it's still a DW because of the body that was painted over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, still a derivative work of the copyrighted car design by Mattel. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PorygonInWho'sThatPokémon.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo - COM:TOO? It's a complex shape but it's still just a shape. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santadas kathiababa signature.jpg[edit]

There is no information available if Santadas kathiababa had a signature or regarding the original source of this signature. Not sure how this is own work if it is dated "before 1905". Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep and change the license to {{PD-signature}} --Sreejith K (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sreejithk2000 Could you specify whose signature this is? Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Signature of Santadas Kathiababa --Sreejith K (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The account who uploaded this file is a block-evading sock. What he/she said about the image cannot be taken on trust because they have lied repeatedly.Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA14414-1600x1200.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. COM:DW of copyrighted COM:TOYS. Yann (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD is NASA created these. Yann (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a derivative work of the copyrighted basic lego minifigure design. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm[edit]

It seems highly unlikely that Warner Musc New Zealand has the authority to release this collage of music videos under CC BY. It is most likely an error on their side. Ainali (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per previous decisions and verifications of copyright status of Warner Music NZ CC-BY videos at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dua_Lipa_samples_from_5_songs.webm, File:The_Evolution_of_Charlie_Puth.webm, unchallenged MOTD at File:Ed_Sheeran_pōwhiri_in_New_Zealand.webm. For a more in depth treatment, see the related deletion requests Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Hogwarts_Legacy and more recent duplicate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hogwarts Legacy – Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm where an entirely different division of Warner Bros has published promotional video game trailers as CC-BY. Per searches such as [10] for one of the music video excerpts included in this compilation, Warner Chappell Music is the publisher for the work. Dhx1 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<tvar name="1"></tvar>

Files uploaded by S1in0o (talk · contribs)[edit]

Art made by artist who has passed away in 2019. Not out of copyright

Nutshinou Talk! 13:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CornistesOrchestreDeL'Oise.jpg[edit]

Doubt on the own work claim, it might com from the orchestra communicatio, as there is no metadata, and that there is only the french Horn secttion uploaded, and that it has been photographed from a very convenient angle reserved usually for the official photographers CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zbigniew Herbert IPN.jpg[edit]

There is no creation date of this photo, and any publication date and publicator, in source page as well, so it can't be PD-anon and PD-Poland 178.37.205.142 13:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The image says 1964 and appears to be a passport or visa photo and it meets PD-Poland and anonymous at the same time, like almost every passport/visa image. --RAN (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Forgemind ArchiMedia Flickr stream[edit]

All files from Forgemind ArchiMedia Flickr stream should be deleted. There are currently 455 files credited to them, and I have encountered many many more which are not in the category. Too many to list, sorry, is there an automated way to do this?

I would simply draw attention to this gallery of the User's; a compilation of photos from a 2011 architecture conference in Taiwan - none of the images appear to be Forgemind's own work and all are CC-BY-2.0. Every file I looked at, a few dozen so far, has been problematic - from using Boeri's own photo here to using Sousa's own sketch here.

I would also say that any user who was involved in uploading such blatant copyvio work, and all users who went on to add them to various Wikipedia projects, should probably be a bit more careful in the future. --mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:22, 4 March 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:Ogopogo_Song_Paul_Whiteman_Orchestra.ogg[edit]

I thought this was recorded in the UK; however, it was recorded in the US, so it would be under copyright. InverseHypercube (talk) 07:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; please  Keep. According to Template:PD-US-record, this is in the public domain. InverseHypercube 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogopogo Song Paul Whiteman Orchestra.ogg[edit]

Under new laws that have passed since this was posted in 2011 this song had a copyright restored to it until 2026. We need to delete until then, sadly. SDudley (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [11]: The image's metadata matches the uploader's previous username, Aileenchiu. 0x0a (talk) 14:17, 9 March 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 Sintegrity (talk · contribs)[edit]

Speedy requests converted to DR: Too old for G7, but no objection to courtesy deletion.

1st deletion request

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Fairly prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:44, 30 January 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.

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

Speed deletion requested by the uploader. Licenses issue. I thought the Flickr profile was good, but after the upload I realized it's all a license washing case.

2nd deletion request

Sintegrity (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  •  Keep I don't see any indication of license landuring. MTur Destinos seems to be a reliable Flickr user. --A1Cafel (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't check all, but at least for most of the "Flavioandre..." and "Flavio Andre...", Metadata says Com autorização de uso pelo criador ao MTUr e associados descritos na autorização. This at least seems incompatible with the license MTur provided to Flickr. -- Gauss (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Files are from the official Flickr account of MTur, which seems to have an agreement with the creators. I don't know what means the information on the exif of the files by Flavio Andre, it could well mean that he authorized MTur to use them as they please, including relicensing - that would be on the contract they signed or otherwise agreed with MTur. In any case, that's MTur responsibility. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Angola the copyright term in Angola is either Life + 45 years after the photographers death or + 70 years after the date of publication in cases of anonymous photographs. In the case of these images specifically, although they were uploaded to Flickr under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license they were taken by an unknown photographer and there's zero evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to them or can release them in the public domain. So the images should be deleted until at least 2085 per the normal term for anonymous works in Angola since they appear to have been taken in 2014. If not until an undetermined date to the unclear years of creation.

3rd deletion request – part I

Adamant1 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Angola the normal term for photographs is life + 45 years after the photographers death. Although these photographs were uploaded to Flickr under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license there's zero evidence the uploader is the original photographer, that they own the copyright to said images, or that the person who took them has been dead for more then 45 years. So the images should be deleted until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

3rd deletion request – part II

Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

As Adamant1 alerted me: these photo may not be had taken by the Flickr user.

3rd deletion request – part III

Sintegrity (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: I think you added the comment to the wrong DR since most, if not all, of these images are from the account of someone named PaulBlake1957, who clearly uploads "found photographs" that they didn't take themselves. Regardless, to answer your question, no one said it isn't the official Flickr Account of SIM USA. I certainly didn't. The question here is if SIM USA owns the copyright to the images uploaded to their Flickr account or not, and I'm of the opinion that they don't. Especially since of their admittance the photographs are either taken by an unknown photographer or a missionary named Jessica Wadsworth. They clearly aren't Jessica Wadsworth and there's a difference between them having photographs taken by her versus owning the copyright to said photographs. Otherwise we would need evidence of the later, which I don't see us having. Otherwise be my guest and provide some. Just playing devils advocate doesn't cut it though. Especially with the photographs from PaulBlake1957's account. Since again, they clearly upload found photographs that they haven't taken themselves and therefore don't own the copyright to. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIM USA is a missionary work organization. It is more than reasonable that they have permission to upload photographs from their missionaries. Your opinion, if not corroborated by facts, is needless and disposable. Otherwise you’d need evidence of the later, which I don’t see us having – have you tried contacting them instead of letting yourself get carried away by your usual deletionist instincts? Don’t worry, I have already done so on their website and soon we will have a response.
In regards to PaulBlake1957’s uploaded photographs, please mark them as such, because I am not going to check all of nominated photographs, one by one, since you have mixed photographs from two different account, one of them being totally legitimate. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 (pinging). By the way, does someone oppose removing all the needless almost 400,000 bytes from previous nominations? I can barely edit here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: As far as I know all the images that I nominated for deletion in the original request are from SIMUSA. Sintegrity then nominated the other images for deletion in separate DRs. Including this one. So I'm not really sure what your talking about or how it's my problem. The same goes for your insult about my "usual deletionist instincts" or whatever. Since again, I didn't start this DR, Sintegrity did of their own accord after messaging me on my talk page about it and I'm obviously not responsible for their actions. You might not know this for whatever reason, but it's possible to create and vote on separate DRs started by different people having to do with the same uploader.
More to the point, it might be "reasonable" that they have permission to upload photographs from their missionaries, and I disagree that it is, but that doesn't mean they have the permission. Or again, be my guest and provide evidence that they do. I find it hard to believe they would own the copyright to photographs they themselves say are by unknown photographers, that were taken at unknown dates, and are of unknown people. It would be pretty trivial for them to posses random photographs people took while doing missionary work under their remit. Again though, that doesn't mean they would own the copyright to said images. Although I'm more then willing to put my DR on hold for now while we wait to hear back from them about it. But there's no reason not to delete the other images nominated by Sintegrity in the meantime. Especially since they are requesting it themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This DR page is a mess. Consider writing notes on the side of the file names. Which photographs are credit to unknown photographers? Which were uploaded by Paul Blake? RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's multiple DRs. The photographs in this one are from to PaulBlake1957's Flickr account and are probably "found photographs" by other people. The ones in the original DR are from SIMUSA and were again taken by unknown photographers. Essentially every image not specifically credited to Jessica Wadsworth in the file name is by an unknown person. It doesn't help that you needlessly collapsed everything though. To the point that it's a mess that's only because you turned it into one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In regards to this last DR, opened by Sintegrity, it should be noted that Paul Blake apparently uploads photographs taken by his parents, by himself, and by others, some of the latter likely being already in the public domain while others maybe not. I’d suggest closing this DR because we are not going anywhere with that many files to assess. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just delete the images since the uploader requested it within the 7 day curtesy window and there's no way to determine which were taken by whom or are in the public domain anyway. We usually respect deletion requests by the uploader within 7 days of them uploading the images anyway though. Otherwise it's just wasting everyone's time nominating the images in smaller batches when they are probably just going to be deleted anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sintegrity nominated them to deletion not because she wanted to remove them from their upload history, but rather because she thought there were copyright issues to them. Anyway, she could simply add {{SD|G7}} to the files. Let’s see what she thinks. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @RodRabelo7 and @Adamant1. Sorry for all this work and worry besause of a batch. I think these images are important to ilustrate not only the missionary mission, but also (and more important) people from that region of Angola. But if they are not appropriated within the PD rules, I guess we should delete them. Just let me know what I should do. Sintegrity (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RodRabelo7 can try and make an issue out of it, but at least with this DR the images clearly have copyright issues since of their own admission PaulBlake1957 uploads found photographs to their Flickr account sometimes and it's clear which ones he took or not. The other DRs aren't any better either and RodRabelo7's provided absolutely nothing to contradict that. So the DR should just stay open until a administrator deals with them and hopefully deletes the images. There's no reason to not delete the photographs though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serabit-El-Khadim-Ḥ362.svg[edit]

Completely Out of Scope, looks to me a random drawing done on Microsoft paint. Contributers2020Talk to me here! 14:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not made in Microsoft Paint (who uses MS Paint anymore), and it is based on an Ḥ glyph in Serabit El Khadim's 362 inscription. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romain_Butin,_Serabit_el-Khadim_inscriptions,_362.jpg
I will fix the quality, but I find your move as completely rash and in bad faith (sorry!). INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really, really sorry that it sought out to you as bad faith and it wasn't my intention. I tried to emphasize that the quality of the vector that is uploaded makes it out of scope. I think I should have approached you on the talk page instead of the immediate deletion request. Really sorry again. Just a thought, considering efficiency, was the new vector truly needed? Perhaps, alternatively, cropping the file you linked in the reply could have sufficed. Your consideration of this suggestion is greatly appreciated.Contributers2020Talk to me here! 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vector was made as part of a suite of all the Serabit El-Khadim symbols. Just cropping the sketch it was based on would leave a white background and wouldn't look polished.
I recently improved the quality. Do you have any more suggestions? INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intel Core i5 8th Generation Sticker.jpg[edit]

COM:DW of copyrighted design. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:W135fjs Missionary group, probably in Quessua (29299742235).jpg[edit]

As Adamant1 alerted me: these photo may not be had taken by the Flickr user. Sintegrity (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Děvčátka, 1997.png[edit]

Missing permission from the author of the photo (Jiří Kovanic). Moreover, depicted sculture is not PD-old, because the sculptor Eva Tesařová died in 2004 and it does not seem that the work is permanently exhibited in the public space. Gumruch (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Iceland[edit]

Per Template talk:PD-Iceland, this is an unneeded duplicate of {{PD-Iceland50}}. Should be deleted and redirected as redundant. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:43, 9 March 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:Flag of North Mitrovica.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: kk.rks-gov.net/mitroviceeveriut AceDouble (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, we do not require that an emblem is in official use, if it has ever been in significant use then we should keep it. If it is "used by Serbian parallel structures" then we should keep it. North Mitrovica has an ethnic Serb majority and the town has refused to work with the Republic of Kosovo. This is widely used in Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the related deletion requests, by the same nominator for the same reasons.
Verbcatcher (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per given source, there can't be two systems for one municipality at the same time. These municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo and are bound to Kosovo's legal jurisdiction. AceDouble (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of North Mitrovica.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem that has never been adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/ AceDouble (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep, renominated for deletion the day after it was kept. If you disagree with the the result of a deletion decision then you should follow Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions – contact the closing admin on their talk page, at User talk:Strakhov. This repeated request offers nothing significantly new; we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 9 March 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:Flag of Leposavić, Kosovo.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: kk.rks-gov.net/leposaviq AceDouble (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, we do not require that an emblem is in official use, if it has ever been in significant use then we should have it. If it is "used by Serbian parallel structures" then we should keep it. w:en:Leposavić says that the locality has "an ethnic Serb majority that functions largely autonomously from the remainder of ethnic Albanian-majority Kosovo", so that the town may use symbols that are not in official use by Kosovan authorities. The symbol is in use by what claims to be the municipality's website.[12]. It is in use in Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the related deletion requests, by the same nominator for the same reasons.
Verbcatcher (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per given source, there can't be two systems for one municipality at the same time. These municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo and are bound to Kosovo's legal jurisdiction. AceDouble (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Leposavić, Kosovo.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem that has never been adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/ AceDouble (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep, renominated for deletion the day after it was kept. If you disagree with the the result of a deletion decision then you should follow Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions – contact the closing admin on their talk page, at User talk:Strakhov. This repeated request offers nothing significantly new; we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This one cannot be deleted, and has a FOTW source. How does AceDouble think is it unreliable? 170.235.203.18 16:29, 13 March 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:Flag of Leposavić (vertical), Kosovo.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: kk.rks-gov.net/leposaviq AceDouble (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the related deletion requests, by the same nominator for the same reasons.
Verbcatcher (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per given source, there can't be two systems for one municipality at the same time. These municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo and are bound to Kosovo's legal jurisdiction. AceDouble (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Leposavić (vertical), Kosovo.svg[edit]

Fictional emblem that has never been adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/ AceDouble (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep, renominated for deletion the day after it was kept. If you disagree with the the result of a deletion decision then you should follow Commons:Deletion requests#Appealing decisions – contact the closing admin on their talk page, at User talk:Strakhov. This repeated request offers nothing significantly new; we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Say Ocean.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Spinixster as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Check user's edits on Wikipedia. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I did check the users edits elsewhere but couldn't find any. @Spinixster, how is this file a copyright violation? I can't seem to find a copy around on internet. ─ Aafī (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi See w:es:Usuario_discusión:Demoncore777. Spinixster (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinixster: The discussion doesn't add anything. It is just a warning that the content this user added on es:Say Ocean was copy-pasted and thus a copyright violation. It doesn't say anything about this image. It is good resolution and has meta-data, and I do not find any of its copies on internet. How exactly do you think this image is a copyright violation? Where was this previously published? ─ Aafī (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it's an image of a seemingly non-notable band, and the fact that the now-deleted article was a copyvio should be a red flag. The original source could have been taken down. Spinixster (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sweet Baby Inc. logo.svg[edit]

The baby image looks to me to be above the threshold of originality. This is in use on English Wikipedia, so if the file could be copied locally by someone with that authority before it is deleted here that would be nice. --TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/10 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/11 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/12 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/13 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/14 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/15 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/16 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/17 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/18 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/19 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/20 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/21 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/22 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/23 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/24 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/25 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/26 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03/31

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/03&oldid=857027933"