Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/05

4 April 2024

6 April 2024

Deletion requests on 5 April 2024

April 5[edit]

File:Lectura del Sefer Tora.jpg[edit]

Good photo. Not own work 186.173.142.219 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Formula mas bella 10-IBO.png[edit]

Out of scope: the claim in this image is simply incorrect. The sum of these values is ~9.999947, not 10, and there is no special mathematical significance to their sum. Omphalographer (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly an approximation, could be used to illustrate mathematical coincidences and has clear educational value. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a particularly interesting coincidence. There are much better ones listed at en:Mathematical coincidence#Numerical expressions, and they're all illustrated perfectly adequately with inline math formulas. There's no need for a giant image like this one, and especially not one which incorrectly implies that the result is exact.

(This coincidence is particularly uninteresting because

\beta =\pi /10+2

is an obvious "fudge factor", a value inserted to make the formula come out closer to the desired value. As far as I can tell, this is not a recognized mathematical constant; the only mentions of it I can find online are from the same author as this image.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indonesia Raya by Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra.ogg[edit]

Copyrighted. The same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indonesia Raya by Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra.wav. Silencemen21 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Diegooo010 (talk · contribs)[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no usage and out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotion. Even the username is similar to the one on the logo Wizardofwords25 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SaM Solutions logo large 300x147.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lobster Technologies Solutions.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armaf Club De Nuit Intense Eau De Toilette For Man 105ML.webp[edit]

copyright status unclear; uploaded by company and cc claimed, but the date given is 2023 and the product photo has been online on Amazon etc since 2021 https://tineye.com/search/d3e530bfca6e5fdd98a221773d0d43570a27a6e6?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scuola Francese - Coppia di ritratti femminili (2).png[edit]

should be merged to File:Scuola francese, - Ritratti di belle (1).png because it is a duplicate Ecummenic (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scuola Francese - Coppia di ritratti femminili (1).png[edit]

It should be merged to File:Scuola francese, - Ritratti di belle (2).png because it is a duplicate Ecummenic (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Equiturn Business Solutions, Inc. Logo.webp[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep (username); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kripstres pack.jpg[edit]

Advertorial Badak Jawa (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the company duly releases this photo under a Creative Commons license, it's useful and should be kept with the description edited accordingly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JanakiBharath Software Solutions.png[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simple Web Solutions.png[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ashish.ghorela (talk · contribs)[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by presumed company rep, no usage and out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SFERUM MEDIA.webp[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ustan Media.webp[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmoney.webp[edit]

COM:SPAM, self promotional image; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo jean.jpg[edit]

The file seems to be lifted from jeandubepiano.org where photos are attributed to Allard Willemstad, whereas here the photo is assigned license CC BY-SA 4.0 with description “Jean Dubé en 2007 à Budapest” but a date of 16 January 2006, so it seems dubious. Betterkeks (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Jean Dubé and have uploaded this photo myself . There was apparently mistakes on my website, I have already answered you in french some minutes ago.. I can confirm that this picture has been made in 2007 in Budapest and is totally free of charge, it was a gift from the photographer ( who doesn not want to give his name). I have been using this picture since many years now and never had any problems with it. Piano6 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano6: This still needs to be run by COM:VRT, but it sounds like the image should be OK because the original creator of the work (created in 2007) at some point in time (in 2008?) gifted you the copyright, after which you then as the new copyright holder of this work uploaded the image in 2017 under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

However, this also means you need to comply on jeandubepiano.org/photos with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license by giving appropriate credit and providing a link to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license to comply with its attribution conditions. For example, by using the Creative Commons license chooser to create the following plaintext to put below the image on your website: Jean Dubé in Budapest © 2007 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/, or the following HTML: <p xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><a property="dct:title" rel="cc:attributionURL" href="https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_jean.jpg">Jean Dubé in Budapest</a> is licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/?ref=chooser-v1" target="_blank" rel="license noopener noreferrer" style="display:inline-block;">CC BY-SA 4.0<img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""><img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/by.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""><img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/sa.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""></a></p>‎. Betterkeks (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have lodged a request on the VRT Noticeboard to confirm the image is OK and does NOT need to be deleted, and to advise on what else needs to happen here. Worst-case: it DOES need to be deleted in which case you could just take a new photo of yourself (for example, using your phone) and upload that 😀 ... which will be a more recent photo and more real and therefore waaaay better. I created a category for you to make it easier: on your Wikipedia page under "External links", click on the hyperlink in "Media related to Jean Dubé at Wikimedia Commons", and then click on the "Upload media" hyperlink to open the "Upload Wizard". From there you should be able to upload images right from your phone. Best wishes, and sorry to have made trouble ... I was only trying to make sure we respect intellectual property. Betterkeks (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano6: do have a look at COM:VRT. Basically, there is a team that carries on confidential correspondence, and you can correspond with them to sort this out. I'm pretty sure it won't be a problem, but it will require a few emails back and forth. - Jmabel ! talk 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano6: The folks at COM:VRT can’t do anything until they receive an email from you with permission. Please email them with what you said above and take it from there. Betterkeks (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aung Min Thu (talk · contribs)[edit]

unlikely to be own works, probably from Facebook as per FBMD metadata.

Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izaro Lestayo.jpg[edit]

I don't think this is own work of the uploader, as claimed. This photo lacks the Exif metadata that would normally be expected in an original photo. It was previously published in 2019. I don't think we can keep this without additional evidence that this photos is freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer), either via COM:VRT or a with a link to the photo's free license (particularly since this appears to have been previously published elsewhere with a non-free license). —RP88 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KB-Bengali-Otobi.svg[edit]

This layout no longer exists. (I am the author of this layout) Jihan (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as historic, in that case, and please edit the file description to reflect the historical aspect of this layout, such as which span of years it was used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roald Dahl signature.png[edit]

This signature by British novelist Roald Dahl (d. 1990) appears to be a copyright violation. Per COM:SIG UK, typical UK signatures are eligible for copyright protection. Uploader claims that this image is own work, but file is identical copy of en:File:Roald_Dahl_signature.png, which is marked "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons". Copyright will expire in 2061 (1990 + 70 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Hein88888 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Out of scope: various strange, incomprehensible diagrams.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Quantum Holopedia (talk · contribs)[edit]

Out of scope: unused logos and diagrams with no educational value.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: personal artwork. Some images are described in ways that imply that they represent scientific data (e.g. "A view of a distant, heavy celestial object at the moment of core collapse" - File:Disturbance0.png), but there's no supporting information; it's more likely that they're hypothetical or imaginary.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:İçdaş Blokları - panoramio.jpg[edit]

CGI of a construction project, probably taken from the constructor's website. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelzmoden Schülke, Hilden (Web-Einnäh-Etikett).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as no license (No license since) Kürschner (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info License for the photo is missing, because the photo meet the threshold of originality; If you are the author/photograph of this photo, I assume so, please choose a valid license tag like {{Cc-zero}} so we can close this DR, thanks.--Wdwd (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelzmoden Schülke, Hilden (Web-Einnäh-Etikett).jpg[edit]

Missing license for photograph. The shown logo may be below COM:TOO; We are missing a correct license for the photo. (Remark: User:Kürschner (uploader) removed the missing license tag, see history, so I stared a regular DR) Wdwd (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own photo,I gave a second license now: {{Cc-Zero}}. -- Kürschner (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

These two files are sourced as "own work" but say "Crédit photo Sarah Salazar". Note that uploader also uploaded a Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #1758455068 by Lyvans Boolaky with a claim of own work, so it is unlikely the uploader is Sarah Salazar. I don't think we can keep these two photos without additional evidence that they are freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer), either via COM:VRT or a with a link to the photos' free licenses.

—RP88 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Urban Hike - Physics Books at University of Washington Book Store (1797565938).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work - book covers probably over the threshold of originality.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion of the TOO-issue. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cover design appears to be below the threshold of originality in the US see COM:TOO US. This depends on where the first book with this cover design was first published. The books are listed in w:en:Course of Theoretical Physics; I have not investigated all of the volumes and editions, but it is probable that this design was introduced in the first volume of the series. The first volume was Mechanics, and this has had three editions: 1, 2 and 3. The 3rd edition had this cover design, and was published in 1976 in "Oxford, Boston, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New Delhi and Singapore".[1]. As this includes Boston we can apply COM:TOO US, which is more permissive and more clearly documented that in most or all other jurisdictions. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Voyager spacecraft in space simulation chamber.jpg[edit]

duplicate of File:Voyager Test Model Configuration PIA21734.jpg Artem.G (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biểu trưng SCTV.png[edit]

File:Biểu trưng SCTV.png AnVuong1222004 (8) (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AnVuong1222004 (8) (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankie Jonas (2023).png[edit]

Source for image is a YouTube video. Unfortunately this particular video is licensed with the standard YouTube license, not the Creative Commons CC-BY-3.0 license. —RP88 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirche Leimbach 04.JPG[edit]

There is no FoP for interior spaces in Switzerland much less for churches. The church's architect is Oskar Bitterli and it was inaugurated in 1972. Switzerland has a standard of life + 70 years. I suggest to undelete in 2053 Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logotip de l'Escola de Lletres.png[edit]

This logo is no longer current since 2022 95.17.236.156 09:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not being used anywhere in Wikimedia projects. Thank you. 95.17.236.156 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The uploader claims that the source for these photos is "own work" with a CC0 license. This seems very unlikely, as the photos of Leslie Townsend are circa 1930. It might be possible to determine that these photos are in the public domain with a correct source and photographer..

—RP88 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attribution fixed and license to PD-UK-unknown. --RAN (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks for taking a look at these files. I noticed you added a UK copyright tag, but did not add a US copyright tag. Is that because you think they are still protected by US copyright? Under your theory that these photos are PD-UK-unknown with a circa 1930 publication date (i.e. on or after 1926), wouldn't their US copyright have been restored? That would make these photos protected by US copyright until 2026 (1930 + 95 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Meret Oppenheim[edit]

No FoP in Italy. The table was designed by Meret Oppenheim, a prominent artist who died in 1985. Italy counts with a standard of life + 70 years. The table is rather well known. Suggest to undelete in 2056.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is just a table, industrially produced, so it falls under Commons:UA--Sailko (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UA makes a difference between US law and other law. In Italy for example there is no FoP and a certain degree of creativity and artistic quality must be met in order to be copyrightable. (Chapter Copyright, p.3). In my opinion and I believe many modern surrealist artists who were inspired by her as well that table has enough creativity and artistic quality to be copyrightable. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your opinion doesn't seem to match the general approach of the community to the UA matter, see for instance the discussion about Libreria Casablanca, which is the reference case we usually recall whenever a similar item photography is proposed to deletion, especially a European one. I can list many images saved according to that, for this reason I generally upload images of industrial designed objects safely. --Sailko (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Diosdado Macapagal.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio); Change to regular DR, because: older image but unknown date; Should be discussed maybe we could keep this image. Wdwd (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crictron website logo.png[edit]

Copy vio from website https://www.crictron.com The uploader gives no evidence that he has rights to the web site or the images shown here Acabashi (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also these for the same reasonː

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crictron.com_office_mumbai.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crictron_Android_app.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crictron_logos.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crictron_Logo.png

File:HERE WITH ME.jpg[edit]

out of scope Xocolatl (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1962 Asiad-gold indian-football.jpg[edit]

This is from a license laundering flickr account with only 11 images Can someone please add this flickr account to the blacklist ASAP. Leoboudv (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is PD in India and the USA. "as of 2024, works published prior to 1 January 1964 are considered public domain" --RAN (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1970 Asian Games bronze medal winning India national team.jpg[edit]

This is from a license laundering flickr account with only 11 images Can someone please add this flickr account to the blacklist ASAP. Leoboudv (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The flickrbot should Not pass such images from 1970 or earlier as this is not own work. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 January 1964 is the cutoff for public domain in India. --RAN (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Today-we-lose-a-good-friend-n-teamplayer-on-ceres-from-v0-44xbxo7dmd4a1.webp[edit]

Not the good license, a screenshot from TikTok. AT (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dreamy-bull-in-his-formal-suit-v0-afe2dcker0qa1.webp[edit]

Not the good licence. AT (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by I am VN123 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Per COM:FOP Vietnam.

Phương Linh (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have learnt that these are not allowed to be uploaded. Can you delete these for me? Thank you. I am VN123 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very simple road signs and roads. Nothing is copyrightable here. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women's Cricket Team of Growth Sports Academy J&K (Kupwara).jpg[edit]

File:Kayaking on Lake Vättern 20210708 A.jpg[edit]

This is my file, with a person on it - i was supposed to cut her out of the image, but forgot IngimarE (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IS in Sinai.jpg[edit]

Not the uploader's work. Screenshot from IS video Viii23dawari (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne Chevalier 1935.jpg[edit]

This file, showing a postcard published ca. 1935 by German publisher Ross-Verlag (part of "Ross Groß-Filmbilder", series 7), was uploaded with the bogus license tags {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}. The photo was taken and published in Germany, so the Japanese license tag does not apply. The German license tag does not apply as well because it can only be used for works published under special circumstances (works published by a specific type of corporate entity) which is not the case here. As a postcard published in Germany ca. 1935, the image is a also protected in the US until the end of 2030 (because of the URAA).

The photographer is named as Jaeger. That would be Walther Jaeger, a photographer based in Berlin who was the author of many Ross postcards in the 1930s. I couldn't yet find dates of birth or death for him, but I did find him in the Berlin phone books from 1929 to 1961, so he was apparently still alive in 1961. Which means the photograph is still protected in Germany at least until the end of 2031.

The file should therefore be deleted. It can be restored 70 years pma of Walther Jaeger, but not before 2031 (because of the US copyright). Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree deleting this file. --ねこの森には帰れない (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Srafelball55 (talk · contribs)[edit]

There is no FoP in Costa Rica. The bust has no verification of the creator and having been erected in 1984 per this there is no permission from the creator. The musician sculpture is claimed to be by a person called Emilio Sanchez but it is entirely unlikely this is the same person in this article w:Emilio Sanchez (artist) as there is neither mention of him making sculptures nor of any connection with Costa Rica.

Refer to VRT Ticket:2024022610012498 from the photographer.

Ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Safety posters (4582631858).jpg[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The large poster is by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is in the Public Domain. I can crop it (overwrite) and COM:revdel the original photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MUTCD R1-2 (alternative dimensions 2).svg[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugal road sign D11c.svg[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugal road sign D5c.svg[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beshak solutions private limited black logo.png[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jane Fonda leotard.jpg[edit]

Not a publicity or press photo. It is just a photograph. No evidence it was distributed prior to 1989 without a copyright notice. No date stamps on the back. Photo can be found on GettyImages, which claims to be from 1990: https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/actress-jane-fonda-poses-for-a-portrait-circa-1990-in-los-news-photo/84934771?adppopup=true PascalHD (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph merely taken in the 1980s does not automatically make it Public Domain. It has to meet certain requirements. PascalHD (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. It looks like the back of the photograph isn't even available on eBay. So there's no way to confirm anything one way or another. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaptatech logo.jpg[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company account already blocked for spam; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:APStewart-Hail Purdue Closeup.jpg[edit]

This image is taken from Joseph L. Bennett's 1986 book Boilermaker Music Makers. It is not the work of the uploader and, as far as I can tell, is not in the public domain. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Community Youth Ldn (talk · contribs)[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by organization; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Katholische Kirche St. Josef (Matzingen)[edit]

There is no FoP for interior spaces specifically for churches in Switzerland. The Church was inaugurated in 1972 and the architect was Alfons Weisser who died in 2016, so I suggest to undelete in 2087.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jane Fonda holding pear.jpg[edit]

Unclear that the copyright has actually lapsed, as the uploader does not know who created this photograph, only providing an eBay link with minimal information. And because it appears to be tightly cropped, we don't know that there was no copyright marking. I think we need more information about the origin of this photograph before we can declare that it's copyright free. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bestbeat - Dejan Lalić- 5 (white edit).jpg[edit]

Copyright violation? This photo is on many websites, for instance on https://boettger-management.de/beatles-coverband-buchen/. So I doubt whether this is "own work". JopkeB (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverside, Iowa Star Trek Posters - Beam Me Up Scotty (25060010965).jpg[edit]

Although the photographer released his image of "a poster on a flagpole" under Creative Commons, the image on the poster is of unknown provenance, and almost certainly copyvio. DS (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hexcel logo 2017.png[edit]

wrong license Benstown (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorenzo Mascagni.jpg[edit]

File:Hojievmakhmudpresentation.pdf[edit]

Out of scope / copyvio: a slideshow on the "history of Germane" (sic!) with irrelevant, unsourced stock photos. Omphalographer (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pukhtun zalmai (talk · contribs)[edit]

User with bad history, small files without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freiburg im Breisgau Scheckspende an das Universitätsklinikum - W140Nr.11548 - Marlis Decker.jpg[edit]

permission unclear FbrG (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per [2], the archive bought the negative collection of photographer Marlis Decker, presumably along with usage rights of the photographs, in ca. 2009. So I think them releasing the photos under a CC license is plausible. As far as "personality rights" go: Decker was a press photographer, these are posed shots for reporting purposes. So I think we're ok as far as personality rights are concerned, in both Germany ("konkludentes Einverständnis") and the US. --Rosenzweig τ 18:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yamato 1941 colorized.jpg[edit]

No evidence that the colorisation has been released under a free license Loafiewa (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which colorization? The blue sea? Got nothing else to do? Keep. 45.250.252.164 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It quite clearly says "digitally colorized photo" in the bottom left. Loafiewa (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marriage and coronation of King Babar and Queen Celeste.jpg[edit]

Not PD in the United States yet. The first book was renewed in the US see Commons:Character copyrights. First published in French in 1931, but not published in the US until 1933. Not certain as to which year we use for the case of this deletion. We definitely need to add an in deletion date since it would be in the next decade. SDudley (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your grandfather was not born in 1931. 45.250.252.164 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I don’t understand the point of your comment. It seems to have no bearing on the deletion at hand. SDudley (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not ones grandfather was alive in 1931 has no bearing on US copyright terms, which are clear in this case (and for the record, both of my grandfathers were alive in 1931)

Delete Undelete in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but anybody could understand that I was referring to the age of the book, not anybody else's... By the way why are you not disturbed about "French-US"? I think French is not a country name even for Trump or Biden. 45.250.252.164 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Histoire de Babar, le petit éléphant was published in France in 1931. An English translation (The Story of Babar the Little Elephant) was published in the US in 1933. If we assume that this publication was made in compliance with all US formalities (notice, and renewal, which is the case according to Commons:Character copyrights), it is protected for 95 years after publication date, i.e. until 1st January 2029 (see COM:HIRTLE). So it is not in the PD in the US. Note: this should affect all the files in Category:Histoire de Babar. BrightRaven (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R265890 for The Story of Babar, the Little Elephant, so it did comply with the formalities SDudley (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benedicaria Art at PSU 9.jpg[edit]

I’m the owner of this image and it should be deleted. Personal identification info on image Theonelilith (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benedicaria Art at PSU 3.jpg[edit]

G7: I am the owner of this image. It is incorrectly labeled as Benedicaria and has personal information in the meta-data Theonelilith (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benedicaria Art at PSU 2.jpg[edit]

G7: I am the owner of this image. It was incorrectly labeled as Benedicaria, which is not accurate. Additionally, there is personal information in the description. Theonelilith (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sundial PSU - grow old along with me, the best is yet to be -.jpg[edit]

G7 I am the owner of this image, and it is incorrectly categorized as Benedicaria. And it Has personal information that I would like deleted. Theonelilith (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Road to Quantum Financial System.jpg[edit]

Out of scope: Abstract AI-generated image (Bing logo in lower left corner) with no obvious educational purpose. Omphalographer (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bobby Bonilla Pirates.jpg[edit]

If I'm reading the source page correctly, this is an unlicensed baseball card, which might be why the uploader marked it as published without notice.

Based on other cards, the photographs appear to be professional. The original photographer or organization still holds the copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "unlicensed" means they did not get rights to use team names, logos, etc. on the cards (i.e., did not license the trademarks). They also would not have licensed the personality rights from the players or the union.[3] Strictly speaking, that would not affect the copyright if the photo itself was used with permission from the photographer, which it would have to be, in order to be legal at all (the "unlicensed" does not mean illegal -- they just avoided the use of team logos and names on the cards). If there was a copyright notice with the cards, they would still be under copyright, and if not (and they were from before 1989), they would be public domain. These were companies trying to compete with the one company who got the exclusive contract from the league to use logos, I think -- nothing illegal about them. I would find it hard to believe they would use unlicensed photos. The source shows the full front and back, with no notice. It's possible if they came in a pack that the notice could be elsewhere, but seems probably OK at first blush. It would be best to upload the full back and full front and overwrite with the crop so the evidence is here permanently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is marked with a copyright here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All (published and distributed) copies had to have a copyright notice. If half did and half didn't, you still lost copyright. Courts ruled that if only a "relative few" copies lacked notice, copyright was not lost, but I think all examples were in the low single digits of percentage. In this case, that status would only apply to the portion on the card; the wider crop that you found would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways,

Keep from me as it appears to be a valid 1988 publication of the photo without a notice. If a registration of the photo was made, that would change things, but we'd need to find it. I don't see anything offhand (closest is a 1992 artwork portrait of Bobby Bonilla). "Unlicensed" baseball cards were ones that had to compete without showing team logos and names, but they were completely legal, and the copyright aspect should have been as normal. The fact that some other copies had a notice doesn't change this not having one, unless you can show only a couple percent of copies had no notice. We can only upload what is seen on the card though, not the fuller photo. Might not be the worst thing to have the full front and back also uploaded, though they are probably in general findable online to verify lack of notice, if the source site goes away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a registration of the photo was made, that would change things, but we'd need to find it

They are probably in general findable online to verify lack of notice, if the source site goes away.

With all due respect, the burden is on you to do that research, not me, per COM:EVID.

With regards to the current card, I still see no proof that:

there wasn't a copyright notice on the card or packaging (it isn't clear from the scan we can see the whole card and we can't see the packaging at all).
this was an authorized reproduction and
this was widely published (I can find nothing else about this publisher, so that's not clear IMO)

All in all, with all due respect, I believe the burden of evidence fails on copyright grounds for this card on several fronts. The fact that I found it was published with notice somewhere, while you have done only a cursory search to find that maybe this one without notice is not enough to prove this can be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want proof of something that isn't there -- that's not the policy. You can't prove a negative. I did a search on registrations and came up empty. If you do a search and find something, then that would change things, but then post that evidence. I think we assume most publications are authorized. There's no proof of that on most anything we do (postcards, etc.). This was a company that was in business; they would likely have been sued out of existence had they used photos without a copyright license. Baseball cards tended to be pretty widely published, not sure what is in doubt here. There would likely be far more copies sold as cards than autographed photos. As mentioned on the Village Pump, notices tend to be on the cards themselves. There is ample room to put them on the card -- and it's not clear that a notice on the packaging would matter; a court did rule that a notice on a book did not cover the dust jacket. A painting *with* a notice, but not visible, was also ruled invalid. Putting a notice on something designed to be discarded would likely not be valid. Searching on these find several collectors sites on the series such as this. All due respect, everything you listed above is theoretical doubts. The uploader provided a link to a full scan, both sides, of a published work with no notice, distributed before 1989. That is what we require. If you think there is an edge case which applies to this, then that needs to be explained (and shown). You could argue that there's no proof this wasn't first published in Canada or Colombia or wherever if any tiny aspect can have doubt thrown on it. COM:PRP is for significant doubts. We go on the best information we have, and this seems to be a straight-up case of a baseball card published without notice. The law explicitly states that copyright is lost once more than a relatively small number of copies are distributed without notice -- hard to fathom that not being the case here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NARACoverSheet DiscordianSociety.gif[edit]

en:Principia Discordia was not made by the US Government and is likely copyrighted Veverve (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]