Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/20

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
19 April 2024
21 April 2024
Deletion requests on 20 April 2024

April 20[edit]

File:Manitoba Metis Federation Flag.gif[edit]

What is this? 186.175.91.207 00:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the flag for an Indigenous government located in Manitoba, Canada. It is intended for use on the article relating to the Manitoba Metis Federation, the government that it represents. This flag is used on government buildings that the MMF uses in Winnipeg and throughout the province of Manitoba. It is resenting the Manitoba Metis Federation government and the Red River Metis people and marks official buildings and events. Its inclusion on the Wikipedia is necessary as it is a part of the symbols of the Federation/. Raccoonny (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manitoba Metis Federation Seal.jpg[edit]

Who is this? 186.175.91.207 00:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the seal/logo for an Indigenous government located in Manitoba, Canada. It is intended for use on the article relating to the Manitoba Metis Federation, the government that it represents. This seal and its respective flag is seen across Manitoba representing the Manitoba Metis Federation government and the Red River Metis people. Its inclusion on the Wikipedia is necessary as it is a part of the symbols of the Federation/. Raccoonny (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Substitution

File:Einar Þorsteinsson.png[edit]

 Delete Source is as indicated, but there is no evidence at the site that the image is available under the here stipulated {{Attribution}} license. While the website might say (as indicated on the image description page) ""All pictures from the city's website may be used [on other websites, including wikipedia], preferably mentioning the source.", it does not say that deriviate use and/or commercial use is allowed. This makes it incompatible with Commons licensing requirements. Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KANM Logo.webp[edit]

 Delete Image is from the source indicated, but there is no evidence the image is available under the here stipulated {{Cc-zero}} license. Image appears to be above threshold of originality and thus eligible for copyright. Copyright violation. Hammersoft (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. The letters appear to be enlarged from print. The dots are not an element of creativity but halftone dots combined with natural small errors of the printing process. The record icon at the left seems to be below the threshold of originality when compared to examples at COM:TOO US. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaiglazier.jpg[edit]

{{autotranslate|base=Speedynote|1=File:Kaiglazier.jpg|2=[[COM:CSD#G7|CSD G7]] (author or uploader request deletion)}} APHCBR (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Flag of Largo, Florida.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.76.132 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Superseded by a PNG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Panama City Beach, Florida.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.76.132 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nava38.gif[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.76.132 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mams Taylor Headshot.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tatar State Opera and Ballet Theatre (2022-05-22) 02.jpg[edit]

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


Удаляете изображения Z с Викисклада, похвально. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Box Art New.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Fair use (Fair use) which would not be admissible to Commons, however we have another artwork by this same creator which was approved by the OTRS team. Would it be possible for an OTRS volunteer to check if the permission was "all works" or the single work to which the OTRS tag is attached? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This group is a good-faith upload of public works of art in the USA created by Sid Boyum who passed in 1991. To retain these due to "no freedom of panorama" laws in the US, and the recent date of demise of their creator requires a release from his heir/s. If that's possible, please have them read the page at COM:OTRS and send in the simple email. Cheers.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:台北帝寶大樓183342.jpg[edit]

Too blurry photo. Better photo: File:台北帝寶 183344.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CL bus FAE-772.jpg[edit]

Better version: File:CLbus FAE-772.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fmje-12.jpg[edit]

Нет обоснования, почему изображение свободно. Автор Ермаков Вячеслав Александрович жив (2024: http://www.artpanorama.su/?category=article&show=subsection&id=1293&ysclid=lv7ruy4i8o380733247 ), VRT-разрешения нет, вот это изображение свободно, потому что денежный знак: File:USSR-1985-1ruble-CuNi-Festival-b.jpg, а сама эмблема не свободна. Тема на форуме: Commons:Форум#File:Fmje-12.jpg. Lesless (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification why the image is free. The author Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Ermakov is alive (2024: http://www.artpanorama.su/?category=article&show=subsection&id=1293&ysclid=lv7ruy4i8o380733247 ), there is no VRT resolution. But this image is free, because the coin: File:USSR-1985-1ruble-CuNi-Festival-b.jpg. And the emblem Fmje-12.jpg itself is not free. Forum thread: Commons:Форум#File:Fmje-12.jpg. Lesless (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo 12th World Festival of Youth and Students.jpg[edit]

Also (derivative work). Lesless (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craig Foss.jpg[edit]

copyvio - https://www.govt.nz/about/using-this-website/copyright-and-attribution/ "Copyright in photographs on Govt.nz is not owned or licensed to you by the Crown. Unless otherwise stated in relation to specific photographs, you cannot copy, distribute or adapt any photograph without the agreement of the copyright owner." TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ubawin (cropped).jpg[edit]

This photo of Ba Win should be deleted, because the second Ba Win photo that I have made that is different from this one is better, - No black bar on a photo, better colors and quality. KhantWiki (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geographic Range of Aristolochia trilobata.png[edit]

Incorrect licence tag, as the image is not a work of an agency of the US federal govt. No indication of free licencing on source website (IUCN). William Avery (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul A.Levine.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Graywalls as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: It says the photo is taken by the photographed subject's partner Elene Medvedev, but does not say that the uploader is Elene. One can't release a copyright of a photo they receievd for a specific purpose. No evidence of permission/license laundering |source= Yann (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johanna Hansen.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Elena Hill M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conde de Osborne Dali.jpg[edit]

Spanish brandy bottle designed by Salavador Dalí, who died in 1989. While the form of the bottle might be OK (as a utilitarian object), the label should be protected by copyright in both Spain and the US. The file should therefore be deleted. It can be restored in 2060. Rosenzweig τ 10:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Mursunsydämet.svg[edit]

Improved vector version of this image has superseeded this image. This image file has disrepancies in the lines of the symbol on the right side picture, which consists of L-blocks. Thus, this old file should not be used in the future and has become redundant. The new image has also been correctly named with the much widely in use term "Tursaansydän".

File:Tursaansydämet.svg is a vector version of this file.
File:Deletion requests/2024/04/20 → File:Tursaansydämet.svg
For more information, see Help:SVG.
In other languages
Alemannisch ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ British English ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Frysk ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ Ido ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ Scots ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ vèneto ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ нохчийн ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ татарча/tatarça ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ தமிழ் ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
New SVG image

File:Tursaansydämet.svg Thurisas (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 桃園捷運 MRT A13 Airport Terminal 2 Station from Taoyuan Airport March 2024 R12S.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlafzimmer 4.jpg[edit]

Not educationally useful Markus13666 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The bedroom is not fully visible. Crooked perspective of the photo. Julie13666 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Syd eetfuk (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 208.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 181.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 182.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 164.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 150.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted posters in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak  Delete, food image does probably not quality for de minimis. TheImaCow (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 143.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted poster in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep {{De minimis}} applies to the food pictures on the tables TheImaCow (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 123.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep COM:Taiwan#Applicability only protects "literary works" - a generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and dosen't fall into that category. {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 059.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted poster in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Almost all logos depicted here are {{PD-textlogo}}, and the for the few that aren't, {{De minimis}} applies. TheImaCow (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 063.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted poster in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 彌敦道 100 Nathan Road The One mall August 2022 Px3 034.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted poster in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 金巴利道 Kimberley Road August 2022 Px3 13.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 金巴利道 Kimberley Road August 2022 Px3 26 restaurant menu.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 金馬倫道 Cameron Road August 2022 Px3 01.jpg[edit]

Copyrighted food menu in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A generic listing of products and their prices does not have any creative aspect and {{PD-text}} applies, the product pictures are likely {{De minimis}}, and if not, they can be blurred. TheImaCow (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK TST 尖沙咀 Tsim Sha Tsui 金馬倫道 Cameron Road August 2022 Px3 07.jpg[edit]

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:張院長訪視苗栗客家文化園區 02.jpg[edit]

Better version: File:張院長訪視苗栗客家文化園區 09.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 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:Drapeau colonial de l'Australie.png[edit]

Dupicate of File:Australian Colonial Flag.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drapeau colonial de l'Australie.png[edit]

Being an exact, scaled down duplicate of a pre-existing SVG file has been an accepted rationale for many, many years. Fry1989 eh? 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete and especially since the PNG was uploaded long after the SVG, so no history preservation issues or etc. TheImaCow (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krzczonów-Wójtostwo, Pawilon Handlowy.jpg[edit]

i didn't censored license plate on cars Daniel847 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have uploaded another version where I blurred the licence plate, original version can be revision-deleted. (I was really confused for the last ten minutes, because I couldn't see the change I uploaded, turns out you need to clear your browser cache) TheImaCow (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible copyvio: Pictures from a booklet, promotional photoshoot, and a picture found on Google

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stegemann MHG (talk · contribs)[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evangelion 01.jpg[edit]

Per COM:FOP Japan. This photograph of the Evangelion was taken in Japan. IDCM (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Adding Category:Japanese FOP cases/pending.--IDCM (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Projeto Musicalização na escola.jpg[edit]

privacy rights Xocolatl (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copies of images of the 1000 hryvnia banknote[edit]

Duplicates --Мункач Варош (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embuscade (Guerre de Vendée) - Evariste Carpentier.jpg[edit]

Les couleurs de l'image ne sont pas bonnes. J'ai remplacé le fichier par une reproduction au couleurs plus fidèles à la réalité. Merci de supprimer. Template:Suppression image Cafedelyon 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fotograf Tobias-Atzkern-scaled.jpg[edit]

Author is Tobias Atzkern (see description) SuPich (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Approaches to New Orleans. Prepared by order of Maj. Gen. N. P. Banks. Henry L. Abbot, Capt. & Chief, Top. Engrs., Feb. 14th, 1863 - NARA - 306071.jpg[edit]

Same map as File:Approaches to New Orleans - NARA - 109182632.jpg, but lower quality: Most descriptive texts are not readable here due the resolution being too small. TheImaCow (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waaaaazzzzzzza.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Poland.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rachel Brown dehors salle Bourgie.JPG[edit]

Poor quality Trade (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Srbija1.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Serbia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:US National Archives series: J.K. Hillers Prints of the Southwest, 1879 - 1879[edit]

Low quality .gif files - GIF is not suitable for photographic data. Significantly better JPG versions exist here, here and here. Further, all three files are also avaiable as TIF files. The low quality GIF files are unused and out of scope.

TheImaCow (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • GIFs are fine for photographic data. They are lossless, while JPG is lossy though do thumbnail better usually. PNG and TIFF are typically better than GIF though, and in these cases we have larger TIFFs uploaded earlier, so agreed see no purpose for the GIF files. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Minor note: GIF is limited to 256 colors, so it can only be lossless for greyscale photographs (where all 256 colors will be shades of grey), and even then may be lossy if the creator reduces the color palette or enables image "optimization" in some editors when saving the image. Omphalographer (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IrfanView Logo2.svg[edit]

Copyrighted in Austria (Skill and Labour). Alejitao123 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've received permission to upload this to wikimedia from Irfan himself. I would like this deletion request to be dropped. Mrpenguinb (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentWell, in this case, you will have to confirm it (i think such as a proof of the official support forum or VRT), in this case, he will accept that the image will be used for any purpose, even commercially.Alejitao123 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Ticket:2015070710007556 may already have the relevant permission we need. Yeeno (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment In this case, I think that it could be kept. Make sure to edit the description page.Alejitao123 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

com:complex logo.

RZuo (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hartmuth Malorny.jpg[edit]

Doubtful source and license information. [1] shows a comparable recording of Hartmuth Malorny. Both pictures are apparently part of a series, but the commons file was allegedly recorded by the uploader four years later. GeorgHH • talk   17:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Novo Escudo LAAC.jpg[edit]

Conteúdo restrito. Necessário enviar permissão por VRT Cosmo Skerry (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiozinho1.jpg[edit]

Conteúdo restrito. Necessário enviar permissão por VRT Cosmo Skerry (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pub Sign - geograph.org.uk - 4611939.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: good faith upload, but the artwork depicted is not free

FOP issue so converting to DR. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Pub sign - geograph.org.uk - 5553295.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: good faith upload, but the artwork depicted is not free

Converting to DR since this is a FOP issue. The image of the train could be blurred and this could still be a useful file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Rosemary Branch pub sign - geograph.org.uk - 3028853.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: good faith upload, but the artwork depicted is not free

Converting to DR since this is a FOP issue. Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Eleonora1948 (talk · contribs)[edit]

User claimed that these photos are own works but no edidence that (s)he is author of them. 3 photos looks like old photos, 3 other are images from books/magazines. and this is photo by user:Horim.

Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mai Xiong.jpg[edit]

Do not believe it fits the license as Xiong is not a federal official ABlitzz (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LaraZaraUN.jpg[edit]

Taken from undp's page [2], photo got a bit crispier but no difference between original and modified versions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a problem with the copyright classifications made with uploading, or the image itself? If possible to replace it with the higher quality version, I would be willing to do so. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take this photo yourself? 191.125.32.12 03:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stylalogo.webp[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside spammy sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:GE Ingersoll Rand boxcab locomotives[edit]

Unfortunately, the claimed {{PD-US-no notice}} license cannot be applied in this case. That license requires that the original publication have been before 1977 and without a copyright notice. These images were sourced from a modern web page with no information about the original publication, so we have no evidence that they were actually originally published before 1977 and without copyright notice.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The {{PD-US-no notice}} licence can be applied in this case because the first file is a diagram from a railway diagram book created when the locomotive was put into service, and all the other images are factory images taken immediately after the locomotives were built. The evidence is therefore clear that these images were published before 1977 and therefore the request for deletion is unjustified. Pechristener (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pechristener: Internal documents such as diagram books and factory images that were not offered for public distribution are not considered to have been published under US law - see COM:PUBLISH. Evidence is still needed that these images were publicly published before 1977, and that that publication did not have a copyright notice. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These documents were not internal because they were published in magazines and therefore available to the public. There is already evidence above that the images were published before 1977. Therefore, still no justification for deletion. Pechristener (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pechristener: What magazines? Are there scans available so that we can verify that the magazines were actually published without a copyright notice (which is an important criterion that you have not addressed in your answers)? You need to substantiate your claims with evidence that proves the public domain status of the images, because otherwise COM:PRP means they should be deleted. The existing sources do not support your claims:
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:US National Archives series: Gulf of Maine Fisheries Maps and Charts, 1978 - 1984[edit]

Unessescary single-page PDFs, higher-quality JPG images of the exact same map exist here, here, here and here.

TheImaCow (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gikaa.jpg[edit]

"Public domain" status questionable without additional info Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ela Gawin.jpg[edit]

Clearly not own work but work of Ela Gawin (Elżbieta Gawin), for example another photo from the same session (public FB group) https://www.facebook.com/groups/502182526918285/permalink/1837766840026507/ 178.37.205.142 20:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:عبد-الرحيم-دقلو.jpg[edit]

The image does not belong to the person who uploaded. There is no meta data, the source link does not work to even verify the license FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:69fillmorewest.jpg[edit]

It is doubtful that this was an original work by the uploader. Signed copies exist in much higher resolution, including this version that was sold years prior to the photo appearing on Commons. This exact copy of the image (same resolution and metadata) appeared on a blog months prior to being uploaded to Commons. VTRS permission would be needed; unfortunately, the uploader has not edited in a decade. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 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:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Keep.

(1) This photo was taken from a public highway, of items placed next to the public highway for the purpose of public viewing and phogotraphs. The objects were part of a scarecrow festival, and were placed next to an exhibit as part of the show. All this is covered in the UK by Panoramafreiheit.

(2) The link given above is about US law only and the US does not have Panoramafreiheit. If you extend your US laws to all photographs uploaded from the UK, then you will have to delete all photographs taken from public highways, including all public monuments. You are not doing that, though, are you?

(3) As I understand it, toys count as utilitarian in the UK, since they fulfil a need for all children (and for plenty of adults, who may keep a favourite toy all their life). For example, toys are commonly used as a sleeping or calming aid for very young children.

(4) The stuffies (as I believe you call them in the US?) in the picture are almost certainly hand-made by the householders who created the scarecrows for the festival. Commercial toy manufacturers turn out thousands of identical toys, but this pair consists of two individual items. In my generation in the UK, girls were taught cookery and sewing at school, and the boys were taught woodwork and metalwork. I made loads of stuffed animals, as a kid. Thus, most women of my generation can easily make items like the ones in the picture, to our own designs or from patterns. 3D hand-made objects like that are not matters of commerical copyright in the UK, and, I repeat, the ones in the photo are covered by Panoramafreiheit. Storye book (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG[edit]

Bad decision above. These clearly have a copyright as sculptures -- all created works have copyrights. They are not permanently displayed, so FoP doesn't apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Storye book (talk · contribs)[edit]

These are all images of scarecrows at various UK festivals. They are all temporarily exhibited, so FoP does not apply and they all have their own copyrights as sculptures. Anticipating the uploader's claims, which they made in a similar case at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG, I point out that the fact that they are non-commercial is irrelevant -- all creative works have copyrights until they expire.

754 Images
* File:Darth Vader scarecrow geograph-1379636-by-Bill-Nicholls.jpg

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following quotation is from the Wikipedia article Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom. It says that the creator of the photographed item must be both a craftsman and an artist for their creation to be considered an artwork for copyright puroses. However there is no evidence that all the villagers who created the scarecrows were professional craftsmen or professional artists, and there is no evidence that their purpose was to create artworks. Their purpose was to have fun making a temporary effigy out of bags of straw. All the examples of such intended artworks given in that article are saleable items made by professionals with a high degree of skill. That includes the hand-knitted jumper. I can design and knit a jumper because I have the professional skill to write knitting patterns for jumpers. socks etc. - but do you have that skill? No such skill is required to make a scarecrow effigy. A lot of the scarecrows are made by children and cub scouts, many of them under five years old. Are you going to delete pictures of their work, as if they are by professional artists? What are your legal grounds for doing this? Storye book (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The courts have not established a consistent test for what is meant by a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but Copinger suggests that the creator must be both a craftsman and an artist.[125] Evidence of the intentions of the maker are relevant, and according to the House of Lords case of Hensher v Restawile [1976] AC 64,[126] it is "relevant and important, although not a paramount or leading consideration" if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art. It is not necessary for the work to be describable as "fine art". In that case, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, and the products of high-class printing, bookbinding, cutlery, needlework and cabinet-making.

The United Kingdom has Panoramafreiheit, which, as I understand it, permits photography of scarecrows. United Kingdom law takes intention into consideration. It permits photography from the public highway of permanent items, items which may be considered de minimis, and creations by people who are not craftspersons or artists, and have not intended their creations as artworks. Scarecrows are effigies, i.e. non-commercial creations which are intentionally temporary and often crude representations of humans, animals and other things, and are intended for imminent dismantling or destruction. Whether or not they may be considered to have copyright, such effigies can be photographed under Panoramafreiheit in the UK.

Scarecrow effigies are temporary objects made for fun by anonymous villagers or townspeople and their children, and in general such a group is not considered as a whole to be an artist group with special skills for artworks. The effigies do not in themselves have a commercial value. In general, money for a village charity or for community benefit is made at scarecrow festivals by sales of a map or plan of the "scarecrow trail" i.e. a guide to the site of each exhibit within the village or town, and that 2D copyright graphic map is not reproduced on Commons. Money is not made directly from the exhibits themselves.

Consideration of intention is a large part of the structure of British law. British copyright is created for the protection of potential financial rights of the creator to the made object, i.e. it has a commercial intention. However, scarecrow effigies in UK scarecrow festivals have no commercial intention, therefore photographs taken of such effigies do not impinge on the creator's rights. When such photographs are uploaded to Commons under a free commercial-use licence, the creators have full use of those photographs anyway, so they lose nothing, and gain commercial opportunities from the photographs long after their temporary creations were destroyed. Scarecrow festival organisers in the UK tend to encourage photography of the exhibits in public places, because they can use the free-licence photos, and the publication of those photos is good publicity for them, anyway. Storye book (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Stoyre book's strong arguments here & at the other DR, which said everything there is to say. PCP is good, turning into copyright paranoia isn't. TheImaCow (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the quote above includes "if the creator had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art". It is completely clear that the creators of the scarecrows were consciously creating works of art. There is nothing in the quoted paragraph which even suggests that there must be a commercial motive for a work to have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim. It is only your personal opinion which says "it is completely clear that the creators of the scarecrows were consciously creating works of art". For a start, a high proportion of the scarecrows are made by pre-school children - sometimes under parental/teacher supervision, sometimes not. Children that age cannot comprehend what a work of art is, and even then, the definition of art has always been a moot point. The best that we can do in law is to refer to professional intention, which tends to be commercial. British law is based on precedent (as opposed to adversarial law in US). As far as I am aware, there has been no precedent of a copyright case in British law concerned with the photography of scarecrows. Just the thought of the idea of that happening in a British court appears preposterous. (There may have been cases where an effigy was considered to be defamatory, but that is not a copyright matter, or about photography or whether it is art) Storye book (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that in British law, quantifiable gain or loss by the perceived victim of an offence tends to be the major issue in a judge's summary decision. Potential financial gain or loss is the main quantifiable assessment in this type of case. Where no quantifiable financial gain or loss can be established, the complainant is likely to lose the case. In the case of these scarecrows, they are mostly bags of straw. You cannot store that in the house; straw is full of bugs, and rots down quickly. If you keep them in the shed, it rots down even more quickly. Festival scarecrows have to be dismantled soon after the festival in most cases, because they would otherwise require storage space, and most houses do not have that much space. New festival scarecrows are made each year, and must be disposed of. At Kettlewell, which is one of our biggest scarecrow festivals, the organisers come around at the end of the festival with a pickup truck, collecting scarecrows for disposal. Bearing in mind that most festival scarecrows are intended for a temporary existence, and are in themselves non-commercial, no British court could easily establish quantifiable loss where photographs of the scarecrows were commercially used. Whenever I have discussed my photography with festival organisers, they have always been grateful that they would get free-use photographs to share with their exhibitors. Storye book (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a typical UK police view of taking photographs in public places. US readers please note that British police all follow the same laws, i.e. we don't have separate federal or state laws as you do in the US. So every police force in the UK works under the same laws as all the others (excluding small local-site bylaws which are not at issue here). This source makes clear that panoramafreiheit covers everything on British public highways. The only exceptions would be where the photographer compounded the issue by committing offences such as terrorism, stalking, blocking the highway etc. I hope that helps you understand that we are not under US law here. Storye book (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are selecting quotes that are not on subject. You can, indeed, photograph almost anything you want in any country, including copyrighted works in the approximately half of all countries that have no FoP (there are exceptions that are not relevant here). You may not, however, use such photographs for much beyond private enjoyment if they are derivative of copyrighted works unless Fair Use applies. The policeman quoted says nothing about selling the photographs -- only taking them. The first is legal almost everywhere, the second is not often not.
"I hope that helps you understand that we are not under US law here." No, I don't understand that because it is wrong. Commons images must be free under both the law of the country of origin, in this case the UK, and free under US law.
"Whenever I have discussed my photography with festival organisers, they have always been grateful that they would get free-use photographs to share with their exhibitors." Sure, that's entirely natural and legal -- if you want to give photographs to exhibitors, that would be perfectly OK. You cannot, however, sell them to anyone, including the creators of the works, without getting a written license from the creator. Once again I remind you that the organizers have no right to say anything about the copyrights for the works -- they belong to the creators.
"For a start, a high proportion of the scarecrows are made by pre-school children". I don't believe that and I doubt that you really do either. The costumes are sewn, or purchased. It may be that the costumes are stuffed by children, but their creation has significant adult involvement.
Also note that COM:PCP explicitly forbids consideration of whether the copyright owner would sue. The discussion of whether a lawsuit could succeed is entirely irrelevant here. I also think that your analysis is wrong. It is well established that copyright applies even if the creator has no hope of profiting from their work -- consider artists who paint murals for the fun of it. However, you can not profit from their work without a license -- you could not sell your photographs. If your free license were valid, people could make and sell posters of the scarecrows. A court could make you, or those relying on your invalid licenses, turn over those profits to the creators of the scarecrow.
If suit were brought against you as a massive violater of copyright, it would succeed in the US and I guess also in the UK. There might or might not be financial damages but you would be enjoined from continuing your copytheft.
Carl, what do you think of this? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JIm. You are overreacting here. By your logic, we could not upload any photographs of any man-made objects to Commons. Photographs of man-made objects make up a high proportion of our pictures here. Your example of murals is inappropriate, since I have not photographed 2D items in this case. No court could make me do anything. The scarecrows at issue were destroyed soon after creation, so there is nothing in existence with any copyright (if it had any copyright in the first place). You have given no evidence that there has been any claim to copyright on those scarecrows which, as intended, no longer exist. And if the villagers have given the festival organiser the right to hand out permission for photography (which they have) then he can hand out permission for photography. An adult overseeing a child stuff a bag of straw is not an artist, and is not creating an artwork. It is not a copyright breach to photograph old clothes worn by an effigy in a public place, because those clothes are de minimis. Please stop making up more and more spurious accusations of crimes. I have committed no crimes. This situation is amounting to hounding, and I find your behaviour offensive. What I have done was done in good faith that I was working within the law. And why are you only attacking photographs uploaded by me, personally? What about all those photographs of effigies/scarecrows uploaded over the years by people from other countries, including the US? And why has this type of photo suddenly become illegal for me and not for anyone else on the grounds of your lone voice? You threaten a suit against me personally. Yet that is not going to happen, because there is no reason for it to happen. You use words like "massive violater" and "copytheft" which is libellous. How dare you. This whole hounding incident looks illogical, obsessive and paranoid to me. That is my opinion of the matter. Storye book (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with Storye book here. It is a stretch to call scarecrow festival a collection of temporary sculptures, and someone photographing it "a massive violator of copyright" waiting to be sued. --Jarekt (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have spoken with some members of the Chartered Institute of Trademark Attorneys (CITMA). I understand that:
  • British courts do not define art or artists, nor do they differentiate between artist and non-artist, or art and non-art. This is because such definitions and differentiations are moot points and matters of opinion, which can never be decided in court. Therefore, the above complaint is null and void, and this request to delete 754 of my uploaded images on the sole basis of their Commons categorisation is spurious in the extreme.
  • British law takes intention into consideration. Therefore, in such a case as this, British courts would recognise the fact of creation, and would ask what was the purpose of the creator. Copyright would then be based on whether or not the creator had a purpose in mind when creating. Definition of purpose would be speculative in this deletion request case, since British festival scarecrows are almost always anonymous, because, for example, they are displayed in front of people's gardens, and British people do not like their names and addresses to be publicised. However we can be sure about the work of toddlers, especially those under two years old. The child psychologist Piaget reckoned that children under two are at that point of development self-centred, and cannot consider the responses or feelings of others. Therefor the toddlers who contributed festival scarecrows no doubt enjoyed stuffing straw and scribbling on paper plates, but they cannot be said to have had a purpose as creators of festival scarecrows - other than enjoying themselves for five minutes.
  • Unlike the US courts, British courts do not inflict judgements of punitive damages, and it is the punitive damages judgements which get the news headlines, because they can involve millions of dollars. In British courts, if the creator of a festival scarecrow instigated a case against someone financially profiting by my photo of their scarecrow, only the amount of financial profit made by the person commercially using my photo would be taken into consideration, and paid to the complainant - and that is all that they would get. As far as I can find out, there has been no record of such a case, because photos of festival scarecrows have little or no financial prospect, and certainly too little prospect to pay for the barrister's fees.
  • It would be very odd if I alone were to be punished for uploading pictures of festival scarecrows, and all the millions of other such uploads on Commons were to be pointedly left alone. For that reason, I understand this deletion request to be a vexatious complaint. The fact is, if this request were to be granted, we would then have to adjust the guidelines to fit, then go about deleting most of the images of British man-made 3D objects on Commons.
  • The above is why Commons has so far treated this kind of photography as a grey area. It is obvious that we cannot delete all images of British 3D man-made objects here. Even under the above complainant's definition of temporarily-displayed statuary, we still have many thousands of photos of festival effigies, religious procession effigies, Guy Fawkes Night effigies, and so on. Those things are displayed in public, with the expectation (and hope, usually) of the publicity of photos being uploaded on the internet. We have to treat all photos in these categories in the same way, and not just pick on the photographs of one photographer or uploader.
  • So I would ask those who have legal control of Wikimedia Commons to tell us on what basis all such items are officially judged, because if the above request to delete is allowed, then we must all suddenly go about starting millions of deletion requests, and there would be an outcry from all our British photographers. Storye book (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly?

And another thing. The above list of images, offered to be summarily deleted on the opinion of one individual, has not even been examined before being uploaded to this deletion request. I have just looked through the photos which I uploaded but which were not created by me, and noticed that in a lot of them, the scarecrows are de minimis in the photos. Commons has a clear guideline that de minimis items are not to be considered in copyright-deletion cases. The above list demonstrates that the complainant has judged these photos solely on the basis of their Commons category, and not on the basis of what is in the photos. Here are the de minimis examples which I have found so far:

  • Note to admin. Please leave all the abovementioned files undeleted until I have had a chance to check all seven hundred and fifty-four of them, because they have been listed on the basis of their category, and without any consideration of actual content. I have so far checked the first twenty-one, and found eight which are not relevant to the complainant's deletion request. I still have 733 files to check through. At the same time I am working full-time on producing articles on en.Wikipedia, so this job is going to take a long time. I am aware that the scarecrows in some of the pictures will be de minimis, and I remember that I discovered that at least one of the objects photographed was actually a cast concrete permanent roadside installation, which fact disqualifies it from the above list. So I have to find and note that here, too. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have checked another 21 (up to Northowram no. 59) and found three more files which should not be in the list:
I still have 712 files to check. Storye book (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have checked 26 more files (up to Northowram no. 33) and found six more files which should not be in the list, as per the reason given by the complainant:
I still have nearly 700 files to check. Storye book (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have checked 21 more files (up to Northowram no. 13), and found eight more files which should not be in the list, as per the reason given by the complainant:
I still have roughly 680 files to check.
I am sick and tired of this utter waste of time. The above deletion request is ill-conceived and ill-thought out, and a waste of my time and everyone else's. I have so far checked a small proportion of this careless list, based on a commons category only, and on a false definition of scarecrows as artworks (which definition is not recognised in British courts), and found around 17 files which should not be in the list according to the above complaint, because the complainant has not even looked at these files, which are de minimis, i.e. the scarecrows in the photograph are too small and therefore too trivial, so as to be below the interest or notice of any judge. If the complainant had been believed, and all 754 files summarily deleted, than an awful lot of innocent files would have been deleted unnecessarily, What on earth are we playing at, here? Storye book (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mgr Georges PONTIER.jpg[edit]

A photo of a TV cant be considered as the work of the uploader. Olivier LPB (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Een soortenarme rompgemeenschap met groot laddermos en fijn laddermos binnen het Dicrano-Pinion.jpg[edit]

Brengt verwarring, het is beter dat deze redirect verdwijnt. Industrees (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phaita logo transparent png.png[edit]

Out of scope: unidentifiable logo. Description say it's "the logo of PhaitaDev", but I can't find anything online with that name. Omphalographer (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope: cover/back photos of a non-notable self-published book.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Anonymous (group)[edit]

Out of scope: unused photos, logos, and artwork related to the "Anonymous" movement. There's a practically infinite number of images of the Guy Fawkes mask and the headless-suit emblem online; we don't need to collect all of it.

Omphalographer (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. At a quick look many of these files are unnecessary. Let's hope an admin to delete most or all of them. 191.125.32.12 01:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Log in and show yourself. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak  Keep - (current) internet culture is culture too, who knows what will be in 50 years. (altrough there is certainly trash such as File:Solomonz.jpg) TheImaCow (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bunch of in-use images in the category, which I haven't nominated, which are more than adequate to represent the topic. A couple of representative examples are File:Anonymous emblem.svg, File:Anonymous Flag.svg, File:Anonymous art.svg, and literally thousands of photos in Category:Demonstrators and protesters wearing masks of Guy Fawkes. Omphalographer (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, something caught my eye: While a sizable portion of the proposed deletions above, guessing from their filenames, pertain to Asia and Latin America, the litteral thousands of (well, actually only 1020) photos in Category:Demonstrators and protesters wearing masks of Guy Fawkes, or at least the 300-something that show up in {{Geogroup}}, are exclusively located in North America, Europe, and Australia. Maybe you wanna give this another thought. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images I've listed for deletion with geographic references (e.g. File:Anonymous austria.svg, File:Brasil Anonymous.jpg, File:Myanmar Anonymous logo.jpg, etc) are logos, not photos - mostly variants on File:Anonymous emblem.svg. While the lack of context makes it impossible to say for sure, it's fairly likely that most, if not all, of these are from non-notable online groups. Omphalographer (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Changing to  Delete. TheImaCow (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1869 Hart am Wind - Erlebte Geschichte Teil I.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo Smartcom5 (Any thoughts?) 23:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I seen no real reason for deletion — The reason for deletion seems to be overblown (Simple sign/letter logo, without higher threshold of originality, also COM:TOO Germany), which of course doesn't imply it would be free of copyrights. In addition to that, I (as the uploader) expressively included all given license- & source-related informations and also explicitly mentioned its protected status of a registered word-mark. So what is this all about? Smartcom5 (Any thoughts?) 23:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background of the logo maybe above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Maybush pub sign - geograph.org.uk - 4379051.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: good faith upload, but the artwork depicted is not free

Converting to DR since this is a FOP issue. Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: What nonsense is this? There is no FoP for 2D artworks in the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "FOP issue", I mean "the photograph is free, but the lack of FOP makes it so we cannot host it here". Sorry if I was unclear. Abzeronow (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:The Star and Garter Pub Sign - geograph.org.uk - 4532708.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Pigsonthewing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: good faith upload, but the artwork depicted is not free

Converting to DR since this is a FOP issue Abzeronow (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Растраляная літаратура.pdf[edit]

2008 work, copyright violation of the editors and publishers -- Plaga med (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FederalStateoftheVisayas.png[edit]

As the creator of the map myself (Delirium333), I nominate this file for deletion as it is a redundancy of another, better map being currently used in the Wikipedia page for the Federal State of the Visayas. I believe there is no reason for this file to exist and this nomination is for a cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delirium333 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04/20&oldid=874781560"