Restoring the following, which were part of the original filing, but were removed by Pechristener. Pechristener: Instead of removing files from a DR, strike them through.
KeepThe Squirrel Conspiracy has simply made a blanket request for deletion rather than checking the situation first. You need to check if another licence can be applied, or if there really is a Flickr wash, before submitting files for deletion. I have already saved the 100+ year old Sunbeam Ambulance.jpg from deletion: I fixed the licence and removed it from the list. --Pechristener (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding File:Ab Jenkins.jpg that advertisement, he refers to himself in the present tense as working at Auburn Automotive Company which was 1935–1937. So 86 years old must qualify for some license.̴̴̴̴--Ron Clausen (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those pre-1977. Up until 1977 you had to register for a copyright and display a copyright symbol on the ad. --RAN (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is an over-broad statement. Some appear to be cropped or for other reasons cannot be evaluated as to if they had a valid copyright notice in the original publication, and at least a few seem to be from non-US sources. Again, I think they need individual evaluation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep images which are clearly not print ads such as File:Red Power Wagon WM-100.jpg and File:1968 Chevrolet Biscayne.jpg as well as images which have fallen out of copyright as mentioned by others here. Additionally, for images such as File:McLaren Capri Convertible.jpg there's no evidence these came from a print publication either. In fact they seem to be personal photos, with nothing identifying them as being copyrighted elsewhere. For many of the rest of them, they seem to have been taken by a late photographer friend of the uploader, so not sure where that falls in terms of copyright, probably a delete. TKOIII (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the images are old automobile advertisement from the 1910s-1930s are illustrations of rare and obscure automobiles. They must be all public domain by now. --Vauxford (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about most of these, but DeleteFile:1960_Lloyd_Arabella_(51904007368).jpg. This was created by Deutsche Industrie-Ausstellung in 1959, and is still copyrighted in Germany. These images were distributed as postcards, compare things like this. They cannot be out of copyright because they are too young. Renerpho (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about the deletion but I do find being accused of Flickrwashing quite disturbing and would hope OP did a better job of looking at individual files prior to making such accusation. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: A substantial number of those files obviously were/are copyright violations, so I agree with OP that this was a case of license laundering. This doesn't have to be done on purpose to be a problem, and the license laundering is done by the Flickr user, not by whoever uploads the images to Commons (if those are different people), so I don't think this is an accusation against any particular Commons user.
That said, I also agree that OP ought to have checked the individual cases, rather than nominate files for deletion that clearly don't need to be. I certainly expect better from an admin (or any experienced user, for that matter). Renerpho (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I'm sure they didn't intend to. However, please be careful when you're uploading images from Flickr in the future. Just because an image there is claimed to have a free license doesn't mean you're "off the hook". You still have the responsibility to apply common sense (compare mr.choppers' comment below). Renerpho (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always do. However, I am not sure how much more I could have done here. The user is a paid user with 2.8K followers. They joined in 2008 and have over 27,000 images uploaded to Flickr. The Flickrwashing I see is normally associated with new accounts who have very few images (usually accounts created simply to wash the copyright). There is nothing there indicating any washing and it defeats the purpose if I have to go down a rabbit hole to make 100% sure an image is free from copyright. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Where does it say that they're a paid user, and paid by whom? This does indeed look like an unusually "big" account to engage in license laundering, if that's what they're doing. I'd rather assume negligence or ignorance, but that'd be harder to believe if they're actually paid by the site. In any case, Flickr doesn't care about copyright violations unless the copyright holder personally files a report, so there's nothing we could do about it if we wanted to. Renerpho (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I shouldn't use the term "paid" so loosely with Wikimedia projects. By paid, I mean they pay Flickr for a premium subscription (their account is marked as "pro"). I think I would lean towards assuming negligence on the uploader's part than Flickrwashing as I am sure even experienced users make mistakes. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Hi. Sorry about that. "Flickrwashing" was referring to the Flickr account, not to you. As for why I dumped all of their uploads in here - while I did see that some were out of copyright, whenever I see a Flickr account that's claiming copyright ownership over things that aren't theirs (which is functionally what they did by putting the adverts under a CC license), I assume all of their uploads have that problem. Did Alden Jewell take the photos that they put under a CC license? That would normally be a safe assumption, but considering the other things they uploaded, I think it's fair game to question. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for an apology. I stuck my foot down my throat by assuming it was a nefarious nomination. I got schooled on Commons today which is always a good thing. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vast majority of images on that Flickr account are NOT the work of the uploader, and the stated licenses are incorrect. A good number of the Flickr user's images may be out of copyright for one reason or another, but should not be assumed to be just because the Flickr user has them listed under a cc free license. For those not well familiar with Flickr, please understand: 1)Licenses are set by individual users. When setting up an account, one can set a default license. Some Flickr users are particularly responsible in trying to make sure the licenses are correct for all their uploads, but even generally good users do not always bother to individually reset licenses on individual uploads. 2)Unlike Commons, Flickr allows "fair use" of copyrighted material. 3)Flickr may act to remove accounts with many copyright violations if either there are specific complaints or if they violate current pop culture or wire service commercial properties. For things like scanning old magazines, they seldom seem to bother. So in summary: Even if not "Flickrwashing" in the sense that someone is intentionally trying to deceive and circumvent copyright, the licenses here are mostly if not all false if transferred here from Flickr without individual evaluation and corrections. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still amazed at how many commons users blithely upload clear copyvios from Flickr, no matter what the license. Flickr defaults to whatever license you used last, which explains a lot of this type of activity, and many uploaders simply assume that they're doing the right thing by not claiming the works of others as their own. I don't think the intent is nefarious. mr.choppers (talk)-en-20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think is work by US illustrator Raymond A. Dallasta (1934-1992) who seems to have created a series of paintings of vintage autos used in decorative prints and puzzles. No evidence of free license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy posted a number of my uploads over the years here as proposed deletions. Almost all of my files on his list were properly licensed. I'm pretty careful when I upload stuff from Flickr. I had to spend considerable time and effort working through his (incomplete!) list, which was annoying.
Yeah, my general strategy when someone comes out the gate rude - as you were with your last sentence there - is to remove the post from my page rather than engage and risk an escalation. I didn't see anything that needed a response on my talk page - as you can see the conversation here seems to cover the bases quite nicely - so I removed it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the conversation covers the bases pretty well. What I haven't seen from you is any acknowledgement or explanation for why you proposed so many files for deletion without looking at them to see if they had a valid license? Such as the one I wrote you about. Pete Tillman (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tillman: I believe they've explained the reason in their comment dated 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC), where they also acknowledge that they were fully aware that some of them might be out of copyright. Renerpho (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo of the Aruba Football Association. It may fall under the rules of the warehouse as trivial, but clearly cannot be used as its own work AleUst (talk) 02:15, 22 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.
I have no problem at all with people having the odd personal image however - for me - this quantity of low quality and in some cases very very similar images is excessive and that fall outside the scope of this project. they may be appropriate to social media websites but I do not see the value of this number of images of one person on Foundations sites. I have already deleted a number of pdfs which are text files (& they have been deleted before too). Others may find other uploads out of scope too.
Out of scope: personal artwork and plain text documents attempting to draw nonsensical connections between human anatomy, geography, and cosmology. Numerous other images by this uploader have already been deleted for similar reasons (cf. User talk:EMAD_KAYYAM); looking through what's left, I don't see anything of any possible educational value.
I would like to inform you that I am the main author of the photo I took on June 30, 2020 in Tomaszów Mazowiecki during the farewell ceremony of Brig. Gen. Adam Marczak. There were many photojournalists, local and military, at this ceremony. I have full copyright to this photo, and after the ceremony I sent a copy by e-mail to DG RSZ, which presented my photo on its website in a gray scenery, while mine is in the original color. Moreover, the Milmag editorial office showed a similar photo on its website. I repeat, I am the main author of the photo in question and I have full copyright to it. In addition to my work on Wikipedia, I am a professional photographer. Please remove this template. Best regards, Zmechowiec 75. Zmechowiec 75 (dyskusja) 11:47, 22 kwi 2024 (CEST)
I assume this postcard was created fairly recently due to the statue being for Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan. Further, the image is CCO 1.0 licensed. Although the description says it was taken by S & G Heaysman, printed by Actinolite Graphics, but donated by Gerry Boyce. I assume Gerry Boyce is the assumed license holder. But there's no reason he would be and the postcard clearly isn't in the public domain otherwise due to the recent date of creation. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden poorboy by Elias Vainio, published in 1934. No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Finland. Copyright may be expired in Finland (earliest in 2005), but because of URAA copyright restored until 2030. Not suitable to Commons yet Description of origin. Htm (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright notice in the media says the copyright is owned by "sjDANCEco.org", but the licensing and attributions say this work was created by "Tom Hassing", with no mention of this being an "own work" post by user:Gnissah. Copyright status is unclear. There is also unlicensed music (complete songs) featuring prominently in the audio track of this video. Dcs002 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but the copyright status of this video file is NOT unclear. The Wikimedia Commons summary of this file clearly states "Original camera video and audio taken by the author" (e.g. own work), and the Wikimedia Commons copyright notice clearly states that the file is attributed to the author Thomas Hassing (not "Tom Hassing") and is being made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Because I serve on the Board of sjDANCEco I have assigned certain limited rights to them so that they can repost this video on social media, and that is reflected in the copyright notice on the title page of the video. I can assign limited rights to whomever I want, but this does not change the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license in Wikimedia Commons in any way, nor does it make the copyright status unclear on Wikimedia Commons.
With respect to the comment that “There is also unlicensed music (complete songs) featuring prominently in the audio track of this video”, there is no offered support for this assertion. More specifically, there is no offered support that any music heard or performed live on the incidental audio of this video is subject to a valid registered copyright in the country of Mexico, where the video was created, or that any such music would be subject to a license requirement not already met by the author in the country of Mexico.
Further, Section 148 of the Mexican Copyright Law (MCL) establishes the limitation of economic rights based upon the “three-step test” of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and later in Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
These limitations are:
1. Citation of texts.
2. Reproduction of works, photographs, and illustrations related to current events.
3. Reproduction of parts of a work for the purpose of scientific, literary or artistic criticism and research.
4. Private copies for personal use.
5. Reproduction of a single copy for the purpose of preservation.
6. Reproduction for judicial or administrative matters.
7. Reproduction of works visible from public spaces.
8. Publication of non-profit artistic and literary work for people with disabilities.
Even if there is a valid copyright to unlicensed music heard on the audio (for which there is no support as described above), the current video depicts the April 8, 2024, total solar eclipse in Mazatlan, Mexico, and therefore qualifies for one or more the infringement exemptions under Mexican Copyright Law listed above including but not limited to 2) related to current events, or 3) related to the purpose of scientific research.
Therefore, I respectively submit that the copyright status of the current video is clear and that there are no music licensing issues under Mexican Copyright Law so this deletion request should be removed. Many thanks. Gnissah (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file page does not state this is your own work. "Original camera video and audio taken by the author" is not the same thing as saying you are the author (e.g. own work). Who is the author, you or Thomas Hassing? And do you have the right to give freely something that is owned by sjDANCEco? Everything on that page was written by user:Gnissah. Again, there's a "self" tag for assigning something you've created.
As the servers for Wikimedia are in the US, Wikimedia follows US copyright law, not Mexican. The video was recorded in Mexico, but you have uploaded it and made it publicly available in the US, where the copyright and performance rights are recognized. All works contained within a file on WM Commons must also be free.
Wikimedia is very strict about copyright protection. I've run up against this before (US law being the controlling law for our purposes), which is why I try to speak up when I see similar problems. Again, we've got a good thing going, and we can't endanger it. Dcs002 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to asserting that Mexican copyright law does not control for the audio of this video, I cannot help you with that as I am not a Mexican copyright attorney. The audio is simply what I recorded live outdoors while filming in Mexico, so unless there are any editing suggestions it is simply up to Wikimedia whether the video can remain on Wikimedia Commons. I am unemotional about it. This video is publicly available on-line elsewhere, so I defer to you as to next steps on whether it can remain on Wiimedia Commons. Many thanks. Warmest regards, Tom Gnissah (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up the license and uploading the new version. I just copied and pasted the license and description from the original file page to the v2 file page to help things along. (I hope I'm allowed to do that! I didn't want to come back to you with more demands.) I will also post v2 in the WP article on the eclipse.
The sound is still an issue though. Mexican law does apply to the audio and video of the recording, but US law also applies. Wikimedia Commons has an official policy that says we must abide by the restrictions of both nations, the nation where a work originated and the US. (I misstated that when I said it follows US law, not Mexican. Sorry. It's both.) That policy is spelled out on the page Commons:Licensing. I want a resolution that doesn't involve muting the whole audio track because the crowd reaction is a major part of the story.
In any case, this file should now be deleted as it's been replaced by the new video and the licensing issues have been resolved as far as I can tell. It's just the issue of the music on the audio track. Our policy is that the composers have to make their songs available under a free license, but you mentioned the word "incidental". I don't know if that has bearing on our policies. The focus is clearly on the crowd, the eclipse, and the scenery, and the crowd is not interacting (dancing, singing along) with the music. It's prominent in the soundscape though, and it's easily identifiable. I don't know what to do at this point, so I'll stand back and see if anyone else with more experience can chime in. Dcs002 (talk) 02:10, 23 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.
These are recordings of East Germany's national anthem. Some are claimed to be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but since the country of first publication is not the US, but East Germany (November 1949), that is not true, and German Urheberrecht applies.
The recordings as such may not be protected anymore, but the song itself still is. The lyricist died in 1958, the composer in 1962, so this is still protected until the beginning of 2033, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2033.
Why is Anthem of the DDR is copyrighted? DDR does not exist now, but for example - Anthem of the Soviet Union. Soviet Union doesn't exist now [and it's doesn't exist yet] but according to article 1259 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the RF, Soviet state symbols are in PD because «<...> Shall not be objects of copyright: state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, any forms of money, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations <...>». I do not know the laws of the FRG, but perhaps it can say something about state symbols. FRG is the legal successor of the GDR, isn't it? CommonsUser (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet law is not relevant for German works. There is no provision in German Urheberrecht (copyright) that puts anthems in the public domain. Germany's current anthem (the Deutschlandlied) is in the PD because both the composer and the lyricist died over 70 years ago. --Rosenzweigτ11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, but that's a common situation for Wikimedia Commons. Please, take care to read the text more carefully.
Soviet law is not relevant for German works
. When did I say that? I didn't. You are so inconsiderate. I said:
<...> for example - Anthem of the Soviet Union.<...>
. That's just an example. Nothing more. But I must admit, you said something right. You said that.
<...> There is no provision in German Urheberrecht (copyright) that puts anthems in the public domain. Germany's current anthem (the Deutschlandlied) is in the PD because both the composer and the lyricist died over 70 years ago.
As I said before, I don't know German laws (You must admit, that there's so few works with German copyright state tag in the Wikimedia Commons, aren't it?). But there's still a few things left to decide. At first, there's a some things related with Anthem of the DDR. Should we remove the text from Wikipedia? An how about the text and musical notes on papers? For example (ha-ha, example again) - File:Nationalhymne der DDR.jpg and File:Nationalhymne der DDR.svg. As you noted before:
<...>The recordings as such may not be protected anymore, but the song itself still is.<..>
Well, good point. Yes, these papers now is in the public domain, but text and musical notes, however, is not. As a result, I suppose, this is a violation of copyright (related rights, maybe). Should we remove them? Yes. If you are looking for a violations, you can find them almost everywhere [i found!]. CommonsUser (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a point in your rambling remarks. If something is not relevant (like Soviet law), don't bring it up in such a discussion, you're wasting everybody's time. If you think other files should be deleted, nominate them for deletion and don't use them fo further complicate this discussion. The same goes for questions if some text should be removed from Wikipedia. --Rosenzweigτ07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to avoid my question, because it's inconvenient for you. As I can see, you are not even trying to read the text carefully. A query, have you ever heard the word "example"? I suppose you didn't. Since you not understand me, I advise you to take a minute and look at the "Example" article here. Please, note that I didn’t even mention the Copyright Law of USSR. I have mentioned the Civil Code of Russia, but it was an example. The problem is that there is copyright violations in all these files. Do you agree or not? Or maybe you only consider the sound recording, but not the text, to be a "violation"? Make your own choice and answer me. 09:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonsUser (talk • contribs) 09:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Russian law is just as irrelevant here as Soviet law or random example articles. And what exactly is your question that I'm supposedly trying to avoid? Please state it clearly and succinctly and don't bury it in rambling paragraphs. I won't play guessing games here. --Rosenzweigτ11:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In German law, official government works (e.g. flags, anthems, legal texts) are not copyrightable, regardless of medium. And since the Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of East Germany, this anthem would likely be an official government work, thus in the public domain. This overrides any composition, sound recording, or performance rights. I think this is what CommonsUser is trying to say. SpellingNinja (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. There is no provision in German Urheberrecht (copyright) that puts anthems in the public domain. The kind of official works to which PD applies in German law can be found in Template:PD-GermanGov: statutes, ordinances, official decrees or judgments. Not anything produced or published by the government or an official body in German is in the public domain (unlike works of the US federal government). --Rosenzweigτ18:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Files with the text or melody of East Germany's national anthem, which is still protected by copyright. The lyricist died in 1958, the composer in 1962, so this is still protected until the beginning of 2033, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2033. And, as before: There is no provision in German Urheberrecht (copyright) that puts anthems in the public domain. Germany's current anthem (the Deutschlandlied) is in the PD because both the composer and the lyricist died over 70 years ago. So Auferstanden aus Ruinen is not an official work in the legal sense.
All images from https://www.zoores.ac.cn (Zoological Research) are under the cc-by-nc-4.0 license. Please refer to the PDF of the source paper for each image.
The Permissions page claims: "All papers published in Zoological Research is open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License", which seems to be an incorrect license.
Unused promotional photos, COM:WEBHOST, out of scope. Uploader is treating Commons as a cloud storage or for promotional purposes. Kept 2 out of this collection as representative images.
Comment: I went on a tour with other people from Wikipedia a few weeks ago. I took many photos. I felt sick inside that house, I left before finishing my visit to this museum. If you want to delete the photos, you can delete everything. Ana Mercedes Gauna (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket: Permission is from a person who is the sole copyright owner of this photo File:Paivi Peltokoski.jpg and that person gives permission to publish it under a free license. -- Htm (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have forwarded the required permission of the copyright holder to permissions-fi@wikimedia.org, and they replied immediately and approved it. Do I have to forward the signed Finnish language permit to you or to another email address as well? Please check the permit and get back to me. Qwerty6762 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the permission, no need to forward it anywhere. The image is of course under copyrigt, but it does not prevent the copyright holder to give permission to publish it here in Wikimedia Commons under free license. -- Htm (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo was taken by "Kirk Williamson" and is likely his copyright or that of "The Salem News" - not "Salem State University." Ooligan (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per de:St. Mauritius (Königshofen), the ceiling frescoes as well as the stations of the cross in this German church are 1938 works of painter de:August Braun (Kirchenmaler) (1876–1956) and his nephew Josef Braun (1903–1965). So they are still protected by copyright in Germany. There is no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany, so the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2036 (the US copyrights should have expired by then as well).
Die Aufnahmen befinden sich im Inneren einer Kirche als Wandgemälde. In der Kirche finden Gottesdienste und andere religiöse Feiern und Veranstaltungen statt - z.B. Hochzeiten, Taufen, Konfirmationen, ect. Die Teilnehmer dürfen zu diesen Veranstaltungen Fotos erstellen - z.B. Trauung oder Taufe. Die Familie und andere Gäste sind Teil der Veranstaltung wie auch die Beteiligten der Kirche - Pfarrer, Messdiener, usw. Ich stelle mir vor - da kommt zwei Wochen später ein Schreiben vom Anwalt - bitte überweist an Familie XYZ eine Gebühr in Höhe von EUR - Begründung. Auf den Fotos in der Webseite und in dem Schaukasten der Kirche wurde im Hintergrund auch die Kunstwerke (Fresken) des Kirchenmalers mit abgelichtet. Jemand könnte diese Hochzeitsfotos nutzen, um eine kommerzielle Serie von Bildern mit den Gemälden erstellen. Das ist ungefähr die Konsequenz - würde man in jedem Innenraum in einer Kirche, Schule, Behörde, ... erst den Check auf Kunst im öffentlichen Raum erledigen müssen. Ich bin überzeugt - die Kirchenmaler würden das auch so sehen. Unsere Welt scheint nur noch am Mammon und der Verteidigung von Urheberrechten interessiert zu sein. Bei Wikipedia geht es um die Verbreitung von Wissen und die Würdigung von Kunst. Wenn die Kunst nicht gezeigt werden darf dann ist das kontraproduktiv. Ich bin für behalten EACC80 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eine der Grundregeln von Wikimedia Commons steht dem entgegen: „Auf Wikimedia Commons sind nur freie Inhalte erlaubt, also Bilder und andere Mediendateien, die keinen Urheberrechtsbeschränkungen unterworfen sind, die einer Nutzung von jedem, jederzeit und für jeden Zweck entgegenstehen.“ (Commons:Licensing/de) --Rosenzweigτ14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die DSD (Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz) ist Partner von Wikipedia und Mitorganisator des Projektes Wiki loves Monuments. Dort gibt es massenhaft Bilder zu Baudenkmalen und z.B. auch in den Innenräumen gezeigten Inventar. Ich habe gestern mit meinen Kollegen telefoniert. Sie finden das ist ein Fall für die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Ich werde ein Schreiben an die Stiftung absenden in dem ich diesen Fall zum Anlass nehme, um diesen "Popanz" Urheberrechte in Bezug auf auf KD zu klären. Ich bin sicher das wird Anfang Mai eine verbindliche Stellungnahme geben und dann wird sich das Thema erledigt haben.EACC80 (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not shure. I first thougt it was a phopograph of this portraitpainting, but now I do think it is the other way round and the portrait is made from thomething like this file. Can you please check if it is a photograph of Carl Benz himself, and not of a reproduktion of the painting. Sorry for confusing. The file of the painting will be deleted soon. --Lómelinde (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Mach61 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright for the composition is with Rogers and Hart, copyright for this lead sheet likely the Hal Leonard Real Book
The original composition is from 1937, Miles Davis's version is from 1964. So this is definitely still under copyright until at least 2060. Hal Leonard if it has any distinctive creative input would put this into the 22nd century. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no valid license. While the source website claims somewhere near top a free license at the bottom it is marked as "all rights reserved". The original photography by well-known en:Diane Arbus (death in 1971) is certainly under copyright. h-stt!?17:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not an uploader's work, found on various sites, including here (on "1959" menu).Yann (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have nominated to delete this photo as it is still protected by copyright law. If the uploader cannot specify the date taken and photo's owner, it could be presumed it is going to Princess Srinagarindra. She died in 1995 (Reference: w:Srinagarindra), so this picture is copyrighted till 2045 (according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Thailand. Although the website placed in "1959" menu, it is not specified that it was taken in 1959. Wutkh (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this image is not my own work, except for the removal of personal information by a pseudonym. I submitted it to update the previous version of this image, which is several years old File:Carte rtm sanscontact.JPG. I see no objection to you deleting this image. Romainluc (talk) 17:54, 22 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.
This one is borderline. The letters have some pretty distinct stylization within them. See the larger version here: [5]. Is that enough to push it over TOO? This is an American company by the way. Majora (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Photo on Flickr has a Cornerstone Institute watermark, and the photo also says "courtesy Cornerstone Institute". We would need VRT permission from Cornerstone since PDMark is not a license (and this is not an own work by the Flickr uploader). Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of statue by Antero Kassinen, unveiled in 2020. No freedom of panorama in Finland for sculptures, not in PD. Htm (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoboudv: The card's creator posted it in public domain... I don't think it's copyrighted. Furthermore, I only intend to use the man's picture, not the remaining data of the card. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @BrazilianDude70 you are the uploader (to commons), it is unlikely to be public domain (even if it has PDM on flickr), and all parts of the image are copyrighted, it doesn't matter if you only use a part of it.
If I uploaded this file, it is because I was allowed to upload it. I think it is very ridiculous to think of creating a free encyclopedia based on what "one person believes."
With what "one person believes" you can create, perhaps, a religion. Science and serious publishing projects are based on facts, not on what "one person believes". Anyway you can delete it, it's not my problem. Michele-ing (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unused file. No WP-relevant person of this name can be found on the internet. Claimed time point "1938" questionable based on pattern of necktie. Archie02 (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently false claim for public domain status. The picture would appear not to be by a federal employee; possibly by a state employee, but state employee materials do not automatically go in the public domain. NatGertler (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep images with dates in the titles earlier than 1929, plus File:Studebaker Electric Coupe (51758266298).jpg, File:Studebaker Electric (52801141798).jpg, File:Studebaker Electric (52800135982).jpg, as {{PD-US-expired}} copies of old US publication advertisements. 
Delete all the rest unless individual files can be independently verified as out of copyright or free licensed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I think this is an over-broad statement. Some appear to be cropped or for other reasons cannot be evaluated as to if they had a valid copyright notice in the original publication, and at least a few seem to be from non-US sources. Again, I think they need individual evaluation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
08:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_colorized.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(27338233264).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(18883718704).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(51864248904).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(52266162724).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_A.K.A._Zagato_Zele_(52650073019).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Impact_(15136576649).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(5590515986).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Auto_Show.jpg){kind=link}
_Auto_Show_rear.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Limousine_(Open)_(Belgium).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._A_photo_for_Emad_Kayyam_taken_in_Amman_Airport_High_way_at_the_Snow_of_March,_2012.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Feb,_2012_-_Photo_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Feb,_2012_-_Photo_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.Jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.Jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.Jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_From_Dr._Emad_Kayyam_Collection.jpg){kind=link}
_are_51°,_39°_from_the_Y-Axe_respectively_-_By_Dr_Emad_Kayyam.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Фото_середини_20_ст._2.jpg){kind=link}
._Фото_середини_20_ст..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2021.168-Figure1.jpg){kind=link}
,_ventral_view_(B),_and_dorsal_view_(C)_of_Huigobio_heterocheilus%27s_holotype_(ASIZB_218733)-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2021.168-Figure1.jpg){kind=link}
-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.286-Figure4.jpg){kind=link}
-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.286-Figure4.jpg){kind=link}
,_adult_male,_in_life_in_ventral_view-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.333-Figure1.jpg){kind=link}
,_adult_male,_in_life_in_dorsolateral_view-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.333-Figure1.jpg){kind=link}
-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.286-Figure4.jpg){kind=link}
-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.286-Figure4.jpg){kind=link}
;_living_of_Yunnanilus_chuanheensis%27s_holotype_(C,_female,_KIZ_2016007379)-10.24272-j.issn.2095-8137.2020.287-Figure1.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_10.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_6.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_8.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_8.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_8_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_5.jpg){kind=link}
_Figure_6.jpg){kind=link}
_Basin_map.jpg){kind=link}
_River.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:William_Weld_Endorsing_Kathleen_Caron_(53315646172).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_03.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_02.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_22.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_09.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_27.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_34.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_11.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_07.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_08.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_05.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Blick_durch_zwei_Säulen_auf_Altarraum_und_Deckengemälde.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_01.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_55.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_13.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_04.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_10.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_51.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_09.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_12.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_02.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_14.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Station_01.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_49.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_13.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_02_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_09_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_13_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_27_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_34_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_49_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_51_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
,_Innen_55_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_-_colorized.jpg){kind=link}
_-_colorized.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_colorized.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.aq.com/img/network/logo-md-aqw.png){kind=link}
-20240422193100-File:HTML_Checkbox_Bad_Apple.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
