In short, can't verify source information. The image description page says the image was taken from a You tube channel that "was removed because it violated Youtube's Community Guidelines". Since we can't verify source information, I propose to delete this image. Meno25 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In France, texts and images from informative panels are under copyright unless otherwise specified. Nothing shows here that this panel has been publicated under a licence compatible with Commons. Runi Gerardsen (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's far-fetched. Yes, the image was created from a copyrighted work, but I also think it's far enough away from the original that it can't be recreated from that image. Without the information that it is this particular song, it could just as easily be any other audio recording. Please note that the deletion request should also affect this image, which is also based on a copyright-protected work: File:AudiodatenkompressionManowarThePowerOfThySword.jpg Chris Retro (talk) 18:18, 4 August 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.
@GbawdenI would like to comment on the issue of mix of cameras. Most of the volunteers do not own cameras because these are expensive gadgets to own and even in some scenarios the camera lens are more expensive than the cameras themselves. So you believe that some volunteers hire from other photographers or borrow cameras from their Wikimedia Community User Groups when they are going for photo hunts or road trips.
And also for the photographers, they usually have multiple camera types for different purposes some might have Mirrorless cameras, DSLR cameras or even other people prefer using their smart phones to capture images. Even someone might choose to upgrade the camera or he or she wants to challenge himself or herself by switching cameras say from mirrorless to DSLR or even switching brands which is definitely someone's
But instead of him deleting those images, he or she chooses to upload them to Wikimedia Commons to be used by someone else put their in the world for the greater good.
What I am trying to is that the mix of cameras should not be the reason for deleting the above images because even if you ask him to prove that the images are his or hers, how is that person going to do it. It is like borrowing someone's smart phone and you take good images because that phone is better than yours and upload them to wikimedia commons using that same gadget because you fear to lose the meta data on those images. The phone owner will later delete those images if they are not important to him or her or even for storage purposes.
The problem is that there is something called the Commons:Precautionary principle. A mix of cameras is generally an indication of photo theft. What would reasonably assure us that this is an exception? I would suggest to you, if User:Ssemmanda will were to give specific explanations for inconsistencies in the EXIFs of the different photos, that might work. Simply taking the hypothetical, possible but probably unlikely suggestions you've given as a reason to keep the photos doesn't seem like it overrides the precautionary principle. I notice the uploader was blocked for 1 month, so in view of the higher standards for undeletion, that's a good reason to wait till after September 7, 2024 to delete these images, thereby giving them a chance to make a statement here. I'm not hopeful, though, because I don't see any replies by them on their user talk page, and they don't seem to have commented at all in any thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden The mix of camera info might be resulting from: rented or borrowed cameras as the cost of purchasing cameras is a bit high, the need to upgrade from one brand to another, testing out of cameras say that someone was using a DSLR and is wanting to a mirrorless camera or is testing out some new lens and s/he ends uploading those images on Wikimedia Commons.
And also to comment on the "Uploader has a history of copyvios", the Wikimedia journey especially that of Wikimedia Commons is of continuous learning and never ending and it is hard not to violate some rules and policies along the way for example; the copyright laws are different in different in many countries as in what is accepted in one country is not accepted in another country, fair use is not allowed on certain projects or in certain countries, there is even continuous revision of the copyright laws among other things. But I believe that each violation the user gives them a lesson especially when the reason or policy for nominating that image for deletion is stated or linked.
He has violated some rules yes but his history of copyvios should not be the reason for deletion of those images that do not violate the copyright laws because I strongly believe that people learn from their mistakes. Let only those images that violate the copyright be nominated for deletion and also before deletion let the user first prove if the original author or photographer gave this user to upload those images under a free license. for example, User:Ssemmanda will uploaded images that were taken by "Author MugoyaMosesParliament Copyright holder POU" but the question is how did he get them in the first place, maybe the should have been given some time to bring proof or consent from Mugoya Moses before the images are deleted. Maybe those images were donated by the original author himself and the user didn't know that he had to provide that proof. Because we need to know what POU stands for. Thank you B722N (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge I have with this user is that a number of his files have been to DR in the past including the POU issue and they make no effort to comment or save the photos. They just keep uploading files with no exif and its generally a theme - one day its clergy, another day soldiers. Very suspicious Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Gbawden, basing on his User page, he is a member of the Luganda Wikipedia, I will reach out the Luganda team in Wikimedia Community User Group Uganda and they organize a refresher training to address the above concerns that you have mentioned so that we can prevent it from happening again. Thank you so much B722N (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that indicates a public domain status, with the stated PD-old-70 license contradicting the "own work" info (which is likely incorrect). It looks like an image simply taken from the internet. The basis of deletion is COM:PRP. Cold Season (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just edited the source to "清宮殿藏本" (translated "Collection of the Qing Palace"). Firstly, it has zero evidential value and is simply made-up, as there's no institution known by that name and thus the artwork can't be looked up to verify. Secondly, if the user meant that the artwork was owned by the historical Qing dynasty, then it is an unreferenced assertion of object history (not a source) that identifies nothing. --Cold Season (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone just edited the source to "清宮殿藏本" (translated "Collection of the Qing Palace"). Firstly, it has zero evidential value and is simply made-up, as there's no institution known by that name and thus the artwork can't be looked up to verify. Secondly, if the user meant that the artwork was owned by the historical Qing dynasty, then it is an unreferenced assertion of object history (not a source) that identifies nothing. --Cold Season (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, please try some AGF and be a bit more circumspect with words like "Fake" and "Bogus" (in some other recent DRs). This is not a case of intentional duplicity, but an honest error, given how the information about the true author came from YOU.
Enyavar, again, as "in some other recent DRs", if the uploader doesn't know, who the author is, his claim "This work is in the public domain, [because] the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer" is nothing but nonsense. In turn, I will appreciate it if you, not fully understanding the meaning of what I said, "try some AGF" and focus on the essence of the matter instead of lecturing me on how to behave. Quick1984 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify what I meant, the uploader's first claim was that the creator was Valentin Serow, who died in 1911. Sure, that does not mix at all with the next edits that occured just minutes later and where they recognized themselves that the artwork was from 1945/1948, but the word "fake" implies bad faith contributions when they could just have been confused what "public domain - old" actually means. A lot of uploaders here seem to encounter the terms of copyright for the first time, that does not mean that they are intentionally "faking" or "bogusing", those are strong words that should imho be reserved for actual fakes. The words "misattribution", "false", "wrong" are suited better for cases like this. --Enyavar (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image taken from "internet" with no source or evidence of compatible license. Original photo may be old (but there's no evidence for the "1927" date) and looks related to this one, but the caption in the image here makes it very plausible that this version is a later edit of the original. It can be found on older websites such as this and this. R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer's work is PD, but the painting depicted is copyrighted, it's author Vladimir Serov died in 1968. Not free until 2043 (70+4 pma). Quick1984 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally or not conflates Wikipedia with the Ku Klux Klan. This image is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Awkwafaba (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. I'm sorry to tell you this, Econt, but it's not a conspiracy joke. It might have been, back in the 1950s, but in most of the world, even the slightest hint that an individual or organization had any relationship with the Ku Klux Klan was a grave insult as far back as 50 years ago. Suggesting that Wikipedians are associated with what is widely considered to be one of North America's earliest terrorist groups is not a joke. It wasn't funny when it was created, and it is even less funny when Wikimedians are actively working to increase the diversity of our projects. It is not educational in any way. It is original work that has never been displayed, reviewed or commented upon outside of the very narrow Wikimedia world. It has no cultural significance. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secret societies and confraternities using hooded vests predate KKK for many centuries, as anyone who has lived the Holy Week in Spain would know. That KKK has misappropriated that at some point in the 20th century can't serve as a motive to ban any representation of these vests. I find Risker conceptions about them understandable but equivocated and misplaced, as there is nothing in the charge that refers to KKK, but to kabals, which are way older than that specific organization. Should we collaborate with the far-right in the appropriation of every harmless thing they see fit to use as a symbol? What will come next, banning the fantastic D'Agostino theme "L'Amour Toujours" because it's now being used all over Europe as an hate symbol? Knowledge is light, ignorance thrives in obscurity. Our projects should be promoting the first, not engaging in misconception based iconoclastic crusades. And yes, the image has an educative use, illustrating the absurdity of Wikipedia as a kabal, and is COM:INUSE as such.--DarwinAhoy!14:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not too hard in this case to avoid any racist connotations. If one does a quick image search on the web for hooded figures, most of them aren’t in white. There are many colors that could be used, and picking white is either ignorant or intentional. This is very easy to avoid any confusion, but putting a lot of effort to stay in a grey area seems odd. Awkwafaba (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awkwafaba It was the US racist organization KKK which appropriated the widely used white hooded vest in the 20th century, not the other way around. Please let's distance ourselves from that kind of obscurantism, the world is not limited to the USA and it's devils, even more when they are nothing but cultural misappropriation. DarwinAhoy!15:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the artist chose white robes with pointed hoods to evoke that obscure Brazilian ceremony? When I do a search I see neither that ceremony nor the clan. Very few white robes and pointed hoods. I still have yet to see why any other color is unacceptable. Awkwafaba (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you folks seem to be intent on proving my point. The hooded figures in the processions symbolize the evil individuals (the Sanhedrin and their agent Judas Iscariot) who connived to arrest, try and convict Jesus Christ. They are not benign or trivial figures. The procession is held on Holy Wednesday (the Wednesday before Easter), and is sometimes called "Spy Wednesday". I'm not sure it is particularly a helpful idea to provide this group as an alternative to the KKK as the underlying symbology of the file in question here; the KKK is considered a terrorist group, and the arrest/trial/conviction of Jesus Christ has been related to anti-semitism for two millenia. The comparison to the song is irrelevant; the song had an established notability and cultural significance long before its use by some right-wing groups. This image has zero cultural significance or notability, and is simply a way to call Wiki(p/m)edia administrators cultish and inherently evil. Risker (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker I've not the least idea where you get your stuff from, but you don't seem to be that knowledgeable about Iberic traditions such as the Nazarenos. Those are the vests of the brothers of the Nazarene brotherhood, which are symbolic of the vests of Jesus Himself during His Via Sacra, and have not any relation to what you describe above. Claiming that the Nazarene brothers who besides being a social welfare institution, celebrate the vests used by Jesus on His penitence moments, are dressed as "evil individuals" is kind of... wild. And not very informed, to say the least.
As was extensively stated, this is about a generic cabal or brotherhood. The association with KKK is recent and abusive, and forcing it to remove or cancel the older generic cultural reference to brotherhoods is an act of ignorance and iconoclasticism unworthy of and unacceptable in an encyclopedia. DarwinAhoy!11:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awkwafaba I believe you and @Risker are making wild guesses about KKK vests themselves. The image on the right depicts the KKK original vests, which were indeed intended to terrorize, mocking devils or witches. They are completely unrelated to the brotherhood vests, which were abusively appropriated by Clare West for a fictional representation of KKK in the movie Birth of a Nation, and then appropriated by KKK themselves when it was refounded after 1915, serving as inspiration for their new vests, which since then are kind of reminiscent of the Nazareno ones used in this charge. I understand Hollywoodesque crap like this can sometimes replace the original references in US pop culture but, frankly, that's a trend any encyclopedia worth of that name must thrive to fight, not submit to it. DarwinAhoy!12:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s cherry-picking. That’s one of the few pitctures on Commons of KKK that is not a white robe, and notably not a photograph. Get real, and stop making excuses for them. Awkwafaba (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Awkwafaba No idea why you are acting agressive now, but as clearly explained above this is the vest KKK used before 1915, before the abusive appropriation or mocking of the Nazareno vest. The ones you mention belong precisely to teh second category.
BTW, I got that historical picture precisely from the wiki.en article on KKK, which quite clearly you have never read. Nor you seem to know anything about the Nazarenos and similar centenary brotherhoods. Surprisingly enough, however, this hasn't stopped you from making this nomination and still keep participating in the debate 🤷🏽♂️. DarwinAhoy!22:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I handled this listing correctly. It is the result of me clicking on a link to challenge the speedy deletion while awaiting an e-mail to VRT from the photographer granting permission to use the image. In other words, I do not think the file should be deleted, and am attempting to get permission for it. Any help would be appreciated. Erictalk18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we fix attributions and titles, the auction house has made a presumption, if you want to challenge that, look for other published findings and make a Wikidata entry for the image. --RAN (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Amandine, pouvez-vous nous expliquer ce qui vous permet d'affirmer que ce portrait n’est pas celui de Casimir Guyon de Montlivault ? J'imagine que vous avez des éléments que nous n'avons pas ?! Si effectivement ce portrait ne correspond pas à la personne alors vous avez raison de le signaler, mais la seule source dont nous disposons nous indique que le portrait est présumément celui de Casimir Guyon de Montlivault. Qui croire ? Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The windows are completely blurred and distorted. No reason to delete the entire image. I also plead for "Art de minimis" keep both (imho) Qwertzu111111 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The windows are irrelevant in both pictures and are just a "random" background, blurred and without any recognizable structures. In this respect, "art de minimis" should apply to both pictures. --ArthurMcGill (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no valid reason for deletion. Source is from Sinema's official US House government website and was taken by a US Federal employee. Corky00:53, 11 August 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.
The same person has uploaded at least one other similar file. There is no reason to logically believe that women rush to this guy to make him a blow job and let him picture them while at it and then accept publication of their intimate images. It is also fishy that this time the user has not rushed to defend his deeds. Delete. 186.174.109.25321:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other two files that the uploader claimed as their own work were watermarked directly in the image with something like "Trush Photography", so there might be some doubt as to who took this photo, the Exif metadata also seems to indicate that there was something previously in "Author" and "Copyright Holder", but has been emptied. Is that ok? Otherwise I agree that it can be kept NutshinouTalk!21:15, 4 August 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.
Speedy keep Just downloaded the file and opened with Photoshop. The file works just fine. No corruptions or missing fragments. Commons does not render previews for such large files. Did you test the file? -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hashed both files (file from source and reuploaded file), and both have the identical hash value output:
I withdraw my nomination I won't be reviewing this file as I cannot see the image but perhaps another Admin or reviewer can reviewer it in this Category Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is standard boilerplate on every webpage, it would only cover their novel text, not copy of a public domain painting. We covered this already in with the British Museum. --RAN (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article 4.1.1 (Photographs representing works that are not protected by copyright) in the Terms of Use of said site applies. The subject picture is a low format screenshot of a work not protected by copyright. It is not a downloaded medium- or high-format photograph and is therefore free to be used. Chescargot (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Alfred Hanf, who died in 1974. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2045.
Delete. 70+4 years means Undelete in 2043. --Enyavar (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Cropping an image does not generate a new copyright. We know the image was published in 1928 and we host several versions of it in several sepia tones. See: File:Mohammed Abdelmonem (1909-1961) in L'Afrique du Nord illustrée.jpg --RAN (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Support deletion. I'm sorry to tell you this, Econt, but it's not a conspiracy joke. It might have been, back in the 1950s, but in most of the world, even the slightest hint that an individual or organization had any relationship with the Ku Klux Klan was a grave insult as far back as 50 years ago. Suggesting that Wikipedians are associated with what is widely considered to be one of North America's earliest terrorist groups is not a joke. It wasn't funny when it was created, and it is even less funny when Wikimedians are actively working to increase the diversity of our projects. It is not educational in any way. It is original work that has never been displayed, reviewed or commented upon outside of the very narrow Wikimedia world. It has no cultural significance. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC).jpg/100px-Procissão_do_Fogaréu_2005_(118190910).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=next&oldid=819393801){kind=link}
_in_L%27Afrique_du_Nord_illustrée.jpg){kind=link}
Info: https://www.rouillac.com/fr/lot-149-55094-ecole_francaise_du_debut_du_xixe_siecle.portrait --Achim55 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg){kind=link}
_25.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy keep Just downloaded the file and opened with Photoshop. The file works just fine. No corruptions or missing fragments. Commons does not render previews for such large files. Did you test the file? -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I won't be reviewing this file as I cannot see the image but perhaps another Admin or reviewer can reviewer it in this Category Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
