Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/07

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

September 7

[edit]

No EXIF data, unlike to be an own work. The same user uploaded another portrait of the same writer, now deleted, that had been taken from the web. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Both pictures were personally sent to me by the writer in question, as I know him in person and asked him for copyright-free pictures. it would seem one of them happened to have copyright. How can I solve this? Mulholland.gabo (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, debés enviar un mail a permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org con la autorización del fotógrafo para utilizar esta obra y esperar la resolución de los voluntarios que atienden esas solicitudes. Saludos, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, current copyright law of South Korea explicitly forbids commercial uses of artistic works found in public spaces. This monument in particular was extensively discussed here, which resulted to a new fact that it is indeed unfree to use this monument in commercially-licensed media, with the copyright holder being the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (copyright transferred to them through an agreement with the sculptor). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

실질적인 용례 없이 법조문만 가져와서 '너희는 설득해봐라, 나는 듣지 않는다'라고 하는 상황을 반복해 이어가는 위키미디어 공용의 상황에 매우 큰 유감을 표합니다.--Trainholic (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subst : delete3

Low quality photo. Better version: File:臺大機械工程館 9526.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know why you think File:臺大機械工程館 9526.jpg is a better version? Its background light is just as bad compared to the image you nominated. In other words, except for there is a slight shift in the angle of the image, the rest is the same. Please check again and possibly correct your reason for the nomination for deletion.--125.230.80.164 11:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple errors (wrong Atomic number for Te, Ir, Pt, Au, Hg) typo in Thallium symbol (capital T, capital I, not capital T, lower case l). Uploader not active since 2016, and not used anywhere else on Wiki. See talk page too. Ruhrfisch (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are enough other periodic tables that there is no reason to keep a flawed version.
Ldm1954 (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom including junk redirect File:Periodic Table Of Elements Black And White SVG.svg. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep this? 186.172.245.4 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete out of scope, lacks edu value. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - This was a transfer from enwiki in good faith, but I concur.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete garbage Dronebogus (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete nothing new Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted portrait A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Chaos Space Marine toys

[edit]

Reasons for deletion request - Per COM:TOYS -Di (they-them) (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the photos should not be removed because the toys shown in the images were specifically designed with the intention that users would paint, photograph, and share the results of their artistic work. The manufacturer of the figures actively encourages sharing adaptations of their models and does not oppose the public display of their photos on the Internet. While the removal of these photos may be motivated by good intentions, it seems to me to be a hasty and unnecessary action in this particular case. Krzem Anonim (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had cases like these multiple times, very many photographs of Warhammer toys have been deleted from Commons after many discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but Games Workshop (GW) itself, on its website in the Terms & Conditions of Use section, states in point 2 that "GW grants the user (“you”) the non-exclusive right to use the Authorised Intellectual Property for broadcasting, publishing and other media-related activities, such as news articles, press releases, commentary and opinion pieces, blogs, product announcements, and other similar informational and descriptive purposes, in printed or electronic form." In light of this declaration, I believe that removing photos just because they fall under the definition of toys is an unnecessary depletion of Wikimedia Commons' resources. This decision seems to be driven by the desire to comply with the law, but in a situation where no one would feel wronged, as the manufacturer itself clearly allows the publishing of content related to their products. Krzem Anonim (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed. The community consensus is that Commons cannot host photos of Games Workshop toys. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Warhammer 40,000 and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GamesWorkshop. It's also important to note that the message you quoted says non-exclusive right and does not make any mention of commercial use. If GW really wanted people to use their property for commercial purposes, they would have no issue with, say, bootleg minis or other derivative works. This is not the case as GW is quite litigious, they once sued an author for using the words "Space Marine" in a book title even though it wasn't even about WH40K. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted portrait A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Cameroon.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative Work of copyrighted Skibidi Toilet Material. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It resembles this image. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This illustration depicts a head coming out of a toilet, which is a generic and non-copyrightable concept. Specific executions of ideas can be copyrighted, but the concept itself cannot. This illustration is not derivative of any specific screenshot or work. See COM:FANART. There is no copyright in an allusion, a name, or a commonplace pre-existing element (IE, heads and toilets). Di (they-them) (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the head resembles the most common head in the videos. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facial features are not copyrightable. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thus can the likenesses of Fictional Characters, like Solid Snake and Lara Croft be copyrightable? The face of this toilet clearly resembles a face from the Garry's Mod game, which is obviously copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your argument now? You are obviously not familiar with copyright assesments at all in most of your deletion nominations. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the likenesses of photorealistic characters like Lara Croft and Solid Snake are the result of creative effort by the developers, I think they can be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this head doesn't actually resemble any pre-existing skibidi toilet other than the basic idea. So  I withdraw my nomination. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, facial features are not copyrightable, as I said. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is reaction to Grandmaster Huon. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per the above eloquent explanation. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Seems like a derivative work of Disney Cinderella. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


wrong description and title for this item EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind collecting the nearly identical images into one DR instead? Trade (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of the incorporated image A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark credit "MyHeritage", unlikely to be uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep We need paired examples of the MyHeritage software output at various times, you can see how it has already improved since V1.0 first implemented. Same with other AI retouched imagery, we need Dall-E V1 onward. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please state what website that contain this same picture. This horizontal logo was obtained officially from UM 2024 official brand toolkit and the author is owned by the university which already stated in the details during upload. MikeRoffe143 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where it is taken from, it is still copyrighted. The brand toolkit seems to have limited access which should not be assumed that it is free to use to public. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOYS. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope + flickrwashing Astrinko (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files created as advertisement. Astrinko (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free poster Astrinko (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Astrinko, I'm new here and I would like to understand why a public poster, about a past event is not OK to be published.
Thank you for your help. Cyril Fressonnet (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyril Fressonnet: Wikimedia Commons only wants free content (which this is apparently not). Please read Commons:Licensing. --Rosenzweig τ 07:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free poster Astrinko (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Foto con marcas. Borrar Deportepedia SL (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: plain text (possibly quoting a poem or song lyric). Omphalographer (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Parchokhalq (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: fictional flags and coats of arms.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of Arms of Walter Scheel (Order of Isabella the Catholic).svg GerritR (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope (?) diagram uploaded for advertisement purposes: pt:Usuário(a)_Discussão:Top_Informática Nutshinou Talk! 09:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es este Darwin Oswaldo Bernal Robles, el eccentrico hombre que pidio que le hicieran el funeral en una discoteca? 186.172.176.250 10:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete useless screenshot of useless Google. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Government website images are copyrighted Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made another version to replace the file if deleted: File:Nalgonda mandals pre 2016 numbers.png. It is based on another old map and the issue is that all the old maps may originally come from the same source. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compleet onzinnig om deze redirect te bewaren. Industrees (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status Fenikals (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality version of the original file already exists at File:İlham Əliyev və birinci xanım Mehriban Əliyeva Kəlbəcərdə “İstisu” mineral su zavodunun açılışında iştirak ediblər (3).jpgGolden talk 11:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OGL does not applicable for logos, but it is protected by Crown copyright. The way of Changpian (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 1921 German Notgeld (emergency money) bill is a work of de:Hans Kruzwicki, who died in 1971. So it is are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2042. Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 7 September 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.

Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:台北通TaipeiPASS.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Taiwan. Also Taiwan's TOO is relatively low, Simple logos including calligraphy are protected by copyrights.

Wcam (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 version of the emblem of Control Yuan and the seal of Legislative Yuan could be simple enough to be covered under {{PD-textlogo}}. Both of which don't have calligraphy included either. —— Eric LiuTalk 00:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, kept the two mentioned by Eric Liu, agree these are below TOO of Taiwan. --Ellywa (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These images claim {{GWOIA}} or {{PD-ROC-exempt}}. However, as per communications from the Taiwanese government:

  • {{GWOIA}} does not apply to administration's logos (source), and
  • {{PD-ROC-exempt}} only applies to symbols or emblems that are formulated according to law (source), in which case the particular law that substantiates this claim must be specified.

These images do not meet these conditions.

Wcam (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from copyrighted website, no indication of CC license, credit: CPA Gumruch (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

repeater Mounir Neddi (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbildung eines Kunstwerks (Schnitzarbeit), demnach urheberrechtlich geschützt - derivative work GerritR (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. The text has been copied to the description in the file of the logo. JopkeB (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Prim0rd (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Tattoo designs and similar artwork taken from unrelated websites, eg. File:Cosmic.owl.skull.png from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/tattoos-i-like--521080619358987804/, File:Illuminati owl.jpg from https://artweartattoo.co.uk/products/the-cubic-owl, File:Cosmic.owl-3.jpg from https://stock.adobe.com/images/All-Seeing-Eye/177079886. Not all the own work of the uploader, nor even the work of a single person.

Belbury (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author is Mars Cheung, not uploader, see EXIF shizhao (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates of File:Wiki man cameltoe.jpg GiovanniPen (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Men cameltoe mooseknuckle spandex men.JPG GiovanniPen (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G7.Uploader requests deletion of recently created (1 day) unused content Sylhouet (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional flag taken from [1], as such under copyright by the creator of this design. Constantine 12:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahistorical/fictional design taken from [2], possibly under copyright due to the recomposition of elements, but certainly falling under COM:NOTEDU Constantine 12:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:NOTEDU: Completely fictional map, these Albanian principalities were a) not contemporary to one another, b) their territorial extent is enormously exaggerated eastward (most of Thessaly and Macedonia). This is a nationalist fringe pipe-dream Constantine 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Purely fictional, invades only Greece but even the Black Sea. :-D Taylor 49 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022. Grand-Duc (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:11, 7 September 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 reason I think is because this is a ai enhanced image and is not quite supported on the English wikipedia. KhantWiki (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this picture for deletion since it has been AI enhanced. It produces details that weren't present on the original photo before, which affects the authenticity. KhantWiki (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal images for non-contributor, out of scope.

Nutshinou Talk! 13:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Achim55 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal images for non-contributor, out of scope.

Nutshinou Talk! 13:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyright free: Hélène Petter was dead in 2007 and there is no authorization of free use Daehan (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyright free: Hélène Petter was dead in 2007 and there is no authorization of free use Daehan (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this logo is both beyond the threshold of originality and copyrighted by PBS. William Graham (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See previous deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS Kids Go! logo (2022).png. William Graham (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Modie ben (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Two of these images are watermarked in-image to Didy Shots (https://www.instagram.com/didy_shots_256). Doubtful that a professional photographer who watermarks their shots like this would upload them to Commons for free use, asking them to be credited instead to the Commons username "Modie ben".

Belbury (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Qraf (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Very unlikely their own work.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of https://autonews.ma/news/uniraid-alpes-2024--quand-la-passion-automobile-rime-avec-la-cause-humanitaire/10490 O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing valid source, very unlikely to be author's own work. Zzzs (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: NASA NAOAA image. --RAN (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the author, not the source. Looking at this image, it does not appear to be something that NASA nor NOAA would take since the colours don't match what the NASA's satellites (Terra, Aqua) and the NOAA satellites (NOAA-20, Suomi NPP) take and the GOES satellites do not operate in the area Yagi was at the time the picture was taken. This is likely a work from Himawari, but the source is still unknown. My best guess for the source would be ZOOM since the colours and resolution match. If that's the case, the image is copyrighted and should be deleted.
    TL:DR; not a NASA/NOAA image and likely a copyright violation. Zzzs (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jeanne Angerie (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons:Derivative works from anime/manga.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files under Category:Noto-Satoyama Kaido

[edit]

per COM:DW Yasu (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio https://www.deutscher-radiopreis.de/radiopreis/verleihung_2024/preistraeger/Bester-Moderatorin-Gianluca-Meli-von-988-KISS-FM,bestemoderation104.html - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOYS メイド理世 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


ファイルネームの誤り AggregatibacterActinomycetemcomitans (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload, but file is still COM:INUSE at Wiktionary. --Rosenzweig τ 07:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. Low resolution images without EXIF. Notice that the user uploaded other obvious copyvios that were tagged for speedy violations.

Günther Frager (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image from the City of Westminster, which has never even been properly categorised, is not fit for Wikipedia purposes. Obviously an uncontrolled bot upload. Xocolatl (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong upload, this img is a copy of File:Pope Francis last greeting to President Jokowi.jpg. Description and caption also wrong. Intended to upload another one. Kaliper1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs to a mass upload. None of the images have been checked for quality or categorised. The category in which it is now categorised is overflowing. Xocolatl (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs to a mass upload of the uploader. None of the images have been checked for quality or categorised. The category in which it is now categorised is overflowing. Xocolatl (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a cover or a film poster, propably not own work Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs to a mass upload of the uploader. None of the images have been checked for quality or categorised. The category in which it is now categorised is overflowing. Xocolatl (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment refined the category, which now is no longer overflowing. but the quality is low and all the other arguments still hold. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 2003:EC:5F03:A300:A1FB:525D:2C42:32EC as Speedy (löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Urheberrechtsverletzung. Uploader ist nicht U.Deuschle. Genehmigung zur Verwendung der Graphik nicht ersichtlich.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. The claimed source-site states "Die Panoramen, die Sie unter Nutzung der Werkzeuge auf diesen Seiten erzeugen, stehen Ihnen zur privaten Nutzung zur freien Verfuegung. Eine kommerzielle Nutzung ohne meine schriftliche Erlaubnis ist untersagt.", which forbids commercial use and thereby requires an additional permission or deletion. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal images for non-contributor, out of scope.

Nutshinou Talk! 16:54, 7 September 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.

Self promotion with little or no educational value. Commons is not Flickr. COM:NOTSOCIAL Commons is not a social network and uploaded images COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Sorry to have marked your photo/s for deletion, but Wikimedia Commons is not a personal photo album! Please read up on COM:SCOPE to find out more about what is and what isn't a file which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I hope you read up on all this and add some more photos of your own! The Photographer (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted -FASTILY 08:47, 9 December 2013 (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.

Self promotion with little or no educational value. Commons is not Flickr. COM:NOTSOCIAL Commons is not a social network and uploaded images COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Sorry to have marked your photo/s for deletion, but Wikimedia Commons is not a personal photo album! Please read up on COM:SCOPE to find out more about what is and what isn't a file which can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I hope you read up on all this and add some more photos of your own! The Photographer (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, espero que esto pueda hacerse --The Photographer (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. INeverCry 01:06, 22 September 2014 (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.

Unused, poor-quality pesonal vanity photo. Outside the project scope. DAJF (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:27, 19 September 2015 (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.

personal image / serves no purpose 1989 (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. According to his description, it is a personal photograph uploaded for proselytizing purposes. It has no encyclopedic value. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.  Strong support for deletion and permanent lock to the highest possible level. Repeatedly deleted and reuploaded. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Personal file without encyclopedic value. Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mirrored and low resolution version of File:V. Kandinski. East suites. Arabs III.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art of a copyrighted character. It will be undeleted on January 1, 2106 when BFDI enters the public domain. 2603:7000:B8F0:80D0:1ACA:AE2A:C117:273E 17:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyvio: Screenshot of a website with distinctive features, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted yoda character.

Converting to DR since the photo is free. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear derivative work of "Baby Yoda" from Disney's Star Wars. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing that it isn't Grogu. Since it's a 2D graphical work, not covered by FoP in the UK. Abzeronow (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete, per Abzeronow. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by PizzaKing13 as Copyvio (Copyright) and the most recent rationale was: violation|1=COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, false own work claim, from twitter/blogspot, no proof of painting in PD

Converting to DR since the painting's copyright is the only relevant one here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:PACUSA and COM:FOP. See [3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beloit Police Department is not part of the federal government; this image is not public domain. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want it to be publicly visible. 186.172.55.218 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work. Darwin took this picture 50-60 years ago. 186.172.55.218 18:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AlexLeeCN (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The tag used is {{PD-PRC-exempt}} and it is not clear to me that will cover the National Athem as it is a piece of music,not a law or judicial resolution. Also the National Anthem Law seems to forbid derivative works [4]: «There will be punishment for deliberately altering the lyrics or music of the national anthem, ...». Also the footer from the source states «All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to www.gov.cn.. Without written authorization from www.gov.cn, such content shall not be republished or used in any form.» (or course it is only applicable if the tag doesn't apply.)

Günther Frager (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1). The release (Chinese ver.) shall be considered as delegated legislation, which will become a part of National Anthem Law . According to National Anthem Law Article 10 Subparagraph 4 "The department determined by the State Council shall organize the examination, determination and makingof the standard musical notation of the national anthem and the official recording of the national anthem, and release them on the website of the National People's Congress and the website of the Chinese Central Government", while release press has stated, "According to the National Anthem Law". Hence, the musical notation and recording are released under the law.
This relevance could be verified by the press conference, the official stated:”由于演奏曲谱的类型比较多,...,其中有的曲谱篇幅比较长,把它们都作为法律附件不现实,所以国歌法第十条规定...“ ("Since there are many types of performance scores... Some of them are so long that it's impractical to annex them all to the law, so Article 10 of the National Anthem Law states... ") . It's clear that the musical notation has the same legal effect as the annex of the law, the only difference is this time is it is delegated to the government, not the congress.
(2). Article 10 (Where the national anthem is played and sung on the occasions prescribed in Article 4 of this Law, the standard musical notation of the national anthem or the official recording of the national anthem shall be used) has stated the musical notation has legal effect and are accordant with the Copyright Law Article 5 (laws...documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature).
(3). The limitation of usage is definitely a Non-copyright restrictions. Violating it (insulting the anthem) will only bring criminal or administrative responsibility, and is not considered relevant to the freedom usageor copyright. (BTW, from my personal view, the Chinese word 篡改 should not translate to alter. Tampering is more accurate.)
(4). The footer of the copyright statement is more like a general declaration and can be reversed with other evidence, otherwise the Constitution may be copyrightable. Best regard. --AlexLeeCN (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value, not in use, apparently uploaded as part of a prolonged attempt at getting a hoax article on en.wp. (see here) Just Step Sideways (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depicted sculpture is likely recent and still in copyright (Henry Moore died in 1986). Unfortunately, the US has no freedom-of-panorama exception for non-buildings. So, a permission by the sculptor is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem with File:Princeton - panoramio (77).jpg (artist died in 1973).


Also:

Superceded by the Wikidata Infobox. Mike Peel (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing which is sourced to "Wikipedia" and appears to have permission issues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for graphic works of art in Greece per COM:FOP Greece. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Framcum (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I don't know about these, but they may be a borderline TOO case.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Logos

[edit]

leaf may be above TOO.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for promotional use of a non-notable company (if not fake), cf. w:de:Wiuumy Schniggendiller (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per this Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Andrew Beardsley (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused, unidentified images; possibly photomicrographs, but with no hint as to what they are since they were uploaded in 2019.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by TEHb K0CM0CA (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused, unidentified TIFF image stacks of unidentified subjects, possibly some sort of photomicrographs given other uploads by this user. Unlikely to be usable given the lack of identification.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD-Taiwan or PD-US. No evidence the creator has been dead 50 years. This looks like a scan of a newspaper image, which is not properly credited. It was likely copyrighted by the photographer and the newspaper. It's doubtful the deadlink source was the original publisher. Not PD in US. Licensing template in use requires a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Dual Freq (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear license. File is tagged as {{PD-USGov}}, but this appears to be an original photo by the uploader with a description in French; that license doesn't apply. Omphalographer (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. This is an appeal from the uploader. The logo and other variations thereof have been authorised in Commons for years without any claims, therefore putting the ability to claim them ineligible in doubt. Fer1997 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, It looks like a smiling sun to me. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, as it is considered a variation of said logo and therefore eligible. A whole Commons category has been created for those logos. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal from the uploader. No claims to copyright apply to this logo, which is not registered in the applicable registry for tradermarks (Spain). It is the symbol of a defunct organisation. I believe it is therefore under the threshold of the applicable template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the template to reflect it, it is not a simple geometry, it is a complex interpretation of sickle and hammer. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The eligibility of this logo was discussed and settled a few years ago and it was deemed eligible. I therefore believe the logo to be under the threshold of the template and therefore not eligible for speedy deletion. Fer1997 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, the hand with the flower may not have been copyrightable, but the rose pattern to the right might be. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German language page without content, only complaining about the Editor's index being in English Prototyperspective (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't intend it as a complaint. I'm a native English-speaker. I simply wanted to point anyone who looked for a German glossary to get something useful: a link to Commons' English-language glossary, and a link to the de-wiki glossary, which overlaps significantly with the vocabulary needed for Commons.
FWIW, I think it would be great if someone did a German-language glossary for Commons (my German is not strong enough), but I think the current page aims anyone looking for that in the two most useful existing directions.
That said, if you really think it is a liability rather than an asset, feel free to delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think that should be in the Commons:Editor's index to Commons/de page and this page could redirect to it. The glossary would via the <languages/> template. I think it's more a burden because it's not clear what it's about or that it's German-language in the two categories it's contained in. Maybe somebody else has some more info about what is best done for such cases. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof of your claims? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should add sourcing for source of your reproduction, and thats it. Other is obvious. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the necessary info and I have changed the licenses in order to secure compliance. Do not hesitate to indicated any other actions to be taken. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is good, but I am not sure about uploading those originals itself rather than links to the sources. But this file should be okay anyways. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. In addition to this, a previous challenge to the eligibility of another version of this logo was settled favourably. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File should contain more information about Vector creation and source from which you created it, but as it is your reproduction of 90 years old emblemics, it should be OK and not adequate for deletion. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we change the template to reflect this? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this goes in terms of Spanish Copyright law. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not change the template. We can add PD-tag for the intelectual value, but its not necessary. Primary is to include source from which Fer1997 created his reproduction and dating. If you don't know how goes copyright law you should not be nominating for deletion at all. ThecentreCZ (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo are simple enough for it to be eligible under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not adequate for deletion. PD-text and shapes. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete What? This is a complex depiction of wheat. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I think it has "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" that grants it protection under COM:TOO Spain. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the matter to be as clear as it seems. The case mentioned as reference for TOO compliance only alludes to academic legal doctrine, not to actual case law; they do not have the same value under Spanish law. There is no reference to logo design in the actual case analysed. It is not evident, from its content, what the threshold should be, and the consensus is the interpretation is ample enough for this and other logos to be eligible for PD-textlogo, PD-shape and eventually PD-trademarked protection. Therefore, I advocate we  Keep the logo. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. All claims of inegibility of this logo have been settled in the past as the characteristics of the logo exempt it from any copyright claims. Special care has been taken to ensure compliance with said ruling. It is therefore fully eligible under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is above TOO is the hand with the flower, which is already public domain, so  I withdraw my nomination. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have started nomination of file already discussed in the first place. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo ensure it is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete complex flower shape. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep As the matter is not clear under Spanish law or legal precedent thereof and there is no trademark claim to it, I advise we  Keep the file. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. Not only is this logo a full reproduction as no originals exist uploadable as such, but there are no copyright claims applicable for the logo; it is not registered in the applicable trademark registry; and it belongs to a defunct political organisation with no official successor in its country. Therefore, the logo is eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof of your claim? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation was dissolved by Institutional Instrument No. 2 on 27 October 1965. This meant that its legal entity was dissolved and no successor even existed which could claim the rights of the UDN. All members of the party either joined the new government-approved ARENA party or other underground organisations. In addition to this, given that almost 60 years have passed and that there is no clear legal consensus on the matter, I believe we should  Keep the file. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Web links to reliable sources for this statement? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article 18 of the Institutional Act proclaims the extinction of all existing political parties and the cancellation of their registries, which is equivalent to the extinction of their legal entity. The text is available both at the Planalto website and at Wikisource. --Fer1997 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo make it eligible for protection under the selected template. Fer1997 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, the flower on the left is a complex shape. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Own work" as user claims. He copied the image from this source. [5] Ivebeenhacked (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion by Grandmaster Huon. Appeal by the uploader. The characteristics of the logo make it eligible for PD-textlogo protection. Fer1997 (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What characteristics? This seems like a complex stick figure. It's not mere simple shapes. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shapes are simple enough to be under the TOO in the terms of current Spanish law and case law. Provided that the current state of legal regulation and precedent is not clear enough and that the consensus is for a permissive interpretation of those terms, I argue we  Keep this and other logos as they can be deemed eligible for PD-textlogo, PD-shape and eventually PD-trademarked protection. --Fer1997 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful free copyright status. The left image is undoubtly in public domain as it is a work of w:en:Diego Velázquez, but the right image is questionable as it is w:en:Las Meninas (Picasso), a 1957 painting (derivative of Velázquez's painting) by w:en:Pablo Picasso. It is worth noting that the enwiki article on the 1957 derivative work lacks any images, so likely still unfree (if it wasn't simultaneously-published in the U.S. at the same time as it was made). Unless, the Picasso derivative is PD for some other reason. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Wazzup Carl (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The source website, this, is already dead and there is no way to determine if these photos were under commercial CC license in the said website or not. Possible failure of license review.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wazzup Carl (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possibly out of COM:Project scope. Unused personal images, all categorized under "Category:Tambayan Philippines" even if these do not depict Filipino Wikipedians' activities.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

advertisement-like; doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value Packer1028 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 23:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Kostas Klouvatos - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/pqr/heppnerflood.jpg

The photo was taken in the United States in 1903 by Bert Sigsbee[6] (1877–1932)[7]

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

  • a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
  • a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

  1. There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Portland office)
  2. A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.
The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

There are a variety of ways in which this image might already have entered the public domain (first published before 1929, published before 1989 without meeting all the requirements for protection, or first published after 1989 2002), but these cannot simply be assumed. Alternatively, for example, if it was first published in a book somewhere between 1929 and 1977 (and the formalities were correctly carried out), it will enter the public domain somewhere between 2025 and 2073.

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this per-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.


Rlandmann (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep – as it was taken in 1903; and likely published well before 1929. I have no reason to think that it wouldn’t have been published shortly after it was taken; which means it has likely been in the public domain for at least a decade. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively; do we know when the author died? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok 1932; even going by that; the author died more than 90 years ago. So the life+70 rule even says PD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to think this photo was published shortly after being taken. Published where? American newspapers didn't start publishing photos regularly until the 1920s, by which time this was very old news. And the changes in US copyright law over the years create a weird "bump" where works published between 1929 and 1977 are protected for 95 years after publication: far longer than 70 years after the death of the author, which came in 1978. Look carefully at Hirtle. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. law also says 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation; whichever is shorter. Using that second rule. We are just over that 120 year threshold (it’s been 121 years, it would have entered the public domain on January 1 of this year). My keep !vote still stands. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 16:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified Hirtle chart for copyright expiry of this image, omitting options that don't apply.

  • Photo taken in 1903 in US
  • Photographer died in 1932
  • Date and conditions of first publication unknown, but before 1953
Date of Publication Conditions Copyright Term Commons copyright tag Public domain? When will copyright expire?
Before 1929 None None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration {{PD-US-expired}} Yes Already in public domain
1929 through 1977 Published without a copyright notice None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities {{PD-US-no notice}} Yes Already in public domain
1929 through 1963 Published with notice but copyright was not renewed None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration {{PD-US-not renewed}} Yes Entered the public domain between 1958 and 1982
1929 through 1963 Published with notice and the copyright was renewed 95 years after publication date n/a No Will enter public domain sometime between 2025 and 2049

--Rlandmann (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question – where was the first publication that we know of? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @Rlandmann; barring any earlier publications that we don’t know about; when was the first publication that we know of? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because if it was after 2003; we can always renominate if an earlier publication comes up. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. By trawling through https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu I've been able to discover the following:
  • The local Heppner Gazette did not include photos in its flood coverage...
  • but The Oregonian did, even sending their own photographer to Heppner. The Oregonian also ran two other photos by Sigsbee in its coverage, but not this photo.[8]
  • the earliest appearance of this photo I've found in the archive is from 1953. If (for example only), we had any reason to think that this was the first publication, then it would be in the public domain because it appeared without a copyright notice, and the paper it appears in does not appear in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for 1953. The COM:ONUS however, is on anyone who wants to keep this image to prove that this was the first time it was published, (or that it was first published on a date and under conditions which mean it was never protected by copyright or that its copyright has expired.) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election posters are most likely not covered unter COM:FOP#Germany, as they are not permanently displayed in public places, only for the limited time frame around an election. A German High court case got a ruling against the application of the FoP in the substantially comparable case of the Wrapped Reichstag (Bundesgerichtshof, 2002, cf. Verhüllter Reichstag#Bildrechte). At least photographs of people or depictions of concise objects are best seen as copyrighted (precautionay principle). Furthermore, there is already a precedent set in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Election posters for the Bundestagswahl 2021, several files got deleted on a similar rationale in 2022.

Grand-Duc (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Delete per nomination. --Krd 07:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]