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 film posters are presumably copyrighted works. Since the picture was taken inside a building and such film posters are usually not permanently attached, freedom of panorama unfortunately does not apply. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die mit abgebildeten Poster sind nicht eigentlicher Inhalt des Fotos. Sie erscheinen zwangsläufig nebenbei bei dem Foto einer besonderen Fensterputzarbeit, die ohne den Hintergrund nicht dargestellt werden kann. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich widerspreche. Die beiden Plakate machen einen Großteil des Bildhintergrundes aus und sinn deutlich und scharf erkennbar. Hier noch von Nebensächlichkeiten, von deminimi zu sprechen, halte ich für falsch. Lukas Beck (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parce que ce blason est basé sur un blasonnement erroné (voir débat dans la discussion sur la page de la famille Olphe-Galliard). Un nouveau blason est en réalisation. Très cordialement. Montcorin (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These files were both nominated for deletion individually by Ранко Николић. The rationale was the same for both files: No permission, taken from https://sd-crvenazvezda.net/klubovi/ , 2016 @ СД Црвена звезда, Designed by MojaCrvenaZvezda.Net & SCART-Design Ранко Николић (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC). I think it ought be better if they both appear in a mass request since they are so similar.[reply]
Keep, both are very simple text-based logos. Are you somehow bored, Jonteemil? There's plenty of other work here... Xgeorg (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xgeorg Firstly, please remain civil in all discussions, even if you think they are dumb or unnecessary. Secondly, the fact that there are more complex logos here doesn't make these two okay. I looked at your past participations in deletion requests and you have consistantly voted for keep with a similar rationale text-logo, very simple, yet the files have been deleted every time. So it strikes me that you don't have a good grasp on thresholds of originality and Commons's rules regarding it. Files on Commons need to be free in both the country of origin AND the US and if there is significant doubt, then we delete per COM:PCP. File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg and w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg are both much less complex than File:Los Angeles Football Club.svg, yet the first two have copyright whereas the last doesn't. It's all got to to with the country of origin and its TOO laws. Regarding these logos I totally disagree that they are very simple text-based logos. The ICE in the middle of the logo is stylized with gradients to get that "icy" impression and also the line above and the text HOCKEY LEAGUE is stylized with the same gradients. For a TOO that is described as low which COM:TOO Austria is, I'd be very doubtful if this logo would be clearly below it. Jonteemil (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I appreciate the reminder to keep discussions civil and respectful, and I will keep that in mind. I understand that more complex logos don't automatically justify the use of simpler ones.
I wonder that you have time to study my voting behavior...
Regarding my votings in deletion requests, I want to emphasize that I always strive to understand and apply Commons's rules and guidelines to the best of my ability, but in general I don not agree to the strict rules regarding logos this projects has given itself. On the other hand, I have nominated already hundreds of files for deletion, if clear CR violations - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Sv3n19341997Xgeorg (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo seems to be uploaded by Marc Lavoie, the subject of the photo, but not the photographer. Permission needed from the photographer. Consigned (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a plaque published by the Government of Canada. Government works are usually Crown Copyright, which is copyrighted for 50 years after publishing (see {{PD-Canada}}; per the description this plaque seems to have been released in 2010. Though technically 3 dimensional, per COM:FOP Canada I think this qualifies as a 2d work (and not a work of artistic craftsmanship) thus not eligible for FOP. Consigned (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steffen Dietrich das Foto muss im Prinzip nicht gelöscht. Es ist zwar nicht denkmalgeschützt, es darf aber trotzdem hochgeladen werden. wenn du möchtest kann ich das foto auf einen anderen Dateinamen verschieben. Viele Grüße Zthomas11:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Thomas, ist Okay. Das Gebäude gehört zum großflächigen Bereich des Diakonissenmutterhaus Bad Harzburg e.V. im Krodotal und es ist ein Pfarrhaus. Wohnhaus mit Carport befinden sich nicht in der Kleine Krodostr. 6 sondern gehört zum Areal "Obere Krodostr. 30". Text- und Bildänderungen werde ich erst bei Wiki vornehmen, wenn das "Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege" (NLD) in Hannover mir ihr Okay für diese Korrektur gegeben haben und das kann wegen der Urlaubszeit dauern. Gruß Steffen Steffen Dietrich (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Bild zeigt "Kleine Krodostr. 6". Die ist auch im Niedersächsischen Denkmalaltas verzeichnet. Denkmalatlas
Aber eigentlich ist die "Kleine Krodostr. 6" kein Baudenkmal sondern die "Obere Krodostr. 30". und die ist nicht im Denkmalatlas verzeichnet und das möchtest du beim Denkmalamt ändern lassen? Zthomas05:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Thomas, falsch sind im "Niedersächsischen Denkmalatlas", das ausgewiesene Gebäude vom Baudenkmal (ehem. Krodohaus Siemens, ID:37704226) und der dazugehörige Straßenname. Die Kleine Krodostr. 6 muss Obere Krodostr. 30 heißen, die Hausnummer 6 in der Kleine Krodostr. gibt es überhaupt nicht. Siehe auch [4], das Gebäude (L-förmig) oberhalb der Bugenhagenkapelle ist der richtige Standort für das Baudenkmal. Eine historische Postkarte von mir aus dem Jahr 1922 brachte den Fehler ans Licht.
Weitere Baustelle ist der Objekttyp (Wohnhaus, Schlosserei, Pfarrhaus, Wohn-/ Geschäftshaus, Schule etc.), die werden mal aufgeführt und mal nicht. Die Zuweisung der versch. Objekttypen stammt aus der Zeit, als es ein Baudenkmal wurde, die Nutzung heute kann eine völlig andere sein. Wünsche dir ein schönes Wochenende. Steffen Steffen Dietrich (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Thomas, ich nerve mal wieder. Habe zwei Baudenkmale mit dem Denkmalstatus "Ehemaliges Denkmal" gefunden, sie werden im Denkmalatlas nicht mehr aufgeführt. Sollte ich diese auch in der "Liste der Baudenkmale in Bad Harzburg" löschen und wie umgehen mit dem Bildmaterial? Gruß Steffen Steffen Dietrich (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steffen Dietrich du nervst überhaupt nicht, deine Fragen sind gut!
ich hab dir auf deiner disk in der wikipedia geantwortet.
This file was initially tagged by Taichi as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: The photo is tagged in Flickr as Creative Commons NC-ND 2.0 license, not compatible here. — billinghurstsDrewth22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. This picture was taken from the Flickr account of the U.S. Embassy in Panama. All pictures taken by a U.S. official are property of the U.S. government, which means that is public domain. That’s the reason why I tagged like that. Whatever says on Flickr is not the correct rights. It’s a U.S. government owned picture, so it's public domain. https://www.state.gov/copyright-information/#copyrightEnmanuel (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo gallery is not hosted on a US government owned site, there must be a reason why the US embassy account adopted CC nc-nd as its license, we can't assume it's a mistake, because in the future someone may still encounter the license incompatibility error. That is something for the US embassy to clarify, not for us to guess. Taichi (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The architect of the church was Karl Band who died in 1995. In Germany there is no FoP for interior views and exists a standard of life + 70 years Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sought and was given permission to post these images by Paul Morrissey himself. They all come from his personal archive of photos and posters. I can assure you that there will be no claim brought against any of these. They are unique to this page XmchaikenX (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many of these images are archival promotional materials. They were freely distributed to promote Mr. Morrissey’s films at the time of their original release. None of these images widely circulate at the quality I have uploaded them here because I sought these out and was given these high quality copies by Mr. Morrissey’s personal archivist. If necessary, I could obtain and send to you a letter of permission for their usage. I’m quite interested in Mr. Morrissey’s work and sought to create the best page possible with annotated text and high quality images. Thank you. XmchaikenX (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of permission should go to Commons:Volunteer Response Team. It's awesome that his archive is willing to provide material, but we need confirmation that they hold the copyright to these items and are willing to provide them under a free license. For example, File:Paul Morrissey Screen Test ca. 1965.jpg appears to be a still from an Andy Warhol film, so we wouldn't want someone getting in trouble with the Andy Warhol Foundation if the copyright was held by them. hinnk (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I can get clearences from Paul Morrissey and his archive as well as the Andy Warhol Foundation. What is the best way to send these confirmations to you? Would proof of correspondence with both parties suffice? Or would you prefer a written permission addressed directly to Wikipedia? 67.254.194.20518:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just spoke to Paul and his archivist and they are going to send an email to the Volunteer Response Team. Additionally, they sent me a self portrait to use for the main image so I won't have to clear through the Andy Warhol Foundation. XmchaikenX (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, VRT should be able to sort everything out, and if any deletions happen before VRT gets to it, don't worry, they can restore the images. Once they've updated everything, feel free to ping me on my talk page and I'll be happy to get everything added to the relevant articles. hinnk (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That website used my photo from Wikipedia, which I uploaded in December 2022. The full photo with me in it was just to show that I had the whole original photo and not the cropped one. They must have edited their article with different photos. The original photo is from August 2019. I also posted it on my Facebook back in 2019.
News article published in Argentina in 1971. It is in the public domain in its country of origin (50 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so tell me how?? the pictures are all in the file of my grandmoter, Corry Beversluis, there are no licences...privat collection of pictures Boris Larsov (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures cannot be marked from 2024, as Corry Beversluis died in 1975. Also, it is marked as personnal work and, seeing the variety of formats, it seems unlikely. Would it be possible to indicate the source and the author of the pictures? Also, if you are the author of these pictures, could you please confirm it, or confirm you have the authorization of the author, by following the process on this url: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked source is here and that site has a policy here stating that "metadata" is licensed under CC0, but the media objects themselves are taken from other institutions and shared here. As the source page and the watermark indicate, the actual source of the image is the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz, where the original photo can be found here. That site's copyright policy is here, and seems to claim full copyright on materials.
That being said, this is a photo of a painting inside the historic Pitti Palace in Florence. The age of the painting isn't indicated here, but it's feasibly hundreds of years old. Can we clarify this? Per the Commons policy on reproductions of old 2D works of art, can this be tagged as PD-Art or PD-scan?
R Prazeres (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, Ce blason était utilisé sur l'article Armorial des familles du Gévaudan, J'ai créé cet article et les blasons conformément aux blason représenté sur l'armorial du Gévaudan du vicomte de Lescure.
Les armes sont décrites page 731 et le dessin est représenté page XVI.
De plus le fait qu'un fichier n'est pas utilisé sur wikipedia, ne veut pas dire qu'il n'est pas utilisé ailleurs, sur d'autres sites.
Je ne vous donne pas l'accord de supprimer mon fichier, vous pouvez toujours utiliser le votre et le présenter en alias en précisant la source qui doit être je pense différente de Lescure.
Bonsoir, j'ai repris la cordelière ancienne représentée dans les cachets, et que nous trouvons régulièrement dans les armoriaux, elle contient un noeud simple, différent de ce que vous proposez, pour être cohérent, il faudrait reprendre tous les fichiers de roquefeuil avec la cordelière simple.
Merci Zardoz91 de votre intervention sur cette page ;
On ne peut pas vraiment dire que je propose un modèle, je n'ai fait que reprendre des existants, plus présentables que d'autres à moindres frais ; le modèle avec la cordelière simple, quant à lui, demande encore un certain investissement avant de pouvoir être réellement ré-utilisé, comme vous pouvez le voir en zoomant sur le svg.
All of these death notes are copyrighted by author/agency who made them. One of them contains water mark for original creator. User claims Either public domain logo or script. But these have complex caligraphy and designs which puts them above the originality threshold
Hello @Quick-ease2020, the death notes has no originality at all. It is only text of names + some dates. There is no creative materials to be copyrrited. There is an entire category for death notes.
Instead, death notes provide a way to prove the imprtance of the person depnding on who issued the death note + it confirm the death date and the family relashionships, which are vey hard to prove in many cases.
The watermark is used to shows that this is not fake death note, it is only used in the online verion. It my be seems naive or outdated, but this is how thing work in Syria. Michel Bakni (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it boils down to is whether there is copyright on such death notes. Here are my arguments of why I think they are:
1. Original writing:
The makers of this poster had to source the information about the deceased's family and relatives and published it in this note. Which might make their writing copyrighted. Thus you can't take a photo of it without permission.
2. Design :
All of these posters contain calligraphy of "إلى رحمة الله تعالى". Which is an artistic expression. They are also unique in their styling. Bolding of different words, Size of font, arrangement of names.
All of these could make it above the threshold of originality in terms of design.
The photo was taken by Cody Cutter and is used by the band on a perpetual license agreement. They have permission to post it anywhere and use it commercially. Please refrain from deleting this or any other of the band's photos. Pergonomics (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SDudley: To confirm, you're saying that the modern ad is the super-position of the text over the background (PD) image, and that the collection is above the threshold of copyrightability? I'm minded to agree, but want to check. James F.(talk)12:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photos published in the 1990s in Italy, but still copyrighted in the US due to Bern Convention. Notice that File:Francesca Mambro and Valerio Fioravanti.jpg and related images are hosted in itwiki because of this problem and shouldn't be uploaded to Commons.
<<The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products (Art. 87). Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation.>>
According to Berne Convention:
<<It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work.>>
No photo published created and published in Italy after December 31, 1975 and without a simultaneous US publication is in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, replace the file with the proper image. I wonder what the user intended here. The file seems in use, I guess it should be replaced with the actual image and then the prior version get deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Panini images published in 1984. These images are currently in the public domain in Italy (20 years after publication), but they were not in 1996 at URAA date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this images.
Keep In what way is this a 'personal text doc' ? It appears to be an economics text, and within scope for Wikibooks or Wikisource (comments at Wikibooks suggest that the file format isn't favoured for that project, but that's just a format issue, not scope). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi, as the importer from Wikibooks, because every of its files are now here, I can say that it shouldn't return their.
Its author had uploaded it by believing that the project could host non-collaborative books in PDF, which is not the case (the PDFs should actually be generated from the wiki pages).
Concerning the Wikisource option, it should be excluded too because it infringes s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource?: no original writings by a contributor to the project.
The source of this image is a signed postcard [5]. On its back it clearly states it was issued for an event on September 5, 1968. That is 14 years after the claimed date on the description. Regardless, anonymous works published either in 1954 or in 1968 are copyrighted in its country of origin (70 years after publication) . We can undelete it in 2064 when it enters in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The kitumbua picture is used elsewhere online in sources that predate the upload, such as this Youtube video, and the cake pan image clearly looks like a product photo. Seems safe to assume copyvio in both cases, but they didn't seem blatant enough for the {{Copyvio}} tag.
Not own work. The poster's other upload appears to be legitimate, so this is probably the uploader's scan of it that is their own work: however the original copyright belongs to Michel Potay which is not CC or PD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version and please delete the inferior older versions because they were created using svg creator and latest one is the official version provided by the company, also i am the orginal uploader Anoopspeaks (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all cases, the uploader has correctly claimed these images come from the St. Margarets school website (https://www.stmargarets.cl/en/home/). They did not specify specific urls, but I have verified each of these images come from that site. However, in all case the upload incorrectly claimed a {{PD-US}} license. Frankly, the uploader doesn't seem to understand copyright and believes that simply because it's on the St. Margarets website, it's fair game and is in the public domain. This is clearly not the case. These are copyright violations. Some of these might have fallen into the public domain, but there's no certain way to ascertain this as we don't know the original publication of the images nor their dates of publication in their source country (Chile). Copyright violations, all of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket allows Wavepainter to upload works by Denis Pekarev under CC BY-SA 4.0 at his discretion given that Denis must be credited as the author, which appears missing here. The ticket covers works by Denis as available on his Facebook page. Identity confirmation here seems something not relevant. It wasn't needed. Regards, Aafi (talk)06:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aafi: and @Abzeronowː You are absolutely right, if you are talking about the diary - the author is father Alexander Pekarev. Now the author is Denis as the author of this photo. If you think it is necessary to list his Father as the author, we will do so. Thank you. Wavepainter (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the CC license could be valid. While the file description gives the source of the data, that doesn't mean that the information in those sources becomes free to use. The map is a close copy of that in Hayward's book, page vi (down to specific choices like the decision of which geographical features to include). Even though that map was modified with further information about the distribution of the individual languages from Ethnologue, Hayward's map itself remains copyrighted. Speaking of Ethnologue, https://www.ethnologue.com/pricing/ is very clear that the distribution maps are only available to paying subscribers, and https://www.ethnologue.com/general-terms-use/ (specifically points 2 and 3) further states that all the information on their site is copyrighted. In particular, reproduction of any content is prohibited (this includes, but is not limited to, their maps), and using any content from the site for commercial purposes requires their written consent. There is no indication that different rules applied when the file was uploaded. The copyright issue was first raised on the file talk page in 2009, about a year after the upload. The uploader/author did not reply to those concerns, even though they continued to work on the file until 2012 (and have remained active as an administrator on the German Wikipedia from 2008 until stepping down in 2016, and as a user on Commons until 2020). That is to say, I'm surprised they didn't respond to it. The same applies to the two derivative versions, File:Omotic languages sv.svg and File:Omotic languages mk.svg (a third one in English that is linked from the file description has apparently been deleted in the meantime). Renerpho (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ethnologue has additional fair use guidelines,[6] but those state that Maps may be used in reports, presentations, displays, and other uses as long as they are not altered. (i.e., as long as the copyright watermark isn't removed), and graphic is not modified. [...] Any other use requires prior written permission from SIL International. They also limit the time for which fair use can be claimed for educational purposes: Educational multimedia projects created for educational purposes, and for teaching courses, may use SIL incorporated material for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class. Use beyond that time period, even for educational purposes, requires permission for each copyrighted portion incorporated in the production.Renerpho (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Files with copyright notice crediting Parlamentsdirektion (Austrian Parliament). The Austrian Parliament terms of use explain that this copyright notice is not Commons compliant (COM:L) as it only allows limited non-commercial re-use and no commercial use or modifications. Note, the last 3 files (one photo and and two logos) currently have {{PD-AustrianGov}} tag suggesting PD because they are "part of a law, ordinance or official decree issued by an Austrian federal or state authority, or because it is of predominantly official use" (COM:AUSTRIA), however I am suspicious of this because the publisher (Austrian Parliament) included a copyright notice which aligns with their terms of use.
Delete Simply being taken by your camera does not make your image allowable on Commons, as in your case, the file is derivative work that contains copyrighted material, which is not allowable on Commons. Neither journalist or news material enters the public domain immediately after publication: they are subject to the same copyright law requirements, and you can easily found words like "Copyrighted — all rights reserved" in news websites.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Uploader is requesting VRT permission from the copyright holders (i.e. the respective political parties).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being taken by your camera does not make your image allowable on Commons, as in your case, the file is derivative work that contains copyrighted material, which is not allowable on Commons. Neither journalist or news material enters the public domain immediately after publication: they are subject to the same copyright law requirements, and you can easily found words like "Copyrighted — all rights reserved" in news websites.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Uploader is requesting VRT permission from the copyright holders (i.e. the respective political parties).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination After double-checking with the licensing provisions of {{OPL}}, it is found that OPL directly applies to this file.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work is owned by me. It has a low resolution because high resolution was never accepted. I took a picture of the work and cut out some of the unrelated information by using Paint so there is no EXIF. Xzx1337 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The game is not CC BY-SA, but the screenshots on the game's itch.io were released under that license. Is there any policy/precedent for situations like this?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from trailer of Barbarella, published in 1968. The rationale used was {{PD-US-no notice}}, but it is incorrect. One can see in the trailer at 3:09 that it does have a copyright notice. According to Hirtle chart works published between 1964 and 1977 with copyright notice are protected for 95 years.
Comment: Is that trailer the original version? If it has been published earlier without a copyright notice, then it would still be PD. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: I used the same trailer from File:Fonda3.JPG that claimed it had no copyright notice. The other files didn't even bother to provide a link to the trailer. If you have further evidence. please provide it. I'm not going to engage in a "what if..." discussion. Günther Frager (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map appears to be based/using a style[7] very similar to the Ordinance Survey's commercial OS MasterMap Topography Layer map product, requiring a license. Likely not released with a free license, nor the one stated. Furthermore, unlikely to be mainly "own work", and another organisation Cadw has been given courtesy for some involvement. DankJae17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""""Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons.
This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States."""" this is from en wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Honor_of_Kings_logo.png . please Speedy delete.
If game or company logos from China cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because the logo is copyrighted (even if the logo is only text), why don't you add a file deletion nomination to the logo of Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, Realme, Tencent, etc. logos? The brand I mentioned comes from China too. Astrinko (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the logo I uploaded was a cut from the original version, as long as the file does not meet the copyright threshold, the file I uploaded entered the public domain. I don't think the Wikimedia Commons administrators removed the logo. There are still many Chinese company logos on Wikimedia Commons that are text only, but they have not been removed. Astrinko (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look the logo File:Douyin wordmark.svg, that's the Chinese version of the TikTok application logo, even though the logo is in the form of text and the logo is cut from the original version, the logo is still on Wikimedia Commons and has not been removed until now. Astrinko (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A logo that is only in the form of text does not meet the copyright threshold and enters the public domain, so the logo should not need to be removed. However, I am waiting for the Wikimedia Commons admin's decision whether the logo will be removed or not. Astrinko (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Website given T&Cs state "You may use and re-use information free of charge from this website (not including the Royal Arms and departmental or Agency logos) under the terms of the Open Government Licence". Logos aren't under OGL, therefore the licence used is invalid. However, due to the simplicity of the logo, unsure if it meets the threshold of originality COM:TOO UK. DankJae18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I oppose the deletion of this photo for the following reasons:
This photo depicts the statue of King Sejong the Great in Yeouido Park, unveiled on December 18, 1998. The statue, created by the artist Ok Dong-hwan and Ko Jeong-su and commissioned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.[1]
If the artists have contractually waived their copyright to the Seoul Metropolitan Government, then Article 35 of the Copyright Act, restricting commercial FOP, would not apply. Under these circumstances, Article 24-2 would permit free photographs of the statue to be taken and used for commercial purposes. This would allow this photo to be legally shared and used, supporting its retention on Wikipedia.
Other photos of the statue in Yeouido Park are available on Gongu Madang (공유마당),[2][3] a platform operated and directly vetted by the Korea Copyright Commission (KCC). These photos have licensing which allows commercial use. The Gongu Madang platform employs a process to ensure that content is free of legal disputes and correctly licensed under Korean law.[4] The presence of this statue on Gongu Madang in pictures that allow for commercial use means it has passed this verification process, thus indicating that the KCC has confirmed the statue's copyright is available for public use as per Article 24-2. Nonabelian (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, similar reasoning did not work and did not result to the undeletion of a deleted file imported from Flickr stream of the Korean Ministry of Culture. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-07#File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg, which went stale. Note that the nominated image did not come from the aforementioned Korean agencies, but from a user of French Wikipedia. Furthermore, in the UNDEL request, from my reading of some of the sources presented by Nonabelian (translating the Korean language sources), it does appear that the agencies only permit free uses which are non-commercial. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)21:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 158.58.190.83 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Not used and now a SVG version like recommended at File:Rossy logo.svg|subpage=File:Rossy logo.svg|year=2024|month=July|day=4Yann (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my doubt is whether the source date is correct, because the name of the café only changed to include an "s" after 1945 following the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1945. in the book Os Cafés de Lisboa, the author Marina Tavares Dias claims that the ad is actually from around 1961. or at least one of the ads!
the possible origin of this advertisement can only be from 1945 to 1961, which would not qualify for public domain in Portugal, sadly.
however, according to the same book, the character (called "velhote da chávena", lit. "old man with the cup") and the logo are way older, both from 1906 (the logo with Z is from 1906, the logo with S is from 1945).
the tricky thing is trying to find these ads, but I don't know if I want to scour through several unrelated 20th-century newspapers for this, sorry. that's a challenge for someone else. Juwan (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case the author is unknown, the term of the author's life can't be a rationale for PD statement. The date of first publication is needed to meet COM:Russia terms. Romano1981 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source website certainly claims that this photo is available under this specific license. However, it's highly unlikely that Indymedia is the original author of the said photo and as such it's highly unlikely that the license applying here is the one claimed by the website. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ08:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source website certainly claims that this photo is available under this specific license. However, it's highly unlikely that Indymedia is the original author of the said photo and as such it's highly unlikely that the license applying here is the one claimed by the website. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ08:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason as with the now deleted Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stonehenge.stl: The licenses are invalid, and no VRT ticket has been brought forward. Reading the rationale for that previous nomination, it is clear that the intention was to nominate the other files for deletion as well ("it (and the other uploads) needs to be deleted"), but this wasn't done. In my reply, I noted that those other files are copyright violations, but they haven't been deleted yet, hence why I'm nominating them now. The source pages for some of the images, as indicated in their file descriptions, do not state a license (and don't indicate that CCBY applies). Many of those that do aren't compatible with CCBY (Stonehenge.stl had a BY-NC-SA license, which is common). In other cases, the "source page" is simply the main page of the Scan the World website, without any link to the original artwork (and of course without credit to the artist, as would be required if this were CCBY). It looks to me like all the 3D models in that category are copyright violations. File:Scan the World Logo.jpg probably can be kept, as I see no evidence that it is original enough to be copyrightable, and the uploader may be the owner. --Renerpho (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader of all files -- except for the Bust of Nefertiti -- is User:RuleTheWiki. There are numerous earlier notifications on their talk page regarding files that were deleted for copyright reasons.[10][11][12][13][14][15] -- With the exception of [16], they have never replied to any of those nominations. I did not check their other uploads, but the user has a history of claiming wrong licenses. Renerpho (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I uploaded Bust of Nefertiti and I hope others realize that I'm actually a very reliable and regular user who doesn't just post copyvios. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erukobora: No. The source for that one[17] gives BY-NC-SA as the license, which forbids commercial use and is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons (in particular, the license on the file page is wrong). Renerpho (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing claim here seems to be fair. However, I have some doubts regarding the presence of a graphic depiction of the iconic dome of Sorbonne, which is quite unique and not really generic. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ08:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in the Italian magazine Playmen in 1967 and it doesn't classify as a "simple photograph" according to {{PD-Italy}} as it is a model posing for an artistic photo shoot where the photographer has full control of the pose, (lack of) dress, background, etc. Copyright protection for artistic photos is 70 pma in Italy. Günther Frager (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image by Italian photographer Angelo Frontoni (1929-2002) published in Playmen magazine in 1970. Since the photo is clearly staged it is a creative photo and has a copyright protection of 70 years pma instad of 20 yeas ppd. Thus, the usage of {{PD-Italy}} is incorrect and it is still copyrighted in its country of origin. We can undelete it in 2073 (US copyright expires earlier). Günther Frager (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to dewiki, this file could have been taken from a now defunct website. Also, there is no (reliable) source for the data presented in the image and the formatting is inconsistent. Sinigh (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion request -- These are the files that I uploaded. Requesting to delete them because, if I understand it correctly, their sources are not government-related websites, hence it is not for free use (might risk copyright). Centcom08 (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These files are photographs which depict the papal medaillons of popes John XXIII, Paul IV, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, located in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome. Those mosaics are still fully protected by copyright as they are works created/published less than 70 years ago and, in some cases like the portraits of Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, made by living artists. Neither the Vatican City nor Italy have freedom of panorama, so we cannot held photographs depicting this 6 tondo mosaics until 70 years from their author's death or, if the author is unknown, 70 years after their creation/publication. The files should be deleted and recovered only after the copyright protection period had expired for each medaillon. See this related DR for further information. 81.41.177.9113:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, 70 pma according to the vatican law applies only if the author is named in the work itself. So, even if the author is knowkn but he's not named in the work, the copyright expires after 70 years from the publication. It wouldn't change the fact that these images should be deleted, but it means that we can restore the first two in 2030. There is also a non-copyright restriction that applies to the image of popes in perpetuity, but my understanding is that on commons we ignore that kind of restrictions (maybe though it'd be better to add some template with a disclaimer when we'll restore them).--Friniate (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe hier eine wahrscheinliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk". Bei einem solchen Logo (welches eindeutig Schöpfungshöhe besitzt) ist der Urheber der Grafiker, welcher das Logo designt hat. Ob der Hochlader dies ist, ist zumindest höchst fraglich. Lutheraner (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Genehmigung zur Verwendung des Logos durch die World Transplant Games Federation / World Transplant Games 2025 Dresden GmbH ist vorhanden. Wie kann ich die Lizenzierungsangabe mit Angabe des Urhebers ändern? SenderundEmpfaenger (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the source states "Commercial usage: Allowed (Author Arrangement required -> Visit artist website for details)", and so it doesn't seem like this image is free to use for completely unrestricted commercial purposes. Sinigh (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly dubious it is "own work" because it belongs to organization pl:Związek Sybiraków and there is no information when it was created and by whom, but definitely ont before 1928 (when the org was estanblisehd.). When in doubt, one must assume it is copyrighted Altenmann (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Film still from the Italian film Il bacio published in 1974. Film stills are not considered "simple" photographs, so they are protected for 70 years pma instead of 20 years ppd. Notice that {{PD-Italy}} only covers still frames and film stock. We can undelete it in 2070 when its US copyright expires. Günther Frager (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This film still / film frame appears to be listed for deletion as a misunderstanding or in error. The standard license {{PD-Italy}} text itselt applicable for this image specifically lists the Italian law applicable to a film still / film frame, and even includes a wikilink to Film frame in case there is any confusion as to the meaning. Image meets the copyright law allowing posting per the standard wikipedia copyright tag. While I normally do not oppose deletion requests, I believe this assumed good-faith request is in error. Keep. Deanlaw (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [original poster][reply]
@Deanlaw There are two different things. A en:W:Still frame is a frame taken from the movie itself. It is like taking an screenshot from a video. A en:W:Film still is when a photographer takes pictures during the production of the movie, so it does intervene the creativity of the photographer. See for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lamina58.jpg. The description says it was a "film still", i.e. the second term, and the source was a magazine, that is why I nominated it. If the image is actually a still frame and the term in the description is wrongly used, then we could close the DR, otherwise I would keep it open. Günther Frager (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed the Italian source magazine, but description of images did not resolve issue, so I reviewed other images from the film which were described as being stills. All images listed as being from this film appear to be mid-1970s still frames and not photographs / film stills. As I was the source of the description of this image, I can state with certainty that the description use of the term "film still" was due to my use of incorrect terminology and not an intention to indicate that this was a separate photograph had been taken on the film set. With this correction to the terminology of the image description, I would recommend that the deletion request now be denied and the image be retained. Deanlaw (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that before 1996, the copyright term in France was 58 years. Beside it may have been shown in USA at the time, and therefore copyright there wasn't restored. Yann (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
France's law change to 70pma did not take effect until April 1, 1997[18]. For the URAA, it mattered what the law actually was in the source country on Jan 1, 1996. Subsequent law changes (retroactive or not) do not matter. The transitional rules in that law make clear that owners of revived rights (for works in the public domain as of July 1, 1995) did not apply to any exploitations before April 1, 1997, so the works were still considered public domain on Jan 1, 1996. There is some gray area for works which expired on January 1, 1996 itself, as the EU directive came into force six months earlier, and it was clear such works would become re-copyrighted (and this later 1997 French law would allow copyright infringement charges for someone who exploited such works between Jan 1 1996 and April 1 1997). However, the law still actually in place on January 1, 1996 was still the 50pma law with wartime extensions, which may have been enough to satisfy the URAA clause of public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection. But works which expired 1995 or earlier seem pretty clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Sounds like there should be no issue with this film then. I've modified COM:FRANCE to include and explain the 1997 date. I'm also going to propose something on the talk page there to recommend adding this interpretation to the page, both of you may want to keep an eye in case there's any discussion. I'll take care of the {{Non-free audio}} tag and strip out the audio sometime soon. hinnk (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
en:À propos de Nice says that Vigo was the writer and director, and Kaufman was the cinematographer. The cinematographer does not enter into the copyright term per the EU directive. Is there somewhere that he was credited as a co-director? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Yann (this film is a French movie, directed and producted in France). On another hand, this could be also clearly considered as collective work, so under PD-France, because this picture has been taken more than 70 years ago. Tisourcier (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mr Cinema encyclopedic Form for "À propos de Nice" defines Vigo as the director and Kaufman as photographer ("opérateur de prises de vue"). This could be also considered as "technical director" because the main author, writter and conceptor of the movie is Jean Vigo. [[19]]. Tisourcier (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here another valid and serious reference, by french public museum "Centre Pompidou" about À propos de Nice's public domain status [[20]].
The {{PD-1996}} tag is incorrect. Director Jean Vigo died in 1934 and composer Maurice Jaubert died in 1940, so the film was not in the public domain in 1996, and URAA would have restored the U.S. copyright. hinnk (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for all: Keep, obviously false allegations. The maps each state that the numbers come from the French Ministry of the Interior, but the districts were derived from the free OSM and the map was created with DataWrapper by the uploader. --Enyavar (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously false allegation. The map states that the numbers come from the French Ministry of the Interior, but the districts were derived from the free OSM and the map was created with DataWrapper by the uploader. --Enyavar (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously false allegation. The map states that the numbers come from the French Ministry of the Interior, but the districts were derived from the free OSM and the map was created with DataWrapper by the uploader. --Enyavar (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously false allegation. The map states that the numbers come from the French Ministry of the Interior, but the districts were derived from the free OSM and the map was created with DataWrapper by the uploader. --Enyavar (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No argument for the crop - delete (unless she looks less that 30 in which case it may be over 70 years old with not known author. ) The photo here is Carrington with her 1948 painting. I think that is likely to be free to use if the painting is cropped out. Victuallers (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used a different screen shot to replace Carrington in the "woman of the day". According to commons this image is free to use. Victuallers (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image must be deleted because, although it is a cropped version of a full-body photograph, it has been edited using artificial intelligence. This is evident in the details of the eyes, lips, and especially in the chest tattoo. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 06:21, 6 July 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.
Original source of the photo is not provided, no indication the photographer released their photo of the 3D object under a free license, Quick1984 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, copied from Russian WIkipedia, I corrected the author name into Georgi Dolgopsky, no reason to think they did not make the photo. --Ellywa (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ellywa, surely there's no reason to think so, except the first one, that the user was repeatedly nailed for copyvios and false authorship on Russian Wikipedia, and his uploader rights were removed forever, and the second one - this image is easy to find on the web since 2008: [21]. --Quick1984 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, please provide a complete list of reasons to delete an image.I will reopen the request because the file is heavy in use. It should not be speedily deleted. Ellywa (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has made a large number of valuable contributions to Commons. However, a very small portion of them seem to be out of scope: personal artwork, digitally simulated kaleidoscopes, and vaguely identified whirlpools, none of which really adds anything to their respective topics. All unused, except by bots in some cases. Sinigh (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy, really! I included them because it seemed to me that there would be a community need for a few free quality artisitc pieces of that sort. However, if they are considered clutter and are not being drawn upon, then I will certainly not be offended if they are deleted.
By the way, how do I find out if my images are being downloaded / used? I assumed there was such a feature but have been too busy to pursue. Paul Harrison (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait of Italian actress Virna Lisi by Canadian photographer Douglas Kirkland. The source is the Lisi' webpage, but it is not clear the country of origin is Italy because Kirkland worked in Hollywood and Virna Lisi also. Without a proper origin information of this image we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is marked as being under CC0, however the source image isn't from a government website where CC0 orOGL would be automatically applied, but from daily record. The permission section talks about "National Archives UK Government Web Archive", which is fine except again the link isn't to the National Archives, it's to a newspaper. There's certainly no evidence when searching the web archive for Blair in 1997.
The image seems to be from this article which attributes it to PA Media, so not Crown Copyright, and was also posted by a known and banned sockpuppet account, so as far as I'm concerned this should be deleted. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo published in Italy n 1995. Still copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. At this point, the upload of such photos has been widely accepted. The reasoning cannot stop at merely deleting the single photo; we need to have a broader discussion, especially considering that this photo was not published in the United States of America. Vale93b (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Italy and the US are members of the Berne Convention. That means that anything published in Italy is automatically copyrighted in the US. The copyright in Italy for simple photographs is 20 years after creation, while the US is 70 years pma. Notice that the US doesn't implement the rule of the shorter term. @Vale93b: the licensing policy is quite clear: images needs to be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the US. I don't know where you got it was accepted to upload photos that are obviously copyrighted in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vale93b: that is a special category that contains the images uploaded before March 1, 2012 and had their US copyright restored in 1996 due to URAA. That is because Commons ignored URAA restored files, but changed its posture after the US Supreme Court stated URAA restorations were constitutional. Instead of mass deletion the files were tagged using {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Notice that it cannot be used for new uploads. The file in this DR has not its US copyright restored by URAA, and if it were, the tag couldn't be applied as you uploaded in 2022. Günther Frager (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That use seems fairly implausible. Articles about artwork typically focus on works by notable artists. More generally, categories like Category:Abstract paintings exist to categorize artwork which is already in scope on Commons, primarily pieces by notable artists. The existence of categories for types of artwork doesn't mean that all artwork of those genres is in scope, no more than categories like Category:Selfies mean that all selfies are in scope. Omphalographer (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I think we disagree on the scope of Commons. There is no requirement of notability regarding the artists or authors of images, as long as the images are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". As you say, "Articles about artwork typically focus on works by notable artists". This is correct for areas were public domain images are available. But articles on contemporary design are difficult to illustrate with designs by notable contemporary artists or designers, since those tend to be protected by copyright. Therefore, samples of contemporary graphic design published under creative-commons licences, even by non-notable designers, can be useful and serve an educational purpose. For exemple, if you look at category:Web design, you see that there isn't a great amount of content. 1904.CC (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: unused semi-promotional images ranking (European) football teams. Not likely to be useful, especially since they're six years out of date now.
Albums published in Argentina during the 1980s. The covers are currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but they were not in 1996 at URAA time. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep these images.
Unlikely own work. The photos are clearly taken by profesional photographers. Some images are really small, other too large. And what prompted me to start this DR: the author of File:Denys Collomb de Daunant.jpg is actually Jean-Claude Marmara [22].
Le fichier Denys Collomb de Daunant.jpg n'est pas de moi c'est le fils de Denys Collomb de Daunant, qui m'a demandé de mettre cette image en ligne et comme c'est assez compliqué et que j'avais un compte, j'ai simplifié. Je pensais d'ailleurs que cette image était de son fils Florian. Mais puisque l'auteur s'est identifié il est naturel de le créditer et de retirer mon nom. Je suis désolé du désagrément bien involontaire. En ce qui concerne les autres photos elles sont bien de moi. Passez voir les négatifs à la maison quand vous voulez. Bien cordialement. Manuperez 2A01:CB1D:8084:8F00:E4A5:C8CF:D9E0:4AE909:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed many times before and consensus is that the OGL statement is accepted. The multi-licensing template is, in fact, present on the file page already. S5A-0043Talk|
My files, COM:NOTUSED; McCoy's file had been used in an article I wrote that I later redirected and the other is for a bassist that doesn't have any articles on any wiki. I previously tagged it as G7, but Billinghurst reverted it.
Comment. Looking at the upload history, the majority of photographs are verified by VRT. I do not think there is sufficient evidence here not to assume good faith. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict artworks by Frida Kahlo that are protected by copyright and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder.
The museum has public access and freedom of panorama applies to both interiors and exteriors, therefore, the painting is definetely covered. El Nuevo Doge (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum is privately owned and operated. It charges a fee to enter. Therefore, unfortunately for us, it is not a 'public place', and freedom of panorama does not apply. Gnom (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who owns the place, what matters is that it is a place open to the public in one way or another and freedom of panorama applies definitively. El Nuevo Doge (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source federal telecommunications institute says nothing of this sort. The deletion discussion you linked to also did not discuss the issue of a private museum that charges an entrance fee. Gnom (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico City can only regulate the definition of 'public place' for municipal purposes, but not for purposes relating to federal law (which includes copyright law). This means that the term 'public place' can have different meanings in different contexts. Gnom (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
possible copyvio - not convinced its own work, though I can't find it else where - but it has different camera specs compared to the other image uploaded by this person and I'm not convinced that other image is own work (other image File:Laura_Trask_parliament.jpg) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 10:36, 7 July 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.
Derivative works of what? The actual clothes? Clothes are not usually protected by copyright, and their design (at least what's represented in these drawings) is very simple. Just a few stripes and a number. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its integration with the building itself (not applied later as a mural) leads me to think that this would be considered part of the building architecture and allowable under US freedom of panorama. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from Fellini's file Intervista released in Italy in 1987. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from the film Yuppies 2 released in Italy in 1986. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Note that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be used on file uploaded befreo March 1, 2012, not the case here. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from the film Borotalco released in Italy in 1982. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from the film Tu mi turbi released in Italy in 1983. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFD2020 is the program I conducted and all the materials are mine.
SFD2018 (۱۳۹۷) is for a program I conducted. The photographer is someone else who clicked them for us.
This bulk deletion is not constructive. If there is any objection, please be specific so that I can provide better response. Ahangarha (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""File:Shahr-e Gholghola.jpg is my own photo."" contact COM:VRT or at least upload high resolution with metadata please.
""SFD2020 is the program I conducted and all the materials are mine."" is it about a thing that is notable? is it in project scope?
"upload high resolution with metadata please" I didn't find any resource regarding the min-resolution required for sharing images. But I will consider it. It may take time since.
"is it about a thing that is notable?" and "if someone else created the photo then you dont own the copyright." If someone joined my event and clicked photo for my event and gave it to me, who is the copyright holder? How should I prove this? Let me know.
i dont remember any rule that indicates minimum res. but it is important to see some evidence that show us the file is own work. and high res with metadata is good for that.
I uploaded the file to Commons as it is public domain in both the US and it's country of origin, Switzerland, for use with it's associated article. If this is not where it belongs, please let me know where it needs to go. Dunkahoop (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected copyright violation. The uploader of the file tagged the license as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", however there does not appear to be any notice of such a license on the source website. GranCavallo (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1984. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Panini card published in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in the Italian newspaper La Stampa in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image Günther Frager (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of [the tif version], which is listed as the original. Nominating for deletion along with the png version. Also acceptable if the tif version is deleted and one of the others is kept. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this deletion request. It is a largely accepted practice to keep one variant per format, done by multiple upload projects before me. vip (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of [the tif version], which is listed as the original. Nominating for deletion along with the jpeg version. Also acceptable if the tif version is deleted and one of the others is kept. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with keeping multiple versions of a file in different formats? I would also note that Commons:File types#TIFF says Overall, PNG is a preferred format; however, the ability to upload TIFF files is offered as a courtesy.SevenSpheres (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, [23] states "foto: privé-archief De Geus" meaning "Photo: Private archive of De Geus". It seems the uploader is De Geus himself. I am trying to get him to declare the profile is indeed owned by the subject of the image, so that everything is 100% clear.
These are screenshots of The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, directed by Alfred Hitchcock (1899–1980). Its UK copyright will not expire until 2051. hinnk (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed two files as they were part of an advertisement, so not the property of the New York Times. The drawing also has no copyright symbol. Günther Frager (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous logo at "Billycart Kids" was outdated, so I had to replace it with the current, re-branded logo. If you go to their website you can see it as such. Sussybaka6000 (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio - weird meta data (clearly not taken with a samsung lol), not ownwork. author probably didnt die before 1946 (to avoid URAA issues) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The metadata is likely from the camera used to take a picture of the picture, not the original image. Ownwork applies to that derivative photo. The question is who took the 1944 image and if it was "made available to the public by an authorised act" (per COM:NEW ZEALAND). It looks like (per en:WP:NUSC) that if the photo was taken in 1943, it would be PD, but 1944 might not be due to URAA. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:PCPandCOM:TOO UK, perhaps retaining an image containing one of mildly complex logos would be too risky for this project. I asked at COM:VPCOPY and then found out that the symbol resembling the pound sterling sign (£) may have been actually an "L" to rather represent one of founders of the Parlophon(e) Records. Furthermore, the company itself was German-established, so the logo must have been also German.
If COM:TOO Germany, not COM:TOO UK, applies to the long-standing "L" logo, what about the "45" logo? The "4" and the "5" are very close to each other, and the 4's right-end touches the 5's left-end. At first, I was hesitant to nominate this image for deletion (as a test), but then a local enwiki discussion about another similar image was closed procedurally.
Continuing to raise matter at another venue was suggested there. However, I dunno who else has an expertise or a certainty to evaluate the logos (Parlophone and "45") outside the DR venue. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is IMHO clearly below COM:TOO Germany, and even below TOO UK, given that the L is so close to the £ sign and that entire part can be considered de minimis. The 45 is just text, placement of the letters doesn't change this. PaterMcFly (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the photo of Randal Graham has been listed for deletion. There is no copyright issue with it. I took the photograph myself and it is used with the permission of the subject. Is there a problem here? Please clarify. DueManifest (talk) 13:14, 9 July 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.
KeepFile:Green-gel-x.png, if the nominator looked at the image they would see it's merely reminiscent of the packaging, but nothing--not the typography, nor the precise gradients--are in any way from the Xbox logo. As for the other images, I think there's too much quibble room to call them ineligible for copyright. David Fuchs (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Agree - This is a purely copyrighted logo image and should be reuploaded on the English Wikipedia at a lower resolution.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.245.96 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Keep: I vote to keep. The American threshold of originality is comparatively high (Microsoft is an American company), and this simple design consisting of only an X, a sphere, and a simple wordmark is not original enough (I believe) to merit copyright under U.S. law. For other similar cases, all of which have been established as public domain due to lack of originality, please see the Boeing and Ford logos. Trademarks still apply to all of these logos, of course. Michael Barera (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain.--EEIM (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 3D orb with the indented X is probably enough for copyright. It's all the other small effects in there, for me. That said, File:Green-gel-x.png looks like someone else's work and is not claimed to be PD-ineligible; I don't think it belongs in this review so Keep that one. File:Xbox logo 2012.png actually lacks all the other details and is just an X in a circle; I think that falls back below the threshold (compare File:Graceland S logo.jpg which was ruled ineligible). Keep that. For the others... I think I would Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Image composé de formes géométriques simples. Counny (talk) 16:50, 23 mai 2013 (CEST)
Delete for all files except File:Xbox logo 2012.png and File:Green-gel-x.png. These all have 3D-Xbox icons, which are too much. File:Xbox logo 2012.png is only a circle with a white X, so I don't think that it's not copyright eligible. File:Green-gel-x.png is self-created (and can't be found on Google Image Search). --TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the United States (as Microsoft is an American company), they are indeed too simple. Perhaps you should take a look at US TOO. Fry1989eh?18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except for File:Xbox logo 2012.png (meets PD-SIMPLE) and File:Green-gel-x.png (non-copyrighted work). As a few others have said, the others are too intricate, even for US standards. The detailed shading and use of gradient in the sphere and the X makes it too complex to meet PD-SIMPLE. -Oxguy3 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Examples at COM:TOO US include gradient-based 3D effects. The Discover Card is the best example of this. Because the 3D effects are applied to a single letter, I think this is below the threshold of originality. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Uploaded by a user called Jharrod18, listed as "Own work". It was uploaded by the subject and taken from the subject's YouTube channel. No other licence is necessary, as it is the own work of the uploader. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This seems to be the production house's Flickr, so they do have a connection to the film. But per https://www.in-films.com/revelation, "ABC Commercial holds worldwide distribution rights". I presume the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did not intend to release these into the public domain, and that In Films lacks the authority to do so. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image is not educationally useful. It fulfils the point "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" in the Wikimedia Commons deltion policy. Conan Wolff (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was it in use earlier this month? It's currently only used in a Commons gallery. That said, I'm unconvinced the technique used to retouch this photo couldn't be useful to illustrate, so I'd vote for a Weak keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 28 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]
Copyvio: these all look like marketing photos; at least one of them (File:ASUS Zenfone 10.jpg) is definitely taken from the gallery at [25]. I haven't confirmed sources for the rest but it seems unlikely that they're any more original.
The OGL licence stated is absent from the source stated. The website does not mention OGL, and when it discusses something like copyright it states:
You are free to use the public information published on this website for your own lawful purpose.
This indicates personal use. Furthermore the licence used, OGL 3 excludes "departmental or public sector organisation logos" from the licence, so invalid use here. Too complex for COM:TOO UK. DankJae17:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photo is tagged {{PD-Italy}}, under that tag as a "simple photograph" it must be "created prior to 1976 and published prior to 1978". The photo seems to be taken around 1966 based on this similar photo by the same photographer, but I can't find any evidence that it was published in Italy prior to 1978. Consigned (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo includes another person who does not want her identity revealed. Therefore, I request the deletion of this file to respect her privacy. Ahte.04 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1921 German coin, which may be public domain. No license for the photograph, which is needed. (EDIT:Did not realize that the uploader passed away.) Abzeronow (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claimed as own work on upload and the lack of license tag is trivial omission from an extremely prolific and trusted long-term editor who routinely uploaded own work as public domain. I am guessing that uploader considered this extremely simple photograph to not be a creative work in and of itself. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The low quality files very much look like they were taken from the web and are not the uploader's own work. Delete per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweigτ11:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that other case is about a file that seems to be the uploader's own photograph, while these appear to have been taken from the web (or whatever private source means) and were not claimed by the uploader to be own works. --Rosenzweigτ17:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I thought "private source" referred to the ownership of the coin, not the photographer. But you could be right, and I see how the ambiguity could be problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 28 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.
Unlikely own work. All photos are various resolutions, including some fairly small, and missing EXIF. The uploader has uploaded many other copyright violations (see talk). Based on their username, they might work at Melilla Airport (MLN), however they still are likely not the photographer of these photos.
Given that TOO is dubious to say the least in Chile, I think this is slightly over the TOO in the US, enough for it to be deleted IMO. Bedivere (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin: I replied to the above, but my reply was hidden. Therefore I will not contribute more to this destruction, sorry discussion. Regards. 186.173.50.12001:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand COM:TOO Chile, but if the standard is "to carry out an originality test to define whether the creation is indeed a particular manifestation of human ingenuity that can be classified as original compared to other equivalent creations, analyzed from a subjective perspective, that is, that the imprint or trace of the author can be perceived, that allows it to stand out from others," I suppose this logo has the "trace of the author." I disagree that this is over COM:TOO US, but that's not relevant if it's over COM:TOO Chile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio - unclear its even PD in NZ, definitely not PD in US because of URAA issues, license its otherwise released under is non commercial according to source. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which section of the Hirtle chart (which is just a general guide and nothing official or definitive) are you claiming this falls under? Kiwichris (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works Published Abroad Before 1978 -> and then either "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date" or "Published in compliance with all US formalities (notice, and renewal for pre-1964 works)" -> both of which are 95 years. Seems unlikely the Bay of Plenty Times published according to US formalities but it doesnt matter in this case, I also doubt they published in the US at all so can't go by that section in the Hirtle chart. Obviously this chart isnt some legal ruling or law but it exists to help with determining stuff like this on WMC. What justification is there for this to be PD in US otherwise against what the chart says? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Your copyright interpretation is simply based on what you think is unlikely. Your assumption laden opinion is duly noted. Kiwichris (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio - unclear its even PD in NZ, definitely not PD in US because of URAA issues, license its otherwise released under is non commercial according to source. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted Mrfoogles (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is marked as a public domain government work but is in fact a work of a US government contractor, namely the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It is from an old version of the website; the new version includes a CC-BY-NC-SA license, but that is not eligible for Wikipedia, and I have no evidence of a prior less restrictive license, or any at all. Given LLNL goes to the trouble of providing a license, I don't believe its works are public domain under any legal loopholes: therefore, this has to be deleted Mrfoogles (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with flag copyright guidelines but afaik, there is a copyright exception if the file in is small dimension, logo format, which is the case here. Ecrusized (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the size of a work does not except it from copyright. You may be thinking of Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria, which does not apply here. Wikimedia Commons only accepts works that are in the public domain or have a compatible license. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious licensing. professional photographs claimed to be posted Accord du photographem, one has Copyright holder
Watson_L_RAJOELITSIORY/2REI/Défense in exif. All need VRT
the person depicted has objected to the publication on Wikipedia(Wikimedia Commons). Amrei-Marie (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This person is a barely known author - what applies to famous public figures cannot yet apply to her.[reply]
Comment The file is COM:INUSE, though. If we delete the file, there will be red-linked photos on 2 Wikipedia pages. So unless there's some legal requirement to delete it, it should be speedily kept unless all information about the author is removed from those two pages. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The depicted person is Igor Barygin. The uploader's user name is IbaryginBIN, for which one could guess: I[gor] Barygin BIN. So, the uploader and the depicted person might be one and the same. Nakonana (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source has been provided for this file. I tagged it {{Nsd}} but User:Pierre cbreverted it with the comment "This is from a NWS webpage in 2005 copyright free which is difficult to find in 2024".
COM:LI states "the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not... The Source of the material."
Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
Keep As stated, a source page of 2005 is impossible to find. This is however obviously a webpage capture from an NWS WFO at that time. Pierre cb (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever its source, it's probably been compressed for digital transmission (although not out of the question that it's been cropped from a larger image...); but that doesn't mean or even imply "webpage", let alone which webpage.
And, more to the point, if it is a webpage capture, we can't verify which webpage, and even if it's from weather.gov, they publish very many third-party images under a wide range of licenses, so without the original source and context we can't verify that this is a free image.
Therefore significant doubt exists that this image exists in the Public Domain or is available under a free license and COM:PRP says we should delete it.
I don't disagree with you on there being no proof of which webpage it was downloaded from. I wouldn't presume it's somehow public domain or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I probably didn't quote enough in my earlier reply. Should have been "How is it "obviously" a webpage capture from an NWS WFO at that time"?
The camera geolocation is for the Old Courthouse Museum in Vicksburg, which would make sense as the location of a picture of a young Jefferson Davis. (Confirmed.) I'm not finding online any list of portraits on display there or otherwise held by the museum. —Tcr25 (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a number of photos on the Old Courthouse Musuem's Facebook pages that show the picture in the background, but no closeups of the label. I've reached out to the museum for more info. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Via Facebook, the museum stated: "It is a portrait of Jefferson Davis. We believe the artist to be Nicola Marschall but there isn't a visible signature on the painting. It is thought to be painted in the 1870s while he was living in Memphis." The plaque below the portrait (https://ibb.co/4NbPLRz) does not include that information, however. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how the author is defined for copyright purposes; the original author (painter) is required. Yet, if its painted in the 1870s it ought to be in the public domain. But then the above mentioned information should be included on the page. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this in the linked source nor do I think this would have had an applicable license. Invalid license is what I'd go with here. SDudley (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video and the channel are down. There is an archived version that shows the video has a CC-BY-SA, but it is not possible to evaluate the trustworthiness of the channel. Günther Frager (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of initial publication date that would support the claim for public domain in India. The public domain in the US claim is also invalid as this insignia is not an "edict of a government". Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bairagi Ram An image is not an "edict". In the US, edicts are "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials". Under Indian law, it would be "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports". Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the edict would be in the public domain. Copyrighted logos don't become public domain just because they are on the letterhead that a public domain edict was published on (and Indian law specified that only the text is public domain). Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kel died in 1940 and the other version would also be PD by age with unknown photographer. I suggest to fix the license and keep the image – despite the watermark. Albinfo (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see an issue with the image, but with the information given. PrekCali is not the original author of the image, and the licence tag is also incorrect. If the information is corrected, I have no problem with it remaining on Commons. Cheers, Andel (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statue of Nestor Kirchner was made by Miguel Gerónimo Villalba (still alive) in 2014. It will be at least a century for it to be in the public domain Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not a document. A logo or image file, or even a symbol, yes. Not sure, though if that's what is meant through the choice of words of the law in question. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Tm as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Per exif and description on source, this photo is not "Pool Moncloa" but EFE/EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS. Tm (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC); put before the community — billinghurstsDrewth21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst As the uploader and the speedy deletion requester. What is the doubt of this photo not being taken by one of the official photographers of the Palace of Moncloa, as the exif clearly says EFE/EPA/MICHAEL REYNOLDS, as in EFE=Agencia EFE, S.A. and EPA=European Pressphoto Agency, not "Pool Moncloa/Name of the Photographer" as appears in the photos from the Palace of Moncloa, i.e. "the official residence and workplace of the President of the Government" who is the depicted Pedro Sánchez, i.e. that this image is not under a free license? Tm (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy Google Images comes blank because its original, and you can confirm authentication by checking the deity image on top of entrance, it is available on internet. Please pardon me for size and border ambiguities , I didn't know they mattered. Will take care onwards. Check: [30][31]. Thanks! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you on the other 2 deletion requests above, but this is not as complex as the example you link. If that's the minimum standard for TOO in Slovenia, this one is under it. However, I don't know whether that's the minimum standard. I hope the closing admin does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's not 'own work' by the user, as stated now. The description says "Licensed under the CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0. Please credit ESA / NASA / Paris Observatory / VR2Planets", but I was unable to find the source. ESA images that can be used here are usually CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO , NASA is PD, and it's unusual to see CC-BY-SA-4.0. The image is used here with no license stated, and here, also without the license. Artem.G (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Same for these three:[reply]
Marked as a copyright violation, but I don't think it is as per my comments in the discussion.
Original comment by User:Reppop:
Not an official Parliament photograph, so I don't think it would be under the same licenses as them (also currently doesn't have the license on the website for her page)Mjb1981 (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Object
My logic for this being used correctly is as follows:
@Mjb1981 I don't have that much knowledge on how the website is licensed, but I wouldn't think that a placeholder image would be under the same license as they could likely be under the copyright of the person who took the photo. I'm basing my logic on US and California websites, where photos not taken by the government are copyrighted, and not just released of it because its included on the website.
As for the "Other parliamentary portraits on Wikimedia Commons are licensed in the same way" claim, File:Official portrait of Sir Graham Brady MP.jpg is under the "Official portrait" section, which has a Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. She currently does not have an official portrait, and neither does many new MPs (who do not have images currently uploaded to Commons).
Actually, concerning the last point, I'm not sure if "parliamentary photographic images" extends to official portraits, but I do see that portraits are not generally under {{OPL}} and are under the Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. It does say on here that it doesn't cover "third party rights the Licensor is not authorised to license", which is what I'm arguing that the image is, but OPL seems to me to be more this and less like these. reppoptalk20:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is a good point. i can see the page will instruct that the image is release under cc 3.0
Update: The image for Jack Abbott has been uploaded on the Parliament website, and it has the CC BY-3.0 license. This shows that the photos like his and like this image are placeholders and are not under CC BY 3.0. reppoptalk06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. The fact that these images are published by the parliamentary website without any reference to other copyright that I can see, implies to me that it is published under their usual copyright. However, I also see that the other photos you mention are published elsewhere as well. Are you sure that these other places didn't get the photo from Parliament? I guess you have checked that.
It seems that my logic might be flawed, but I have contacted the House of Commons to confirm copyright status of this image, and the others that you mentioned here.
The "usual copyright" doesn't seem to apply per Cakelot1's arguments, as it says that it doesn't cover "parliamentary photographic images". As for the question Are you sure that these other places didn't get the photo from Parliament?, one of them is literally from the Labour Party 7 months prior to the opening of parliament and the other is from the candidate's own website 5 months prior. reppoptalk21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Image has been removed from the website, alongside other MPs who had placeholder images. They have been replaced with blank placeholders. reppoptalk02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above concerns, it's important to note that even if this was a parliamentary owned photograph the page on Parliamentary Copyright specifically says The Open Parliament Licence does not cover [...] parliamentary photographic images. So either it's a third party copyright in which case it can't be released under OPL, or it's a parliamentary photograph in which case it won't be released under OPL. Either way it's not going to be under a free licence. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk06:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No source for this file. It is unused, the filename suggests that this was not self made. It was uploaded while creating "Гайнуллин Наиль Ильнурович" on ru wikipedia apparently, but that article doesn't seem to exist. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Noted, she is my wife and gave me permission to upload it. How could I make sure she gives permission in a safe way? Thanks. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wife creates own account on Commons, you let me know, I delete the file temporary, your wife uploads it again as own work under her account name. --A.Savin08:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A scan per the exif. I cant find Jim47658 on WP. Low quality, I think we need VRT to keep. This user has uploaded other works marked courtesy of or with author info in exif but claimed as own work before Gbawden (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was almost certainly created by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, because it was taken there of their employees and is on their website,and is not a US government work, despite what the DOE Flickr account says. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely created by an LLNL employee and uploaded erroneously: also uploaded to the LLNL flickr account as "All Rights Reserved" Mrfoogles (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely created by an LLNL employee and uploaded erroneously: an very similar image was uploaded to the LLNL flickr account as "All Rights Reserved" Mrfoogles (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted on the gov.uk website, which states that everything is by default available under a free license, but authorship is unclear and cannot be established. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1948 bank note, looks like it could be PD in Germany, but unless the design is from before 1929, we might have to wait until 2044. Abzeronow (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an East German 1948 first series banknote, produced in the USSR I think. There's lots of ornaments, but not much creativity. Basically I could see this being {{PD-ineligible}} in Germany. --Rosenzweigτ09:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete File:Verify.jpg, but I'd Keep the rest, as they, or at least most of them, seem plausibly usable, even if they haven't been used for a long time (which is not a deletion reason). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here I mostly considered something akin to whether the images added something "educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" (COM:SPAM), but my approach was too narrow and (in this case) incorrect. I also don't know how to categorize this image, so I asked its creator for a file page description. However:
DeleteFile:Verify.jpg, I agree. That seems to be the reasonable conclusion for this DR.
Delete, Could not find an exact source, however, user has uploaded three other images confirmed to be Humberto. Even if this is correctly attributed, once again, I cannot find a source, degrading its value. ✶Quxyz✶02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's just a view of a part of the city. The graphic work is just there, together with other elements. The image does not show the graphic work specifically for the sake of it. There are many other images of the city on Wikimedia where some graphic works are a part of (for example, ads), and yet they are not nominated for deletion. Maksim Sokolov (talk). 20:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The URAA is not really a problem here. COM:GVT New Zealand says Crown Copyright lasts for 100 years, meaning it's still in copyright in New Zealand (and will leave copyright in the US first.) It does say that "Some government publications are not subject to copyright, including bills, acts, regulations, court judgments, royal commission and select committee reports, etc.", in which case it would be fine for the US, since it was in the public domain in New Zealand on the URAA date. Arguably this is a legal act that wouldn't be in copyright in the US in the first place. I don't know about New Zealand law, but if there's a problem, it lies there, not the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable PD status, date of first publication missing to meet requirements of COM:Russia. As per description, taken from a family archive, so probably first published on Commons. Quick1984 (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This collection was compiled by Krista Tõldmaker, a member of the FS Kiitsharakad board, and Kaja Vallimaa, a member of the society. The society was also responsible for collecting materials for the book and compiling it. Therefore, the image of this work as FS Kiitsharakad information is important, because it contains local folklore that the society is dedicated to researching, preserving, and promoting. Kiitsakas (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Koavf as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author Converted to regular DR as file does not qualify for G7-speedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Koavf as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author Converted to regular DR as file does not qualify for G7-speedy. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable PD status. Unknown author couldn't have been died 70 or more years ago. As per description, first published in 1987, so not public domain according to COM:Russia. Quick1984 (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risaks: A "permission to use this photo on our Wikipedia page" is not enough. Per Commons:Licensing, media files here must be usable for anyone, anytime, for any purpose. We'd need a documented permission by the photographer/ rights holder for that. See COM:VRT for the details. --Rosenzweigτ09:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo a a photograph. It is not clear if the uploader is actually the one that took the original photo. The original is from the 1970s so still copyrighted in France its country of origin. We need a VRT ticket to keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, als Urheber wird Gemeinde Ritterhude angegeben werden - Urheber kann aber nur eine natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monument installed in Angoulême, France in 2017. There is no freedom of panorama in France. Notice that I didn't include the images where the monument is covered or covered by de minimis.
I've uploaded new crops for File:FIBD2017Goscinny4.jpg & File:FIBD2017Goscinny5.jpg, where the monument is just a very small part of the background, there is no need to delete these two pics. Selbymay (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unused and/or uncategorized stock-photo style Unsplash images that are either shapshot-like or arranged compositions that seem to be of little use and thus out of scope. Certain details may be within scope, while the photo as a whole isn't a meaningful contribution. For example: Yes, white flags are well within scope, but a happy beachgoer waving one isn't a meaningful addition to the topic and probably won't be used. And yes, photos of computers and other objects are fine, but maybe not when they're partly out of frame and/or out of focus, sometimes in an already hazy photo.
Keep This takes far too narrow a view of COM:PS, particularly "realistically useful for an educational purpose", which we interpret broadly. Commons is hosting for the whole world, not just for Wikimedia, and it's very easy to conceive of suitable non-Wikimedia uses for these. To be specific, not one of these arguments takes an image out of scope: "of little use", "long-term unused [on Wikimedia]", "uncategorized", "stock-photo style", "not a meaningful contribution", "details are in scope but not the whole image" (can be cropped), "image probably won't be used", "partly out of frame and/or out of focus" (for these images, that's mostly an artistic choice). MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs: I emphatically agree with what you're saying.
The reason I created this request is that I have seen many requests, deletions, and rationales more or less like this one, and so I have tried to adjust my views accordingly. I've also previously spent some time categorizing perfectly usable files (regardless of whether they were at all likely to ever be used on Wikimedia projects), only for them to be considered out of scope and deleted almost as soon as my categorizing them brought them so someone else's attention.
I should have made a note of all of those cases, because now I struggle to find other examples. You could compare what I've described to the sentiment expressed in this request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Destination (Unsplash).jpg. As I hope you can tell, I half-jokingly suggested a reason to keep that image, but ultimately voted according to what I believed to be consensus. (Please note that I do not intend do single out, nor do I believe that the opinion expressed is limited to, any individual user. That DR is just one example of the recurring type of opinion that I'm referring to here.)
It could be the case that I simply haven't been on Commons long enough to know what's generally agreed upon, and that what I've thought of as a general tendency is just the sum of relatively few outliers. But I have to say, I'm not yet entirely convinced that that really is the case, even if I can now safely assume that it is just one tendency.
Also: bearing in mind that I do agree with you, please understand that it is by no means evident, at least not to me as a relatively new user, that this deletion request represents a particularly narrow view of COM:PS. For example, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this image and this one e.g. "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" and should be deleted.
I appreciate your feedback, which I fully intend to take to heart. All of the above is just to show how the situation is (was) a bit more complicated on my end than it may have seemed at first. I hope we can somehow work towards preventing any future misunderstanding and unintentional deletionism. Sinigh (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, these two images in particular are obviously meaningful contributions to their topic and, regardless of how one happens to interpret COM:PS etc., it made no sense that I included them in the DR:
Keep I don't have the time or energy to look at all of these right now, but after looking at several, I think enough of them are plausibly usable to justify considering each deletion request individually, not in this group. I'd suggest for you to nominate each one separately, carefully considering whether any of them really do tell a story or give an example that is plausible documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's embrace plausible usefulness and focus on categorizing images properly. I disagree with my original rationale, and since this deletion request has been up for seven weeks and only has keep votes, I assume it's safe to close it. Sinigh (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both on the photographer's website (where the photo can be found) and in the metadata it's written "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". This leads me to believe that the Flickr uploader don't have the right to upload the photo. I also contacted the photographer via Instagram, though with no success. The extracted file should also be deleted. // Kakan spelar (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source is the official account of the government of Sao Pablo, so I don't think this is COM:Flickrwashing or they grabbing photos from Instagram. Also they acknowledge it is from Beto Issa, a well-known photographer of car races. On his website he states he works as a freelance photographer one of the mentioned clients is Agência Estado (State Agency). To me it looks like works for hire, but I'm fine an explicit proof is required. Günther Frager (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:Reichelt die Einrichter Historie 1925.jpg and File:Reichelt die Einrichter Historie 1903.jpg and File:Reichelt die Einrichter Historie 1869.jpg, dated historical photos are always welcome, they show fashion from a specific time period. --RAN (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estopedist1 my rationale was more like: "It's an own work presumably, but it is not personal 'art', because it serves an educational purpose, and as such it would be in project scope." Don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting the deletion, at least not per se, it's just that I consider it to not just be (personal) "art". If it was a mere painting of a cat by a non-notable artist, then yes, that would be a clear case of personal art out of project scope. But in this case, the art part is merely a medium to convey an educational message. It's more like an "info graphic" than "personal art", I'd say. It could be used to educate small children (who can't yet read) about the body language of cats. It could be used on a project like the Simple English Wikipedia, where a verbose description of what body language of cats looks like might be hard to handle for the reader, while an illustration with very short text might be easy to digest and would convey all the necessary information. Wikipedians regularly create info graphics to illustrate concepts, and it's not considered "personal art". The given info graphic just happens to be a bit more "artistic" than the usual line graph, but I think it's still an info graphic and not "just" art. So, that's the point I was trying to make. The files serve an educational purpose. I don't know whether we really need three of them — they all seem very similar except for some differences in color? But who knows, maybe the different colors serve a purpose, too? For example, they might be trying to accommodate different vision / color perception disorders, making those graphics more accessible. But that's just speculation on my end. Nakonana (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the files again (it's hard to compare files on mobile), but it looks like they all have the same colors after all, so my speculation was wrong. The first one that is listed (File:Kačių elgesys.jpg) has a white border on the right edge. The other two files don't have that. I can't tell the (visual) difference between #2 and #3, but #2 is a tiny bit smaller in file size. So, I'd agree that at least two of these can be deleted without any loss to the project. Among the deleted ones, should be #1 due to its border, but not sure whether #2 or #3 should be the second one to go. Nakonana (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: thanks for explanation. Result: possibly has education value and hence: in scope of Commons. Let's keep
some images are credited to J. Lietzén. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. I suspect that we have problems with other his uploadings as well. Deletion per COM:PCP
The image is taken from https://www.parlement.com/id/vg09ll33l2xt/a_baron_mackay. The source does not state an author or year. The photo has to be taken before 1910, but this means it can't be ruled out that there is still copyright on the image. As far as I can see, the uploader has taken no effort to look up the author, so it also can't be seen as author unknown. Dajasj (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in a Panini album in 1979 (the photo apparently was taken in 1978). It is currently in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in a Panini album in 1980 (the photo apparently was taken in 1978). It is currently in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in a Panini album in 1979 (the photo apparently was taken in 1978). It is currently in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in a Panini album in 1979 (the photo apparently was taken in 1978). It is currently in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in Italy in 1978. It is currently in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a manuscript of the short story La biblioteca de Babel by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986). The tag {{PD-AR-Photo}} might apply to the photo, but it doesn't cover the text. The copyright protection of literary works in Argentina is 70 years pma. We can undetete it 2057. Günther Frager (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep normal blocky architecture, unknow architect, building not existent anymore and hardly published at all anywhere: I think that all of that says that we are under the high italian ToO, and I agree with Pmk58 when he argued that the image has an historic interest since the building has been demolished.--Friniate (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All these photos are derivative works of artworks in the museum that are not labeled with authors or creation/publication dates. Without that, we have to assume they're still under copyright.
Without knowing the name of authors or publication dates, It will assumed Delete. However, their file names written in Portuguese, possibly freedom of panorama exist there (except COM:FOP Mozambique). which unlikely to been Keep. TentingZones1 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RodRabelo7 From that page and a couple other things, it seems quite complex. Except for File:Formação catálogo cmafricana museu da abolição equipe formativa.jpg, none of the photos include the context except in a de minimis way. They also don't include author's name: [33] (linked from that page) makes it clear that author attribution is critical even for FoP works. (I used Google Translate, and the page doesn't like cut-and-paste.)
Comment: "as long as the artist's work is properly attributed and the representation does not consist of a reproduction"... I fail to see how a photograph could reproduce a 3D artwork. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From COM:FOP Brazil "Commercial use of the representation was considered by the court to be covered by freedom of panorama as it was not detached from its landscape.[15] This differs from Sival Floriano Veloso (sculptor) vs. Telemar Norte Leste SA, where a statue was detached from its surroundings on commercialized phone cards." That's 3D artwork. And again, there are no attributions on any of this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fixed the license and added more images from the yearbooks. Classmates and Ancestry both scan yearbooks, but the annual fee is expensive and going up every year. Whenever I found a yearbook at garage sale, I would buy and send to Ancestry. But I learned that they guillotine them and then discard the originals. Now I send to Familysearch Library where they preserves them, but do not scan them. The best practice would be to have Ancestry scan them, then send the originals to Familysearch under the condition that FS not scan them. Familysearch is always free. --RAN (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in France. No sufficient information is available online on who was the artist of the depicted mural, but it is unlikely that the artist died more than 70 years ago for this painting to be in public domain; if this was made before 1978, the situation is worse as it has an active U.S. copyright courtesy of Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The original is included as it is not de minimis; everything else is made up of nondescript walls and unremarkable fixture at the top and random number at the bottom (the artwork only makes these elements unique, so fails de minimis).
@D. Benjamin Miller post-1978 may be of little difference if we know the name or identity of the artist (both U.S. and France are 70 years p.m.a.). If anonymous, however, things are different: French law is 70 years after publication/making, but in U.S. 95 years after publication or 120 years after making, whichever is shorter. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t think a realistic 3D model of a human penis is sufficiently original to pass TOO standards, which I believe are fairly high in Japan Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scan/image of this letter could hypothetically be CC BY, it is a derivative of the original letter, which was created by Freidrich Liebacher (d. 2001) so this will be PD in 2072. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a note: where is this from??? I don't know how this image even could be CC BY because you'd have to be part of the police investigation or something to get it. Reverse image search returns 0 results. ??? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is really a leaflet as the description says, then you wouldn't need to be part of the police investigation to get one, as leaflets are just distributed to passerbys or laid out somewhere for anyone to grab one. Nakonana (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio; this artwork was independently made by Ron Miller, who does not give an explicit free license. Even though his artwork has been posted in NASA's website, it does not necessarily mean it is released into the public domain because there is no clear license to indicate that. This is stated in NASA's media copyright page:"NASA occasionally uses copyright-protected material of third parties with permission on its website. Those images will be marked identified as copyright protected with the name of the copyright holder. NASA’s use does not convey any rights to others to use the same material. Those wishing to use copyright protected material of third parties must contact the copyright holder directly." Nrco0e (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I was going to nominate these individually for speedy deletion as copyright violations. The uploader has been very honest in naming in each case the site the image was copied from. Also:
Not educationally useful: Serves no purpose other than just a bunch of books, and Possible copyright violation because effectively the book cover is the main content in image Aspere (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely own work; 60 years old at time of upload and in very low resolution. Opening a deletion request since I can't find any reverse image search hits online. If published in Germany in 1950, it will be protected in the US until 2046. Felix QW (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I'm sorry, but here the file being in use means nothing or almost nothing really. 😕🤷♂️ Here, I'm challenging the veracity of the here presented as official flag. On which sources is it based? Is it widely accepted? Or even approved as such? It's no wonder, really, that this specific flag can only be found on Wikipedia or some of its mirror sites (wikiwand). Nowhere else... 🤔 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ09:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file being in use means that we shouldn't be able to argue about it here. Of course, some admin might decide to violate Commons policy. They've done it before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this file does not belong to "Mehr News Agency" and this news agency has used the copyrighted image available in cyberspace. One of the documents that must prove that this image belongs to Mehr News Agency is to have the trademark of the news agency, and it must be accessible in the gallery section of Mehr News Agency's website. which this image lacks. CaesarIran (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reason to believe that the "1913" date is a typo, since William L. Grossman (1906-1980) only published his translation of Epitaph of a Small Winner in 1952. So, it would be PD in London in Jan 2051, while it would be Jan 2048 for the US. Source: 1 and 2 (this article states that the 1952 translation was the first time this specific work was released in English). To play it safe, I will add this page to Category:Undelete in 2051. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was published in 1913, but since that would make the translator 7 years at the time, it must be typo indeed. I supposed there is no other choice but to delete. HendrikWBK (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very silly debate admittedly, but I don’t think a realistic 3D model of a human penis is sufficiently original to pass TOO standards, which I believe are fairly high in Japan Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t think a realistic 3D model of a human penis is sufficiently original to pass TOO standards, which I believe are fairly high in Japan Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this image is Air Force Magazine, which is a publication of the Air & Space Forces Association, not the US Armed Forces. The photo is tagged as "Photo via Stan Piet", who could have been a jouranlist or other civilian. We really don't know. So we have no way of knowing if the copyright tag is correct.
Keep Caption on the 2015 magazine PDF linked above states "National Archives and Records Administration photo via Stan Piet". Stan Piet [35] is "an aviation photographer and historian" not quite old enough to have taken the original photo; apparently he got the photography from the US National Archives (en:w:National Archives and Records Administration) for use in the magazine. Göring was prisoner of the US military at the time of the photo. That it is a USGov work seems correct, and the mention of Stan Piet in the magazine is not an argument against that. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alamy, rather notorious for copyfraud when they can get away with it, states it is PD on their copy [36] "This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy of the image." -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:03, 20 July 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.
@(Oinkers42): I agree with the 2D works but the costumes surely fall under Template:Costume:
This file depicts a work of costuming/cosplay of a copyrighted fictional character or real-life individual. While this file is under a free license, re-use of this file may be subject to legal constraints, depending on jurisdiction and independent from its copyright status.
Before using this content, please ensure that you have the freedom to do so under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's legal rights. See our general disclaimer.
Leaning towards Delete for the costumes. Most, if not all, of the characters in these photos are wearing full-body costumes which are more akin to wearable sculptures than articles of clothing. I don't see any compelling reason why these costumes wouldn't be copyrightable - they're certainly not utilitarian works, which is the usual argument put forth for why a costume is ineligible for copyright. Omphalographer (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aucune certitude qu'il s'agisse de la tombe de la personne indiquée, pas de traçabilitté. Par ailleurs, intérêt encyclopédique pas avéré. Pierrette13 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader added the following comment on their talk page and on the talk page of the deletion request. I'm copying it here for clarity:
Dear Wikimedia administrator Greetings,
My name is [sickahick], and I am requesting that the image in the article "Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics" on Wikipedia be retained. This image does not contain copyrighted content and includes the Wikipedia watermark. It has been published in compliance with all relevant copyright laws and regulations.
This article and its accompanying image provide highly valuable information for atomic resources and other related fields. It effectively explains and illustrates the theories and philosophical concepts of quantum mechanics. The included image significantly enhances the article's appeal and aids in better comprehension.
As this image adheres to all Wikipedia copyright policies and has been appropriately sourced, I kindly request that it not be removed.
The issue at hand here is not whether these images comply with Commons copyright policy; it is that the images are meaningless. The backgrounds of both images are a jumble of mixed-up words and formulas like "Smany-roingers", "wave-particle intuality", and "Wave-Worldes inteprestion". These images do not convey any meaningful information about quantum mechanics or philosophy. Omphalographer (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image holds significant meaning and should not be deleted. The cat depicted in the image represents Schrödinger's cat, a famous thought experiment in quantum mechanics that illustrates the concept of superposition and quantum indeterminacy. This philosophical idea is central to understanding quantum theory and has profound implications for how we perceive reality.
The presence of scientific equations and the Wikipedia logo further emphasize the connection between advanced scientific concepts and the dissemination of knowledge to the general public. By merging these elements, the image underscores the importance of making complex scientific ideas accessible and understandable. Deleting this image would mean losing a valuable representation of the intersection between quantum philosophy and public education.
Have you looked at these images, or are you just repeating the prompts you gave to the AI? A picture of a cat sitting on top of a swirly blue box with the word "Wikipedia" on it does not even remotely invoke the concept of Schrödinger's cat (or Smany-roinger's cat, if we go by the text in the image), nor do the gibberish words and equations in the background make anything "accessible and understandable" - if anything, they do the opposite.
Creating good illustrations, especially of complex and/or abstract topics like these, requires thought and effort. In my experience, currently available AI image generators are not capable of doing this reliably. Omphalographer (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This man is born in 1941, photo migh be dated 1940-1960. can not be own work of 2024. Original date? Author? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely copyright violation. The photo is almost certainly a media photo and it is found in a lot of external websites. The copyright tag that states that it is a picture published befor 1929 it clearly wrong. Earthshaker13 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:44, 14 July 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.
Someone made a page about my drag persona and I added these two pictures, as I am in them, I own them and have the rights to upload them. And being a visual artist, whose appearance is integral to the artform, I believe that having pictures like these is relevant to the article.
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source does not tell us the source of the base map. It does not look like Google Maps or Open Street Map. My best guess is that it is a tracing from Google Satellite. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it NC licensed or not? Hard to tell. The indicated source is not the original source of the image, but a personal image cloud. Deeply questionable origin. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map Management Regulations (s:zh:地图管理条例): Article 50 Where a map that is not required to be submitted for review does not comply with the relevant national standards and regulations, and thus violates the provisions of this Regulations, corrections shall be ordered, warnings shall be given, illegal maps or products with map graphics attached shall be confiscated, and a fine of up to 100,000 CNY (note: ~14,100 USD) may be imposed; where there are unlawful gains, the unlawful gains shall be confiscated; where the circumstances are serious, the case may be notified to the public; where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibilities shall be pursued in accordance with law.
Note: Maps in published material should be submitted for review according to the Regulations. Despite this article, if you post "bad" maps on the Chinese net, normally you would face a deletion of your post instead of a fine, if anyone actually noticed. -- 魔琴 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the files listed bellow, uploaded by User:Tobby72 from the Kremlin's website, have been taken by photographers from RIA Novosti or TASS agency.
As stated in the "Using Website Content" of the Kremlin's website, contrary to other files, those aren't free: "The present rules for using materials from this website do not apply to RIA Novosti photographs that MIA Russia Today is the copyright holder of, or to photographs the TASS News Agency is the copyright holder of, when such photographs are posted on the www.kremlin.ru website with an indication of the agency and author." --Titlutin (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel files' resolution differs 10x times, it's not enough? Why we have many copies of files with 10x times worse resolution? MBH08:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So by "bad" you mean "low-res". Thank you for answering my question. This should be overwritten with a higher-res version, but not deleted. - Jmabel ! talk18:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why it's needed if we can use TIFF file for any purposes? Why we need to have 2 copies of exactly the same image? MBH12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because for most purposes it is much more efficient to use a JPEG, but if someone wants to do derivative works it is best to start with the TIFF. We have at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of cases of this. If you object to this de facto policy, I suggest bringing it either to COM:Village pump or COM:Village pump/Proposals where it can be discussed in general. It is very unlikely that even most people with a strong opinion on this will see one particular DR. - Jmabel ! talk16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that this file will not be deleted, you can close this nomination. But I still don't understand: "it is much more efficient to use a JPEG" - why? If I use a file in 300px thumbnail in Wikipedia article, there will be a little preview image in article and it isn't needed to download full scale TIFF, so why not to use TIFF? MBH21:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has something to do with how the mediawiki software processes these in terms of downsampling and sharpening, but I can't say I'm sure. Most of this was discussed 15+ years ago, and I don't remember the details, just the upshot. Someone else may be able to fill in more. - Jmabel ! talk01:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works by Spanish sculptor Antonio Cruz Collad (1905-1962). His works are still copyrighted in its country of origin. Notice that I didn't included sculptures that were taken in public domain as FoP probably applies. His works would enter in the Spanish public domain in 2043 (notice that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain says protection until 1987 was 80 years pma). The US copyright is more complex as it depends on the publication date, and many of these files doesn't give this information.
News article published in Spain in 1955. Still copyrighted in Spain (at least 70 pma). We can undelete it in 2051 when it enters in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; this is a correctable fault, so changing to DR to allow for fix and conversation rather than speedydelete — billinghurstsDrewth05:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; convert to DR to allow for a fix prior to deletion rather than speedy — billinghurstsDrewth05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; allow for correction of source, rather than manage through speedy — billinghurstsDrewth05:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; allow for correction of source rather than manage through speedy — billinghurstsDrewth05:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diddykong1130, where on the YouTube video's page is there any notice that there's a Creative Commons license? I don't understand why screen caps from this interview shouldn't be speedily deleted as obvious copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The owner of the YT video must have removed the license. Originally I recommended the deletion because the URL provided by the uploader wasn't to the video itself - it was to YT uploader's page. When the URL got uploaded I thought I saw a CC license back then when I recanted. I withdraw my "Keep" vote. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The thing is, if it had a good license when you uploaded it, it would be fine to host it here. All you have to do is show that it did have the right license when you uploaded it, but I'm not sure how you'd do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no source, nor date when it was taken. Apparently it was published in some Italian newspaper after her assassination in 1992. Morvillo Francesca was at that time 46 (she was born in 1945) and this photo to be in the US public domain needs to be taken before 1976, i.e. on her late twenties. As she was a public figure, it is likely that the photo was taken when she was a judge. If it was taken after 1989, it is definitively copyrighted due to Berne Convention and if it was taken during 1980s, it has its US copyright restored by URAA. Günther Frager (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: Either private family photo or some strange kind of professional promo photo. In either case photographer /copyright holder not credited and no permission. 87.150.15.909:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for deletion. Peter Luckner, the gentleman on the left, has been working on "multisensory design". The sensual experience of the potato crisps could be related to this - especially as it doesn't look like a pub scene. Ganescha (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio certainly is a reason for deletion. As long as we don't have the photographer's permission (so far, we don't even have a clue as to who the photographer is), this is a clear copyvio.
For the German WP, we also have a personality rights issue (Recht am eigenen Bild), especially as far as the young woman is concerned. --87.150.15.914:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any copyright violation. The user Oea Burg uploaded the image and named himself as the creator. I did nothing else when I uploaded images. The rights of the young woman in the picture, on the other hand, are indeed an issue. Whether that is a reason for deletion remains to be seen. However, I have pointed this out to the user on his discussion page in the German Wikipedia. --Ganescha (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a signature on the poster, Haywood Norfolk, but I'm not finding in searches anything indicating if this was a person or the printer. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia page in question should be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons. Firstly, the information on the page is significantly outdated, presenting details that no longer accurately represent the individual. For instance, key aspects such as career achievements, personal milestones, and other notable activities have not been updated for several years. This not only misleads readers but also undermines the credibility of Wikimedia as a source of current and reliable information. In an era where information is constantly evolving, it is crucial that public platforms maintain up-to-date content to ensure accuracy and relevance. Jamie Diamon (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the photograph isn't even in use. So the criticism above (whether it applies or not) is completely missplaced and should instead be made on the talk page of the relevant wikipedia article. PaterMcFly (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the file description can be updated. No deletion reason has been given, so unless there are copyright issues, it should be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 30 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.
Keep We don't care about trademarks and the Swatch logo is obviously below TOO. Any other logos are so small that they're de minimis. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This picture shows young men wearing blue clothes in the temple and using his smartphone. I guess you mean that man photographed by you and he requested you to delete this picture? If yes, please read COM:PEOPLE. Additionally, the picture was taken in Taiwan, but we don't seem to have information about personality rights in Taiwan. It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide some some legal references. I believe this will help us understand local laws and can speed up processing significantly for deletion requests.--125.230.85.14105:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a postcard in my collection and neither on the backside nor the frontside is there any information about the publisher or the photographer. There is a poststamp on the backside, so we know for the image must have taken at 1931 or earlier. It is to me unclear what the US rules are about unknown (orphan) works or pictures where the rigths have been bough by the postcard publisher. (The same principle as pictures without author names in newspapers)(in Europe it is mostly 70 years) In Europe many photografic archives/records where destroyed during the war years (or clearing up the old junk)
Ps: I Will Come back on the uraa and precautionary principle about old European postcards, later. (There are quite a lot of them) I need time to develop good arguments. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This other copy was posted in 1929. Getting closer to U.S. public domain. The postcard might well have been published before 1929. At worst, if deleted, it would be undeleted in five months when the U.S. public domain gets upgraded to published before 1930. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see exactly what the desc says. I see no involvement of blocked editors. I see a file that should be renamed per Criterion #2. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sense of humor at all? I was refering to what you see exactly, but we others can not. By the way did you come to this discussion after me? Do you have an issue with me? 200.39.139.416:27, 19 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 photo shows the sculpture of Modu Chanyu in Ulaanbaatar. The map bears the inscription "Xiongnu Empire" ("Хүннүгийн эзэнт улс" in mongolian), not Mongol Empire. KoizumiBS (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not a deletion reason, anyway. Why would anyone want to delete an image, just because they think the description - which they can edit - is wrong? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these logos is at the borderline of the simple logos we allow versus the complex ones that we do not. Wiser eyes than mine are needed here. I have thus created a full discussion rather than opting for speedy deletion.
Comment These files are now unused. The corresponding enwiki articles have been deleted. There is no Fair Use on Commons. Fair use on enwiki depends upon the image being used. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Arroser as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: il est indiqué "tous droits réservés" dans l'EXIF....Yann (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source can be viewed at archive.org, but it does not tell much. The gallery itself that held the exhibition has this webpage, which says that the exhibition was a collaboration with Getty and cautiously states that "This exhibition will include very rarely seen, possibly never before printed or exhibited images". So, some images might have been unpublished. That doesn't help much either. Commons does not have other photos by Ed Feingersh. That may be an indication that his photos were either published and copyrighted or unpublished. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the National Portrait Gallery does not claim the copyright of the photograph but rather the copyright of the digitization, which is irrelevant for Commons as we don't follow that logic. Seems to meet {{PD-UK-unknown}} in addition to the American license. Curbon7 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of permission is needed if deemed above COM:TOO Iceland which does not exist. This logo might hence be above it unless evidence of the contrary is presented.
The file is an image of the Bronx Whitestone Bridge, which was taken from a press release (archived) of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). There was another notice on the MTA website (archived) that states "Click on any of the pictures in the newsroom stories [...] for you to use in your own publication".
Judging from their wordings, it appears that the MTA only allowed personal use. Whether they permitted reproduction and commercial usage is doubtful. The file therefore has unclear copyright status, and might be eligible for deletion under COM:PCP. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. The JPG is certainly sourced from the Parliament website: see this link. However, the official portrait does not show up on the MP's profile yet as you say. The Commons are in the process of uploading these portraits at the moment, so perhaps it would be better to wait for a few days before determining whether to delete it. The official portraits are all made freely available once uploaded to their respective MPs' profiles: see thisThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of August Schluttenhofer, who died in 1971. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2042.
Wuhan Railway Station Plan In this particular case, it was more of a "poorly made" version (than being "outdated only") and I later made a new version containing exactly the same information. I am requesting deletion as fabricator and uploader of the outdated version because I consider it a shame 😅. Zheng Zhou (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot verify the CC claim. The one of Greason is from https://www.bowdoin.edu/president/past-presidents/greason.html which makes no mention of CC. These are commissioned works which likely need the permission of the artist. The one of Stills was painted by Leopold Gould Seyffert who died 1956, so free soon but not now
Dopplung zur bereits bestehenden "Wappen von Niedersachsen.svg", welches in besserer Qualität ist eine kleinere Dateigröße hat. Estexx (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pokud objekt vystupující jako neregistrovaný přispěvatel "Jezerka88" po 9 letech od zveřejnění reportážní fotografie dodatečně nesouhlasí s jejím zveřejněním (přestože neporušuje pravidla W. Commons), držitel autorských práv nemá námitek/připomínek. Nechť Wikimedia Commons postupuje standardním způsobem a v závěru i foto třeba odstraní. Toto stanovisko se týká i dalších fotografií, které "Jezerka88" dodatečně komentuje. Zdraví --David Sedlecký (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from an Italian movie released in 1980. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1980. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1980. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
What's the reason to delete the image? Is about the resolution? This image is the view of the artist face — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.164.144.50 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This text from a sign was posted at the edge of the lake; he brings knowledge about the fish in the lake. I have difficulty understanding this deletion request. Cjp24 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this info is really needed, it should be added as text to the article about the lake. Per COM:PS: "Excluded educational content includes: ... Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." --P 1 9 9✉18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four fish names with their size and weight, no verb: it's not really text.
On the other hand, we find a quantity of unused texts in Category:Texts.
A (short) list of large fish caught in a large, heavily visited lake is useful information.
Sure, many types of information are useful, but this site does not host unused text files. I don't think we ever agreed on a policy change about them, but someone should correct me if I'm wrong and the thread I was involved with actually came to a conclusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1981. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in the 1980s. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fill still from the Italian film Il vizietto II released in 1980. Notice that {{PD-Italy}} only covers simple photographs and still frames (not the same as a film still)., this is clearly not the case as it is completely staged. Artistic photographs are protected for 70 years pma. Regardless of the current copyright status in Italy, it was copyrighted in in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it has its copyright restored in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Notice that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should only be used for files uploaded prior to March 1, 2012. Günther Frager (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This file is a set photoreport during the shooting. The PD-Italy rule makes only a difference if the picture is a "piece of art" and no other criteria. As allready explained : since a lot of discussions pointed to the other way, e.g. Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA (2014). URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion.. This photograph was published years before 1996. Tisourcier (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 2014 URAA statement is outdated and was superseded by later discussions. The current status quo is that a US copyright restored by the URAA absolutely can be the sole reason for deletion. --Rosenzweigτ12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from the Italian 'film Tre fratelli released in 1981. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo taken in Italy in 1981. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from an Italian movie released in 1981. The movie was release in 1983 in the US the copyrighted notice was present in the opening credits [47]. Thus it is still copyrighted in US Günther Frager (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot from an Italian movie released in 1981 (description states 1983). The image was taken from the US trailer of the movie. The usage of {{PD-US-1989}} is incorrect, the copyright notice appears at the end [48]: Copyright MCMLXXXIII by Aquarius Associated(?) All rights reserved. Günther Frager (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDs and descriptions for the above 28 paintings were all found on the Henan Provincial Museum website. Some of the artists have names that match older artists whose work might be in the public domain, but I believe they are all living (or at least were living at the time of the 2012 museum exhibition) artists. Where I could find a likely record for them in the Chinese Artists Association membership listing, I've included the birth year above.
Four additional images are in the category and from the same photographer's Flickr account, but weren't found on the museum's website. Based on the rest of these and COM:PCP, I'm nominating them for deletion too even though artist/creation information has not yet been found.
The photographs themselves are properly released as CC0, but they are derivative works of copyrighted paintings (most likely) by living artists. If someone can more definitively ID the artists or otherwise determine that the paintings are older works in the public domain, I'd welcome it. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cesar Trophy was created by the French sculptor César Baldaccini (1921–1998) in 1976 and therefore is still copyrighted. We can undelete these images in 2072 when its US copyright expires.
I would like to furthermore add that the map that was removed recently for copyright violation was actually not bound by copyright law, so this map was removed by mistake. The map was published in 1965, prior to the current 1978 copyright law. Any work published prior to this had a copyright that lasted 28 years and had to be renewed. This copyright was never renewed on this work, therefore this map, and the deleted one, are legally in the public domain. There is no reason legally or otherwise to remove this work as such. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but interestingly after doing more research into this map, it is actually taken from a source published in 1963 called The human species : an introduction to physical anthropology by Frederick S Hulse. This means that the map actually still fits the 28 year cut off. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, this map is originally from a source published in 1963 by Hulse, and then reused in 1965 by Beals and Hoijer. Copyright.gov shows there was a second edition published in 1971, but neither edition show signs of renewal(not that the second edition would effect this regardless). So because of this, since it was published prior to 1963, and since it was not renewed within 28 years, it did not gain the additional 65 years to the copyright, meaning the map is in the public domain. Runjeetgupta008 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly public domain. The new version RAN uploaded is better in many ways, but the original is still in use and there are notable differences. The one listed here is a closer crop and a mirror image of the later upload. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has those vertical defect lines caused by printing out with an ink jet printer and rescanning the print. Better to substitute the higher quality one where used. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Bear trophy is based on a sculpture of Renée Sintenis (1888-1965), thus it is still copyrighted in Germany, its country of origin. The original was created in 1932, we can undelete these files in 2036 when it enters in the German public domain.
I don't know how it is inferred the statuette is pre-1978 as it was taken in the 2011 ceremony. Also, the US Copyright Office granted copyright protection in 1941 and it was held in court [49]. This court ruling is the one used in Category:Oscar statuettes to prevent uploads of images were the statuettes are not de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting this on VPC as well. Quick searches don't show this image anywhere else on the internet. I think it's reasonable to believe that the uploader could well be Pierre Montavon, considering that they've only uploaded works by Pierre Montavon which don't appear to be online elsewhere. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio does not mean "This photo was taken from somewhere else on the internet". Copyvio means "We don't have the copyright holder's consent for this license".
Not sure why we would assume the uploader to be the photographer himself. The uploader disclosed paid editing on the German WP on behalf of Tête de Moine AOP, so most likely it's some advertising agency or company PR person who, as usual, got usage rights and copyright confused. --2003:C0:8F0C:7F00:E463:959B:59E6:A9819:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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 photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:
When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
The focus of this photograph is a toy for which there is no evidence of copyright status, something that could be easily rectified by checking the label.
For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests:
Deleted: Most of them per nomination. Kept the one per above. Even by my, admittedly rather strict, interpretation of de minimis that appears to fit the policy. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (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.
Keep Mostly de minimis and fanart images, which yes I can agree are very risky to upload, but are acceptable according to Commons policies. File:202312092233 IMG 5201.jpg is the only one here you have a valid point with however as it appears to be a direct picture of three copyrighted toys, but even it may need further discussion. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photo published in the Italian magazine Playmen in 1977. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is currently copyrighted in the US. Notice that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be applied to files uploads prior March 1, 2012. Following COM:PCP, we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. You turn my "permission requested" tag into a deletion nomination, and then, after nominating it for deletion, you say "keep"?
Neither do I get your comment "Permission for this file is obvious or is not required". Why wouldn't it be? German copyright law is applicable for this photo. Only a natural person can be copyright holder by that law, not a whole orchestra. So the claim that the whole orchestra is copyright holder is false. So, who is the author and copyright holder? --2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D06612:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nomination (really by you), rather than a no-discussion uncontested/undiscussed deletion.
While a corporation may not be able to own a copyright under German law, that is not necessarily relevant. This image has the "own work" tag and thus the uploader has claimed it is his own work; the "author" field in a Commons information form is not of legal relevance; if the user uploaded it and really did create it, it is validly licensed. The CC licenses also allow for the licensor to provide for any attribution they'd like, and this does not need to match the name of the actual person who owns the copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mistake here might be the difference between releasing music for free/not charging a licensing fee for creating physical copies and releasing something into the public domain. Nowhere do they state that the music is released into the public domain. On their FAQ page, they ask for the music not to be uploaded to streaming cites and say "The licence only extends to physical copies of the music". Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright holder can give their creation away for free without releasing it into the public domain (it’s quite common with ebooks). Some of KGLW’s statements on this have been confusing and even contradictory but I don’t see any evidence of it being PD. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band explicitly disclaimed ownership of this work ("We do not own this record. You do. Go forth, share, enjoy"), which is as close to a public domain dedication as it is possible to get without using the words "public domain". If they decided to use a more restrictive license when posting a copy of their work to Bandcamp, well, that has nothing to do with us. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info, this is confusing: It seems that the bands intention was to make this album free for any purpose, as opposed to the later "bootlegger" series of albums, which are released under a license wherein those making albums must send "some of" the copies to the band to sell on their online store (that's what the FAQ is about, not Polygondwanaland). The phrase "free as in free" alludes to the "free as in free speech not as in free beer" phrase, which seems to imply that Polygondwanaland is meant to be both gratis and libre. In a Twitter post, they (probably Stu) said that the album is free to be used in derivative works - "sync it. put it in there movie. [...] whatever they want.".
A complicating factor here is that at the time of release, King Gizzard likely did not technically own the copyright to the album. The album, rather, was at that time owned by their label Flightless Records.(owned by then-member Eric Moore, but legally distinct) In 2018, when "official" pressings were released, ATO stated on the packaging that Flightless owned the rights to the album and the recording, confirming this. King Gizzard's Bandcamp page was operated by Flightless as a subpage of their label account in 2017,(for more details on how all that works see this) so it was Flightless that confusingly set Crumbling Castle as CC BY-ND and the rest as all rights reserved.
When King Gizzard left Flightless in 2020, the rights to their albums passed to the copyright holding entity KGLW. This would seem to include Polygondwanaland, as KGLW released a musicassette of the album in 2023, and made no reference to licensing it from Flightless or whatever. In fact they make no explicit reference to copyright at all - just as Flightless didn't on their own pressings. So we have the rather confusing situation where the band states that they want people to use this album in whatever way they want, implying that the album is free to use for any purpose - the actual copyright holding entities (Flightless and the KGLW pseudolabel) saying nothing at all on the matter (other labels just saying that Flightless owns it) - and the Bandcamp having different licenses depending on track.
To clear this up I am going to send an email to the band's current label p(Doom), (which succeeded KGLW/Gizzverse) and if the album is actually free to use for any purpose ask them to send an email to the VRT. -Thespoondragon (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} with the explanation "The item has no copyright markings on it as can be seen in the links above. At bottom left is Country of origin & production USA." What it actually says at the bottom left is "Copyrighted 1948 Universal Pictures Co. INC." hinnk (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This license also applies to "reproductions of figurative art". What do you think that means?
Then pointing hand in the poster? How do you think it was prepared? Was it taken from a photograph, that was (heavily) processed to give the image we see here? In that case I don't think you should call it a drawing. Geo Swan (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: reproductions of figurative art means taking a photo of a painting. That is, if I take a picture of Mona Lisa, I cannot claim copyright on my photo. Regarding this poster, first it is not clear it was a photo, and even if it were, it was process to reduce it to shadow, it was arranged in several copies with several sized, on a contrasting background. That is a creative process and it is protected by copyright. Also, the only photographs that are protected by 20 years ppd are images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, artistic photographs have a longer protection. Günther Frager (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A brief use of google, and google translate, reveals the "tall youngster" seems to be some kind of author. So, he would measure up to wikipedia's A7. In scope. Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images of an author who was notable enough to not be eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#A7 are in scope.
You do not understand Commons policies. You do not understand the policies of the wikipedias the commons serves.
You are unwilling or unable to understand the replies more experienced contributors have left for you.
Don't you think the best thing you could do for the WMF commons, and its WMF companion projects would be to either, (1) stop nominating material for deletion, and stop weighing in with opinions on the deletion of material, until you have a better understanding of the projects' policies; or (2) actually make a real effort to read, and understand, the replies more experienced contributors leave for you? Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 9 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.
Delete I can't find a larger or older version of this on Google Lens, but their other upload was deleted as a crop of an image from Facebook (cropping out the watermark), so I am disinclined to believe this is one work either. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting this image should be deleted because it has the same name as an earlier image, that was deleted because it was found to be a copyright violation of an image found on facebook?
Or are you asserting that this image and the earlier deleted image are the same?
Are you asserting you have reasons to suspect the two different userids that uploaded the two images are a single individual? Geo Swan (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a crop from Facebook, where in the original photo there is a guitar beside her. Is this uploader an LTA? (I don't know what the feck it means but you guys use it for good and bad IPs without distinction when you feel like insulting them.)
186.172.206.145, for crying out loud. If you know the URL for a webpage where this image can be found, and its date precedes when this image was uploaded, then why the heck didn't you include that URL in your DR?
If you have the URL that shows this image is a copyright violation, you should have used speedy deletion, not a DR.
Fans take pictures at concerts. If all you are saying is that this image is similar to one you think you remember seeing on a facebook page, then, do us all a big favour, and stop initiating, or weighing in at, DR, until you understand what you are doing. Please. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 9 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.
Keep: No need for deletion: a) The existence of a link to en:wp isn't a sufficient reason for deletion, b) in use on some (archived) pages, c) Commons:Civility was a completely different case. --Achim (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of, the removal of attaks are not censorships. This templates has a valid usage area and simply becaus it does not have a link to a Commons page doesn't mean it should be deleted. The template text itself makes it pretty clear what it is all about. (t) Josve05a (c)01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your selective use indicates we can have little confidence it will be used for incivility rather than to redact the speech you do not approve. show the attacks you want to redact. where is the policy to support the template. are we now going to institute policy on an ad hoc basis without a consensus? just slap a template on it? ridiculous - note to the closer - if you keep this you should expect i will be using it a lot for the adversive messages on talk pages. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge03:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This template was recently used by one editor to change another editor's comments. The second editor, predictably, got upset at this. The exchange made an already tense and messy conversation (that the two editors here were only ancillary to) worse. It feels like this is the intended use case - one editor changing another editor's comments - and I can't think of any situations where that wouldn't make a dispute worse. If something is a bad enough personal attack, an admin will remove it and revision delete that revision. For everything else, this just gets in the way and fans flames. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is totally pointless since admins can deal with uncivil comments if they feel like it. There's no valid reason for a normal user who isn't an admin to edit or remove things from other people's comments though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a user leaves a comment (perhaps in a DR) in good standing, but in the middle of it makes a personal attack which needs to be removed (and perhaps revdel'ed), the admin should not remove the entire comment. This would then be a good placemarker to use. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: I don't necessarily have an issue with it being used that way, but users shouldn't edit each others comments regardless and it's kind of redundant if only admins are using it to begin with. Otherwise they can just remove and revdel the personal attack instead of using the template to begin with. I have a serious issue with users editing each other comments based on their own personal opinions of what's an uncivil comment considering how over sensitive a lot of people on here are and the amount of drama farming that goes on though.
At that point I could add the template myself to The Squirrel Conspiracy's original comment saying "the second editor, predictably, got upset at this" because it sounds like he's saying I'm thin skinned for asking Trade not to edit my comments. How would that be at all helpful or useful to dealing with actual personal attacks though and not just comments being altered by users acting overwrought because their feelings were hurt by a particular comment? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the intent of "the second editor, predictably, got upset at this" was "of course the person whose comments were edited got upset that their comment got edited because it's generally seen as a rude thing to do", and wasn't directed towards you specifically, but towards the role of 'person whose comments are edited' generally. Sorry that that wasn't clear. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Treating policies in extreme absolutes is something i would rather avoid as opposed to treating it as the norm. Even ENWP's OTHERSCOMMENTS have exceptions as stated on the bottom of the section
I'm not gonna touch on anything from that other discussion since i consider that unproductive as it has already been concluded Trade (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think voting to delete a single barely used template that just gets in the way of admins doing their job is treating a policy as an extreme absolute. We'll have to agree to disagree though. But I will say that there are rare instances of someone editing another users comments that I'm totally fine with. For instance Jmabel has corrected minor spelling issues on a couple of my comments before. I could really care less about that because it doesn't alter the original message in any meaningful way like this template does. Plus me and Jmabel have a certain level of report where I'm fine with him doing something like that. Which you and I just don't have. If my next door neighbor wants to pick up a piece of trash on the edge of my yard, cool. I don't want some rando from down the street rearranging my garage just because I left the garage door open though. You really should get the difference and why the later is problematic without me having to explain it to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute existing transclusions (there's few enough to do by hand), then Delete. While I feel that there can be exceptional situations where it's appropriate for an editor to remove particularly vile personal attacks from comments, this should be a rare action, and not one which should be undertaken without thought. Having a template to automate the process of typing out "removed personal attack" is neither necessary nor appropriate; it automates a part of this process which hardly took any time to begin with, it does so in a way that feels impersonal and which can inflame heated discussions further, and it gives the appearance that doing so should be common practice. Omphalographer (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging people you know will vote keep as the one who's behavior led to this is and after multiple people voted deleted is rather bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the file uploaded here in 2014, after it was in all the press in 2013? I don't think they can keep it (without permission from the photographer). 186.173.82.10620:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
186.173.82.106, please try harder to read, and understand, replies from other participants.
Do you understand what EXIF info is? Modern cameras embed information in the image file. They will always embed the date the picture was taken. Cell phones also embed the location. Some photograghers arrange to embed their name, and the license status of the image. Do you understand this?
Do you understand that press re-uses of this photo do not give the press intellectual property rights to this image? This is an important point. Do you understand it?
This image's EXIF data shows it was taken in 2012. This proves that the press re-uses of the image, in 2013, were not instances of them using a photo taken by their own staff, in 2013.
Before you did any homework, you suspected this photo was the subject's own work. I believe you were right about that, while also being completely wrong in your pretty lazy assumption he was just some nobody. As I noted above, if he were merely an also ran candidate, for office, he would not measure up to GNG -- but that is sufficient notability for him to be in scope, as he is not a nobody. Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
186.173.82.106, you are making horrible newbie mistakes. You replied, "I don't think they can keep it (without permission from the photographer)"
Bzzzt! In your nomination you stated you believed the uploader and the photos's subject were the same person. That was a very credible assumption, since they have the same name, and it looks like a self-timed selfie.
Now, after having the image's 2012 date pointed out to you, you had a simple choice. (1) Withdraw your deletion request, since it was not properly thought out; or (2) stick to your guns, think up a second bogus justification for deletion, because you are one of those people who can not acknowledge that, like all human beings, you are capable of normal human error.
It looks like you chose to continue to waste other people's time, by sticking to your guns.
Keep for the reasons stated above. Images of also ran candidates for high office are in scope. I think we should encourage also-ran candidates to upload a modest number of images of themselves. Actors, writers, inventors? I would encourage anyone who can claim enough notability to not have a stub deleted from the wikipedia under WP:CSD#A7 to upload a modest number of images of themselves, (1) as their next event may push them past the GNG boundary; and (2) that image might be included in a section of a related article, like about the election they participated in. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)`[reply]
@Engelberthumperdink what you claimed in your first reply to Quick1984 (thanks to Google Translate) is not valid for Wikimedia Commons. Informational or reference uses are not enough; files should be freely reusable in commercial media like postcards and commercial travel websites. Current Russian law does not allow commercial uses of public artworks. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345. «при размещении в информационно-справочном материале о культурных, исторических и иных достопримечательностях территории (путеводителе) изображения произведения изобразительного искусства — скульптуры, которая расположена в открытом для свободного посещения месте на этой территории или видна из такого места, не требуется получения согласия автора или иного правообладателя скульптуры и выплаты ему вознаграждения, в том числе если соответствующий информационно-справочный материал распространяется в целях получения прибыли, а на данном изображении скульптура может рассматриваться как основной объект использования». Вы не читали ссылку. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is incompatible with the Russian FoP law on copyrighted monuments like these plaques. As such, these files – if proven to contain works by sculptors, engravers, or writers (for text) who are not yet dead for more than 70 years – should be deleted. Restoration or undeletion is only possible if the authors (or their heirs) give us commercial Creative Commons licensing permissions, or if Russia expands commercial FoP to monuments+public art and not just architecture+landscape design. Otherwise, we should wait until the 70th anniversary of the deaths of the sculptors/engravers/text writers (perhaps during the next generation of Wikimedia Commons users and admins). Commercial use is important; "informational or reference use only" content is not allowed per COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)10:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Получение прибыли = коммерческое использование. Вы в очередной раз не прочитали решение Конституционного суда Российской Федерации по ссылке. В решении сказано, что для публикации изображений, в том числе в целях получения прибыли, не требуется разрешения автора произведения искусства. Как вам ещё раз это объяснить? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Кто тут и грубит, так это вы, поскольку моя блокировка в Русской Википедии никак не связана с Викискладом и изображениями в принципе. И нечего это приплетать ко всему попало и угрожать мне тут. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I'm reading the law correctly per paragraph 1 of Article 1276 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation "when placing in information and reference material about cultural, historical and other attractions of a territory (guide) an image of a work of fine art - a sculpture, which is located in a place open to the public in this territory or is visible from such a place, it is not necessary to obtain the consent of the author or other copyright holder of the sculpture." Which is fine for reference material about cultural, historical and other attractions or guides, but Commons has a policy that requires an image be usable "by anyone for any purpose." And those purposes often have nothing to do with reference material or guides. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO. Although they could possibly be uploaded to the Russian language Wikipedia but that's another conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The building was completed in 1945 by Vytautas Landsbergis-Žemkalnis (1893–1993). There is no freedom of panorama in Lithuania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2064.
Comment Well, it's just a brick and concrete facade, but it's about the most important and most visible building in the town. Destroying all photos about the church would significantly reduce the information in wikipedia about the town. If one strictly applies the deletion of every photo that depicts an object in Lithuania whose architect has not been dead for more than 100 years, one will have to throw away every photo of the city of Šakiai except for an old german lutheran chapel from 1842 - about that chapel the architect and his specific date of death are not known at the moment, but if the chapel has been standing for more than 180 years, it is quite likely that any architect must have died in the meantime. However: if the parish decides to renovate the facade and commissions the renovation coordination to an architect, then the chapel can be considered as changed and will also no longer have a place in wikimedia commons. The same is valid about nearly all photos of all other cities and places of residence in Lithuania, in France and in many more countries. If that logic really is strictly applied, the wikimedia commons will partially uninstall itself. Therefore I advocate to make a difference between a simple facade of a building and a true work of art, and to exclude simple facades from mandatory removal from wikimedia commons. OpposeThomasPusch (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm also strongly against deletion. Whatever/nevertheles we wikipedians and other sapiens people must urge relentlessly Lithuanian legislators to fix the copyright law in that way, to enable/allow full freedom of panorama, as it works in many European countries. Without urging that again and again, nothing will change. :-( Kusurija (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You folks don't understand the difference between Wikimedia Commons and en.Wikipedia. Wikipedia, like some other Wikimedia sites, allows for images of educationally important objects and buildings not covered by commercial freedom of panorama to be uploaded locally. Commons does not allow fair use, period, and requires commercial freedom of panorama. If you want to argue about these policies, you are going to lose, because unfortunately, there won't be a consensus on Commons to allow merely non-commercial freedom of panorama (I wish there were), but if you want to try, a deletion request is not the place to do so. Try Commons talk:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This annex doesn't belong to Žemkalnis' work, look the article's ref „3.Ukmergės ligonių kasa (architektūros objektai)“: [51]. Built in the Soviet times, renovated in 2000s. I've edited the picture's category created by another user c:Category:Ukmergė library. The warning should be removed. Thanks.--Vilensija (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old photo(s). Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No dispute about the substance of your deletion request, but just so you know, "Unlike that own work" doesn't make a lot of sense in English. What I believe you mean to say is "Unlikely to be the uploader's own work." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 31 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.
We pay a shit of attention to EU policies. (What does this mean by the way: Rules? Laws? Dictatorship?) If you don't want to be photographed stay home and close the curtains. KEEP. 186.173.161.3520:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a university lecturer you are a public person. If this photo showed your appearance in somehow unfavourable way, it would be a point to start a discussion. In my opinion this photo is neutral - you are a scholar doing the scholar's stuff. Panek (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again: Wikimedia Commons is for free licensed images only, and sometimes the only free licened images of someone notable we have are midling snapshots. Notable people are very welcome to have better photos they like uploaded under free license (if the photographer is not the one uploding, needs explicit permission to share under a free license). Cheers. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; subject was in a public place with no expectation of privacy. If you don't like the photo, please consider uploading one that you approve of. —holly {chat}19:47, 5 March 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.
It was shot with my camera, but actually I don't recall taking it. Probably it was made by my friend. However, it's hard to determine it now. So, the authorship is not clear. Panek (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Maybe it's the famous photographer ape that you discussed a lot about. Now I don't remember, in that case who is the author, the ape or the owner of the camera? 186.175.22.19011:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a monkey - as I remember, a macaque, who produced a selfie by hitting the shutter. The camera's owner was ruled not to have copyright over the photo, since he didn't shoot it, but since the monkey is not a person, neither was the monkey awarded copyright, and thus, the decision was that the work is in the public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image presents me. I never agreed to make it public. The author does not respond to my request to take it down. I am trying to have this image removed already few months. Ksafarzy (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You were in public, were you not? I think you're out of luck. I don't think you or I have the right to tell people they can't photograph us while we're appearing in public and can't post the photo. If that's wrong, you should cite Polish law instead of repeatedly demanding a takedown, thinking you'll succeed by wearing down Commons, when that won't happen if there's no legal reason to necessitate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that the uploader is indeed identical with the photographer/ copyright holder (there is no verification up to this point), doubts remain: This image has apparently been published in this book. How does CC licensing go together with publisher's rights? Not to mention personality rights of the image subject. 2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D06608:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that the uploader is indeed identical with the photographer/ copyright holder (there is no verification up to this point), doubts remain: This image has apparently been published in this book. How does CC licensing go together with publisher's rights? Not to mention personality rights of the image subject. 2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D06608:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have permission by the photographer, but not by the artists of the architecture and/or the 2019 built organ. They are no de minimis-objects in this Picture and we don't have FOP in interiors in germany. Emha (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that the author and uploader here is the organ builder himself, who renovated and rebuild the organ. More and more an unacceptably behavior here on commons. *shaking head* --Subbass1 (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Prospekt einer Orgel ist - zumindest in diesem Fall - selbstverständlich ein Kunstwerk und urheberrechtlich geschützt.
Das Werk mit Schöpfungshöhe befindet sich - da sind wir uns wohl einig - in einem Innenraum, deswegen greift die Panoramafreiheit nicht.
Dass User:TilmannSpaeth ein Vertreter von habe ich jetzt erst gesehen, er hat als de:Benutzer:TilmannSpaeth sogar eine Verifizierung und das rückt die Sache auf jeden Fall in ein anderes Licht - danke für den Hinweis!
Auf User talk:TilmannSpaeth hatte er bisher auf keine der Nachrichten reagiert, weswegen die dort genannten Dateien bisher alle gelöscht werden mussten.
Nein, auf Commons besteht eigentlich Konsens, dass Orgeln als Musikinstrumente grundsätzlich abgebildet werden dürfen. Das werde ich auch weiterhin tun. Außerdem ist es hochgradig lächerlich, bei meinem gecroppten Bild noch irgendwelche andere Architektur anzuführen. EOD.
<Auf User talk:TilmannSpaeth hatte er bisher auf keine der Nachrichten reagiert,
Da wird er wohl besseres zu tun gehabt haben, kann ich gut verstehen. Das wäre doch mal eine sinnvolle Aufgabe: sich unaufgefordert um die Wiederherstellung der fälschlicherweise gelöschten von ihm fotografierten Orgeln zu kümmern. --Subbass1 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wie auch bei den anderen Bildern gesagt: Das eigentliche Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dana-Lis Bittner: Um diese Datei (und die anderen) behalten zu können, benötigen wir eine Einverständniserklärung der Urheberin gem. dem Muster in COM:VRT/de. Und zwar nicht nur für die "Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite", sondern umfassend. Wenn wir die nicht bekommen, werden die Dateien gelöscht. Gruß --Rosenzweigτ06:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das mit dem Namen lässt sich leicht korrigieren. Das größere Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A11:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das größere Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil These logo files should be kept as they are not copyrighted, they are free licensed and they provide information about the club history. Please remove the deletion template and keep them on Wikipedia. Thanks 141.98.143.19208:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil They are free as they are official logos which can be used on any place on the internet; they aren't photos captured by a photographer that owns its copyright. The websites that publish their files make them available to share for any of the website visitor and with a free license, not copyrighted. They should be on Wikipedia as they provide correct information, in this case regarding a business history. So please remove the deletion template on them and keep the files. Thanks 141.98.143.19217:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These three German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Albert Holl, who died in 1970. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2041.
That particular signature cannot be verified as being authentically Crawford's. Please refer to the historyforsale documents for Crawford's actual signature on legal documents to compare. Crawford was often signed-for by secretaries when giving out autographs. Like JFK often did. It would be better to remove the signature completely rather than possibly giving the wrong information. - Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so this DR can be closed and probably a Template:Non-free frame revdel be added. However, the problem now is that important parts of the video are missing, not just that video element. I think it would be better to replace with text or with one to four frames of the video at these times and the text. Maybe there is some AI tool to easily remove parts of a video, it probably exists already but I don't know it and so far the video is not used. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo is actually from 1900 than it’s almost certainly Public Domain. However, claimed as Own Work there’s no source to verify. PascalHD (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning and cleaning up a photo no more makes it your "own work" than washing and polishing a car makes you an automobile manufacturer.
I assume that User:74.204.120.66 is User:Arial Bold but please, if you are making statements related to the work on your account, log in when making them. There are at least two reasons for this: they show up in your user contributions, making it sanely possible to find what you have said on a given topic, and it also prevents someone else faking being you. - Jmabel ! talk20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Matthias Moser: When was this photo taken? Was the photographer who took this photo a family member? As you are a descendant, you might have inherited a copyright in this case, but we need more information. --Rosenzweigτ06:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims own work 12 Jan 2024 as "Yemen 2024 raids launched by the United States and Britain under the pretext of stopping the Houthis from striking commercial ships and disrupting maritime navigation." Davidships (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio, licensing info cites as being published prior to 1929, though that's not the case. Produced by an Ohio state employee – not a state with explicit copyright release P1 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are de minimis use sections of much larger images (the covers open out to show a much larger image). As the covers are of different editions, and as the light hides much of the artwork, there is so little of the artwork actually on show, that this really does fall into de minimis territory. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that; this isn't a wide shot of a bookshelf or library, the framing and subject of this photo is what the spines of these books look like. The various portraits of the protagonist on those spines seem like a significant part of that. Belbury (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is limited exposure of the copyrighted material and a mixture of some copyright and much uncopyrighted, so I’m happy wit de minimis use. YMMV, but I’m happy to leave it to others. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Antonio de Castro.png as PD-Brazil-Photo. I have not looked at the others. Photographs that were no "works or art" were not copyrightable in Brazil prior to 19 June 1998, so keep that in mind with the other images. --RAN (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Looks like articles about the sports team has been deleted twice from Fr:w fr:CA Planteurs, fr:Club Athlétique Planteurs. Someone with admin ability on fr:w may wish to take a look - hoax or problem? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Very simple logo, Maple Leaf is definitely below threshold of originality and very small. Xgeorg (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Delete Hi, as the importer from Wikibooks, because every of its files are now here, I can say that it shouldn't return their.
Speedy keep @Aafi: Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination After double-checking with the licensing provisions of {{OPL}}, it is found that OPL directly applies to this file.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Speedy delete.
Info: Added also File:San Paolo fuori le Mura Francesco e Benedetto XVI.jpg as it depicts the portraits of Pope Francis and Benedict XVI. 81.41.177.91 81.41.177.91 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Question Was it in use earlier this month? It's currently only used in a Commons gallery. That said, I'm unconvinced the technique used to retouch this photo couldn't be useful to illustrate, so I'd vote for a 
.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_dedié_au_roi_almohade_Yaqub_al-Mansur.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_3.jpg){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées..png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_suffrages_exprimés.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées..png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.9.3 File:Excerpt from "A Teenage Opera" by Keith West UK vinyl single.png](#File:Excerpt_from_"A_Teenage_Opera"_by_Keith_West_UK_vinyl_single.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_April_2020.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.11.21 File:Angelica Pegani during the Gala "Success is a Woman", 2018.jpg](#File:Angelica_Pegani_during_the_Gala_"Success_is_a_Woman",_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.13.10 File:Zone "Nom de l'objet" des Dictionnaire de données du RCIP.png](#File:Zone_"Nom_de_l'objet"_des_Dictionnaire_de_données_du_RCIP.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.14.36 File:East Corridor, First Floor. Mosaic in domed lobby at head of stairway leading to ground floor, with quotation "Knowledge is power." Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. (7562151600).jpg](#File:East_Corridor,_First_Floor._Mosaic_in_domed_lobby_at_head_of_stairway_leading_to_ground_floor,_with_quotation_"Knowledge_is_power."_Library_of_Congress_Thomas_Jefferson_Building,_Washington,_D.C._(7562151600).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Leonora_Fani.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.17.61 File:"Beautiful Ohio" License Plate.jpg](#File:"Beautiful_Ohio"_License_Plate.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_I._U._Otuo_IX_JP.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_advert.png){kind=link}
.webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Joe_Dallesandro_and_Louis_Waldon_(1200_dpi).jpg){kind=link}
_ca._1985.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_dedié_au_roi_almohade_Yaqub_al-Mansur.jpg){kind=link}
_dedi%C3%A9_au_roi_almohade_Yaqub_al-Mansur.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TheGlobalGoals_Logo_and_Icons.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hitler_Free_Speech.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-20240705231900-File:Helo_Erkki.jpg){kind=link}
_-_3.jpg){kind=link}
_-_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/csYAAOSwxPRdsBkt/s-l960.jpg){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxi%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxi%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxième_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées..png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_deuxi%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprim%C3%A9es..png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprim%C3%A9es.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprim%C3%A9es.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_suffrages_exprimés.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_suffrages_exprim%C3%A9s.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprimées..png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire,_en_pourcentage_des_voix_exprim%C3%A9es..png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatri%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatri%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatrième_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_quatri%C3%A8me_circonscription_de_la_Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_élections_législatives_de_2024_dans_la_première_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png){kind=link}
_au_premier_tour_des_%C3%A9lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_de_2024_dans_la_premi%C3%A8re_circonscription_de_Haute-Loire.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
_map.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Tears_of_Rage_-_Action_Not_Pity_(The_New_York_Times)_(1943),_New_York_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
._Tears_of_Rage_-_Action_Not_Pity_(The_New_York_Times)_(1943),_New_York.jpg){kind=link}
![04:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/07#c-George_Ho-20240709040300-File:Excerpt_from_"A_Teenage_Opera"_by_Keith_West_UK_vinyl_single.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Live_Crew.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_April_2020.jpg){kind=link}
,_April_2020.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_November_2020.jpg){kind=link}
,_April_2020.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/07#c-Profession-Research-20240711180000-File:Angelica_Pegani_during_the_Gala_"Success_is_a_Woman",_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Copy_of_Document_in_the_Bangabandhu_Military_Museum,_Dhaka.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/07#c-Günther_Frager-20240713120800-File:Zone_"Nom_de_l'objet"_des_Dictionnaire_de_données_du_RCIP.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_Tokyo_DisneySea_in_June_2024_(5).jpg){kind=link}
_at_Tokyo_DisneySea_in_June_2024_(4).jpg){kind=link}
_at_Tokyo_DisneySea_in_June_2024_(3).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
-20240714205200-File:Mussolini_-_Hitler_Flag.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Leonora_Fani.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Leonora_Fani.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Leonora_Fani.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg){kind=link}
_17.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_24.jpg){kind=link}
_29.jpg){kind=link}
_30.jpg){kind=link}
_31.jpg){kind=link}
_35.jpg){kind=link}
_36.jpg){kind=link}
_37.jpg){kind=link}
_38.jpg){kind=link}
_39.jpg){kind=link}
_40.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_36.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_3.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_13.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_06.jpg){kind=link}
_07.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_08.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_16.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_-_7.JPG){kind=link}
_-_8.JPG){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(1).jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/07#c-P1-20240717173600-File:"Beautiful_Ohio"_License_Plate.jpg){kind=link}
