Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/28

27 July 2024

29 July 2024

Deletion requests on 28 July 2024

July 28

File:Elliot Rodger Starbucks Visit.webp

It doesnt look like the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office created this photo personally. Most likely a Starbucks CCTV instead Trade (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV footage falls into the public domain. AgeOfPlastic (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

man whatever bro its not that deep 121.6.120.167 12:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-automated}} applies ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-automated Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Games for Windows - Live.webp

Windows orb above TOO. メイド理世 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saudi Arabian Railways Lounge (Riyadh East).webm

There's no FOP in Saudi Arabia, permission from this lounge would be required when possible. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I'm not taking any external pictures though? Does that essentially mean that the interior of a building cannot be ordinarily photographed in Saudi Arabia? Also, can one argue that (looking at Template:NoFoP-Saudi_Arabia) anything copyrighted is not a "substantial reproduction"? Leaderboard (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard There are some fine arts you included within this video and they reproduced three-dimensionally, and high definitionally (may or may not match 4K resolution, as I've checked with a HTML5 checker site), so are you really sure they are not the main topic you captured? If yes, then I'm fine with keeping it with {{De minimis}}, but if not, you'll still need their permissions per se. Anyway, Saudi Arabia doesn't have FOP for buildings either (regareless of exterior or interior). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: The focus is on what's available in the lounge. Any "fine arts" are just incidental to the topic. Leaderboard (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard And why are you edit-conflicting with me when you know that I'm trying to extend responses? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I didn't know that you were? Leaderboard (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard So even the lounge building is also "just incidental to the topic"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: Indeed. The goal of the video (which I put in Wikivoyage's page about Saudi Arabia BTW) is to allow customers to have an idea on what to expect when they visit the lounge (so that they can judge for themselves whether it's worth paying the fee). As a result, you can see that the focus was on what's inside the lounge, such as the food and seating. I do think it's reasonable to call the rest "incidental" as a result. Leaderboard (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard In that case, you'll need to seek for a better title for your video, and to modify the description, then I can agree with {{De minimis}} for rest stuffs. Otherwise, this file is still focusing the building, so still a valid copyright concern per Saudi laws. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I don't agree that the title needs to be changed - it's about the lounge right? I can add De Minimis for the rest. Leaderboard (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard Lounge right means what? Right (structural) part of the lounge? Legal rights of what that lounge exercise? Something located outside of the right wall (sic?) of a lounge?... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: It's just ... the lounge? I am not sure what title would assuage your concerns. Leaderboard (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard So, still still, you're indeed focusing on the building, or much more likely its interiors, this is still a valid FOP concern, and as said, Saudi Arabia doesn't have such a concept for allowing so (at least, they largely restricted such re-using by photographers for commercial purposes and derivative works, like what CC BY-NC-ND works). Reproduction of a building, especially its interior, is a serious architect legal right question. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: As I said before, do you know what title would work instead? I understand your FoP concerns, but I don't know what should I (re)name the file as. Leaderboard (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard If you're really not focusing on the building, then not only title, but also descriptions should change, maybe you're capturing the jewelrys? snacks? chairs?... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear from some other users before proceeding further. Leaderboard (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToLyon.jpg

No FoP in France, architect Dominique Perrault is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signalétiques de la station de métro 3bis à pte des lilas.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The maps here are blurry to the point of being unusable, which makes them de minimis in my opinion. There is nothing else copyrightable in the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was the case then it should also be deleted as "poor quality"--A1Cafel (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's a fine picture of the station sign which is too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IronGargoyle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tribunal de Paris.jpg

No FoP in France. Permission from the architect is required A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All good. --RutoSu (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Photo of a recent building in Paris. No Freedom of Panorama in France. --Poudou99 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @RutoSu: "all good" is not a good way to infringe architect's exclusive rights over visual representations of his work. Please contact him and as if he agrees to have your image of his architectural work licensed commercially via COM:VRT correspondence. Note that Commons does not accept noncommercial licensing from architects, sculptors or other artists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribunal de Paris.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ironi ashdod 1997.jpg

Look like an official photograph of the soccer club. Can be found her. small size. unlikely own work. -- Geagea (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

her in he.wiki the user has been asked in 2015 if he photographed the photo. he answering that yes. But I still think that he is not the author. -- Geagea (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 松江南京站 Songjiang Nanjing Station map sign March 2024 R12S.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 松江路 Songjiang Road March 2024 R12S 10.jpg

Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台北市 Taipei 松山區 SongShan District 南京東路 Nanjing Est Road 敦化北路 Dunhua North Road 微風南京 Breeze Nanjing Department Store March 2024 R12S 04.jpg

Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomon203 I really hope that this turns out allowed because otherwise we could end up deleting thousands from this list Category:Photos by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:DM applies, as this does not focus on any specific work ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Königstein-Hohenburg.jpg

No own work. Kein eigenes Werk, sondern einer (unbekannten) Quelle entnommen (Schriftzüge und Symbole unten). Außerdem so unbrauchbar, denn der Schriftzug "heraldry" gehört nicht zum Wappen, sondern ist wohl eine Überschrift; zusammen wohl ein Titelbild. Möglicherweise gar kein richtiges Wappen, sondern ein Symbolbild. Demnach auch out of scope. GerritR (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julio Mayora silver medal.png

This file was initially tagged by Wilfredor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: NoticieroDigital is not a reliable source. It often republishes content from various media outlets without permission, under the guise of a free license. Examples include: VpiTV, VTV, taken from Vente Venezuela -> [1], Globovision, and various social media sources. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file has already been discussed, the screenshot is from a family video call that NoticieroDigital had permission to share. NoticieroDigital may reuse things dishonestly, but not everything, and none of the links in the delete reason relate to this screenshot - if you are just using the links to establish NoticieroDigital as a license washer, you need to open a discussion to add them to the bad sources list. Kingsif (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Helmut70

These files were uploaded by Helmut70 (talk · contribs) as own works. The first two appear to be screenshots of the 3D models [2] by Owe Leitner and [3]/[4] by Anna Gehrmann (name also stated on the uploaded image itself). (Both pages state a CC license but at least the first one uses Google Earth imagery.) Helmut70 provides no evidence that they are one (or both) of these people. This suggest that the third image of a 3D model might also not be Helmut70's own work. --Entbert (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 7 Saint Hakob church.gif

Прошу удалить фото, загрузил аналогичное, но лучше Well-read MountainMan (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NOLET SCHIEDAM WAPENSCHILD.png

Wapen onvolledig. Graphics slecht onderzocht. Let George do it (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:医用TPE充气娃娃照片.jpg

Clerly against COM:TOYS, Consensus on Commons has found that sex dolls are copyrightable, as their design elements are separable from their utilitarian function. Lemonaka (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which "design elements"? I couldn't imagine a more generic apperance for this type of subject. ~TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poemas puros - poemillas de la ciudad (IA poemaspurospoemi00alon).pdf

Book by Spanish poet Dámaso Alonso (1898-1990). They book might be in the US public domain, but it is definitively copyrighted in Spain, its country of origin where the protection is 70 years pma. Günther Frager (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assago 2000 - panoramio.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assago 2000 - panoramio - Rolandob.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Architecture Milan (205282059).jpeg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Il murales dei diritti.jpg

Way too recent as an artwork in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milano 06-2012 - panoramio (2).jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to me to be under the high italian ToO: normal blocky architecture without any particular feature, unknown architect, anonymous and unnamed building...--Friniate (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023-07-27 Paris - Tour Cristal - 7-11 Quai André Citroën - en travaux.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La tour cristal est actuellement en travaux, j'ai pris plusieurs photos et je pense que c'est intéressant de les publier. Si vous n'en voulez-pas cela m'est égal. Il n'y a aucun problème de droit d'auteur, ce sont des photos personnelles.

PK Patkoc (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building seen from the Parc André Citroën 3.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Un immeuble parisien vers 1989.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campanile molitor.JPG

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saintfrancoisassisecourtaigne.jpg

Way too recent as an artwork in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue @ Eglise Saint-François de Molitor @ Paris 16 (32965802132).jpg

Way too recent as an artwork in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue @ Eglise Saint-François de Molitor @ Paris 16 (33080092556).jpg

Way too recent as an artwork in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris - France Télévisions - panoramio.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:I See What You Mean (Argent)

No COM:FOP USA for statues. The statue en:I See What You Mean (Argent)'s artist died in 2017 so still copyrighted.

File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg (could be cropped - croptool not working for me right now)
File:Big Blue Bear Denver Colorado 2024.jpg
File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg (could be cropped - croptool not working for me right now)
File:DC0157-0172 (2818455412).jpg
File:DNC (2799468006).jpg
File:DNC 08 (2806202771).jpg
File:Lunch Time (3060827628).jpg
File:Blue Bear - panoramio.jpg

Consigned (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg in which it is incidental. SecretName101 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg, which focuses on the group in the foreground (unsuaully costumed people around Denver during the Democratic convention of 2008). SecretName101 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all File:Talk about bi-partsan! (2797550551).jpg shows the same costumed people as File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg without the bear. File:DNC (2802521931).jpg and File:DNC (2818451470).jpg show people in front on the convention center for the same event without the bear. File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg may be de minimis, but not sure it's necessary. Nv8200p (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Talk about bi-partsan! (2797550551).jpg is significantly LOWER resolution than File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg though SecretName101 (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg and File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg could be cropped to remove the bear and the rest of the photo would still be valuable (crop the costumed people above the horns). Croptool is still not working for me... Consigned (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auditory System Animation.gif

please do not delete too quickly – this is fore clarifying whether this is CCBY. @Pakitochus: this seems like a very useful illustration but I found some image looking similar to it with tineye, is this really completely your own work or did you use some other image? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mapa de la ruta 1 (Costa Rica).svg

While the map is File:Mapa de la Carretera Interamericana Norte, Costa Rica.jpg, the photos put on top of it are unsourced and probably COM:NETCOPYVIOs like the other uploads of this user. Delete per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced image collage. Elli (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grom-logo.png

This is an outdated logo of the GROM military unit. The current logo is a bit different. You can see it here: https://grom.wp.mil.pl/ along with the information: all rights reserved © Polish Army Szelma W (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Public art in Denver, Colorado

No COM:FOP USA for 3d works. These are contemporary statues/sculture which are copyrighted per COM:HIRTLE.

Consigned (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Outdoor sculptures in Denver

No COM:FOP USA for 3d works. These contemporary statues/sculptures are still copyrighted in the US per COM:HIRTLE.

Consigned (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new every day. Could the sculptors be contacted and asked for permission to display the image? - Scarpy (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If they're willing, have them contact COM:VRT to give permission. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekb collage.jpg

A copy in the Wikipedia SL (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem, the original photo in ru wiki has Cc-zero license, and the original images of the collage have PD-self and cc-by-3.0 licenses. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local copy in ru wiki, and this is a copy in Commons for use in all wikipedias, for example in Galician wikipedia. There is no problem with this because the photo has a compatible license with Commons. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 08:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ekb collage.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 83.9.163.172 as no source (No source since) Krd 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sculpture in S.S Columbia,Tokyo Disney Sea.jpg

Violation of COM:FOP Japan. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detective Sgt John Mateer at Ground Zero NYC in Sept 2001.jpg

According to en:John Mateer (musician), the purported author of this photograph (the son of the subject) would have been five years old when this photo was taken. Either he is a very skilled photographer, or he conflated the idea of "owning a physical copy of a photo" and "owning the copyright of a photo". GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You must be really proud of the work you do, huh?

9t5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9t5 Hi, sorry. I'm not sure I understand your comment. Could you elaborate? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, it seems unlikely that they were letting small children inside the perimeter eleven days after the attacks. As the file is not in use anywhere and the copyright staus is suspect, deletion seems the proper course of action. Just Step Sideways (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth noting that the uploader is now blocked from Commons and also globally locked for being extremely nasty to numerous people. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Large-dulce-patria-juan-carlos-lillo-500g-6.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1890. If the label design is that old, it's probably public domain. Is it, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Social Democratic Party (Taïwan).webp

Le document a été proposé à la suppression rapide G4 en raison d'un travail précédent (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Social Democratic Party (Taiwan) logo.png) Je m'oppose à la suppression du travail présent dans la mesure où la licence d'utilisation permet un partage du travail original dans des conditions identique au travail initial. Aussi, j'ai fourni le lien de la source, l'auteur et la licence d'utilisation du travail original (Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 3.0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurei (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this logo is under copyright and would not be accepted on Commons, as here is supposed to host only free content. The content on Fandom is contributed by volunteers. However, Fandom is rather lax in terms of image uploading, allowing unsourced and non-free images. It should be noted that Fandom declares that "all non-text media should not be considered to use the same license (CC-BY-SA) as text media"(see [5]) and we have removed a large number of images sourced from Fandom as a result.

However, if you are still looking to use this logo, you should upload it to local Wikipedia under fair use conditions, for example at English Wiki. 0x0a (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:أطفال قتلى في هجوم حزب الله.jpg

Contested copyright violation, social media has versions, e.g. X which could not be derivatives. RAN1 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently on Xitter 2 days before uploader's claimed creation date. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two days before what? The event happened just yesterday on July 27 and the image was uploaded to Wikipedia on the same date. We have analyzed here that it was on Wikipedia before any social media and proved that AdityaRajKaul is not the photographer. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Results from google reverse image search, exact matches, I see some listed as being "2 days ago", so I added this. I don't have Xitter access on this machine so I have no further info at this time. Comparison of dates of upload is good idea. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the post? I'm having a bit of trouble duplicating this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the post added to x.com 15 minutes after it was uploaded to Commons. -- Geagea (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The X post I linked has been deleted. There's a blurred version at Bild with bystanders at the top of the image who are cropped out of the version here. RAN1 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they uploader can share some other photos they took of that location - even less interesting photos - such context might make the authorship claim more credible. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-credible claim of authorship, no EXIF data, this has the same image with some more blurring, predating this by an hour or so. I simply do not believe the claim that this is the author's own work, coming right next to basically an active crime scene. Nableezy (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is on twitter unblurred, which, if I can decipher timezones correctly, was an hour and a half before it was posted here. Nableezy (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was the same image which was discussed here where the timestamp was already discussed to be done after Commons and not before.

2. When you have posted the link the image was already deleted there for a week, so not sure what is the purpose of doing such post. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this image can't be the source as it has no timezone and more importantly it's more blurred that the one on Commons and one couldn't take a more blurred image and unblurr. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That post appears to have been made at 23:56 27 July 2024 UTC; seven hours after it was uploaded here. The Twitter link doesn’t appear to work; are you sure you provided the correct link?

At the moment, I think Keep, as I’m not seeing any evidence this is a copyright violation, although I would like to see the VRT submission processed as I think that will resolve this conclusively. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter link for works fine for me. And I find the claim of own work to be utterly disbelievable. If it was their own work it would have EXIF data, but it doesn’t. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EXIF data may be removed when people do not want to share personal info to get exposed and killed. Wikipedia rules do not mandate EXIF use. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleg Yunakov: What do you mean by that? RAN1 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocation data became redundant when the coordinates were published, the EXIF data must have been removed automatically by whatever was used to propagate the image. RAN1 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah removing the brand of camera and type of lens is really something that people do for protection. Just say you want to keep the image because you want to use it for propaganda, sheesh. Nableezy (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written you a warning for violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule. If you have any questions on the image copyright I'll be happy to help you. But please retrain from personal attacks in the future. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have any questions, and the fantastical claim that removing the camera brand is something that somebody would do here because of safety is absurd, and the reason for that absurdity is transparent. Nableezy (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far there are exactly zero valid reasons to delete this image in accordance with the Commons rules. If someone will attempt to do so he/she will get a request for admin rights removal. Your "fantastical" claim when you at all cost try to suggest to delete the image just because you do not like will not help. This just proves the potential point that whoever took it might want to remain anonymous as when others think in propaganda views in relationship to images people may get hurt (example: Charlie Hebdo shooting). Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you used this image in a DYK nomination at ru.wiki (diff), what you're saying is hard to believe. RAN1 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]