Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/30

29 August 2024

31 August 2024

Deletion requests on 30 August 2024

August 30

File:Aeolipil.jpg

Out of scope: unused copy of File:Aeolipile illustration.png with added text. Omphalographer (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Razar08 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused screenshots from a rejected enwiki draft (en:Draft:Creating an Addon - Frontier Pilot Simulator).

Omphalographer (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnny the Nightgaurd.png

Permission has been given or own work? Which one? 186.175.79.169 00:33, 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.

File:Johnny Ng.jpg

Any information or materials which you may access via this web site may be protected by copyright and/or other intellectual property rights and you may infringe these rights if you download, copy, publish, distribute, transmit or exploit such information without the consent of the owner of such rights. No part of such information or materials may be modified, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted (in any form or by any means), copied, distributed, used for creating derivative works or used in any other way for commercial or public purposes without Ng Kit Chong’s prior written consent.[1] 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. But are we sure that this file here, that was uploaded to Commons, was taken from that website, and not the other way around? --Rosenzweig τ 10:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Rosenzweig's point is valid as [2] is from 25 November 2011 (file date according to EXIF data) where File:Johnny Ng.jpg has been uploaded on 3 November 2011. In addition, the copy at Commons has a higher resolution (800 × 432) in comparison to the photo at Johnny Ng's site (670 x 463). However, as this photo appears on Johnny Ng's official site, we need to process this through OTRS much like this deletion requested was closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johnny Ng.jpg

Deleted own work 186.175.79.169 00:34, 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.

File:The East Is Red (1964).webm

Multiple songs would be copyrighted for much longer. For example, both the lyricist w:He Jingzhi and the singer w:Guo Lanying of the song at 1h22m are still alive. To keep this file on Commons, audio has to be muted and subtitles removed. Or, simply delete it. Roy17 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Deng Yuhua 鄧玉華 born 1942 is probably the youngest major co-author.--Roy17 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the nominator of this deletion was trying to say is, for this video which was recorded and published more than 50 years ago, several segments of it contains materials that are still not yet expired because although this video has past 50 years, the singers and musicians creating those pieces of music used in this video have not yet passed away 50 years ago. Let's take a look at China's copyright law. Note the underlined part in Article 39.

Article 38 A performer shall, in relation to his performance, enjoy the rights:

(1) to show his/her identity;

(2) to protect the character in his performance from distortion;

(3) to authorize others to make live broadcasts or to publicly transmit his live performance, and to receive remuneration for it;

(4) to authorize others to make sound recordings and video recordings, and to receive remuneration for it;

(5) to permit others to reproduce and distribute the sound recordings or video recordings which record his performance, and to receive remuneration for it;

(6) to permit others to disseminate his performance to the public through information network, and to receive remuneration for it.

Anyone who is permitted to exploit the works in the ways provided in Items (3) through (6) of the preceding paragraph shall also obtain permission from and pay remuneration to the copyright owner.
Article 39 The term of protection of the rights provided in Items (1) and (2) of Paragraph 1 of article 37 of this Law shall not be limited.
The term of protection of the rights provided in Items (3) through (6) of Paragraph 1 of article 37 of this Law shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the performance is made.

Side note: the "information network" mentioned in Article 38#6 basically means the internet.

So it is not hard to tell, the performance, which is the video we are discussing, has its copyright expired although those songs haven't yet. That means if someone tries to recreate the whole video today, they need to contact the copyright owners of those songs; however, as a video released 50 years ago with proper agreements from the original copyright owners, segments of this video containing those songs have expired.

Note for admins: Several independent segments of this video have already nominated speedy deletion by Roy17. Please revert this file to its original state and close its deletion request, as well as this segment which has already been deleted.

--Techyan（Talk） 17:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Techyan: could you please explain why copyright of segments of this video containing those songs have expired?

As a hint, please read Articles 15, 37 and 38.--Roy17 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why copyright of segments of this video containing those songs have expired?

Because the copyright of the video itself expired. Refer to my comment above and Article 42 for the reason why the copyright of the video expired.

As a hint, please read Articles 15, 37 and 38.

You are saying because Article 1 of all copyright laws around the world guarantees someone's work is protected, so there are no exemptions. However, articles I quoted above are exactly where those exemptions laid.

There is something called "neighboring right", which means the producer of this video also enjoys dedicated copyright apart from the copyright protecting those musicians whom the video consists of their works. If I play Ode to Joy and record it, it will still be protected (instead of being in public domain immediately) even though Beethoven's original melody has been in public domain long ago; if I have dead for 50 years but Beethoven haven't, the melody will still be protected while my own performance of Beethoven's work expires. If I further expand Roy17's point, shall I make sure every actor and actress involved in performing this video died for 50 years before assuming this video got in PD? Of course not. If I sing a song used in this video which its lyricist hasn't died for 50 years, then record and upload it, I will be infringing copyright; but using songs recorded in this video does not - that's the point I am trying to make. I All derivative works have their own dedicated copyright, and there is no need to even attribute as long as the creator of the derivative work is granted permission from all copyright owners, while China does NOT protect the neighboring right in this case for laws named above, although it's worth mentioning there might be some differences depends on jurisdictions. This is just a simple problem on derivative works and I don't want to go any further.

--Techyan（Talk） 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Techyan: could you please provide the legal ground of your claim if [you] sing a song used in this video which its lyricist hasn't died for 50 years, then record and upload it, [you] will be infringing copyright; but using songs recorded in this video does not? --Roy17 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few facts:

Article 15: The copyright in a cinematographic work and any work created by an analogous method of fl1m production shall be enjoyed by the producer of the work, but the scriptwriter, director, cameraman, lyricist, composer, and other authors thereof shall enjoy the right of authorship in the work, and have the right to receive remuneration pursuant to the contract concluded with the producer. The authors of the screenplay, musical works and other works that are incorporated in a cinematographic work and work created by virtue of an analogous method of film production and can be exploited separately shall be entitled to exercise their copyright independently.

Copyright generally lasts for 50 years pma in PRC.

URAA restoration date is 1996-01-01. (PRC was establish in 1949, so basically all works created in PRC or whose authors died in PRC are subject to URAA restoration.)

Some composers/lyricists/singers are still alive. They can exercise their copyright independently.--Roy17 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a record of one's performance. As a recording of a performance by three official studios, the use of music and lyrics could be treated as authorized, and at that time there is no copyright law in China at all, so there is no copyright violation at all.
And, we can easily find out the fact that the video is completely in public domain.

Roy17 seems to have made a mistake on Article 15. The recording, or film, with all elements together, is treated a whole piece of work, not audio and video seprately. The music included would not affect the copyright status of the film.

Article 15 The copyright of a cinematographic work or a work created in a way similar to cinematography shall be enjoyed by the producer, while any of the playwright, director, cameraman, words-writer, composer and other authors of the work shall enjoy the right of authorship, and shall be entitled to obtain remuneration as agreed upon in the contract between him and the producer.

--WQL (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The copyright of the video itself has expired. Moreover, this video is a whole, with independent copyright, and is not affected by the copyright of the music and lyrics it contains.——Soaring swallow (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:鱼头炮 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:The East Is Red (1964).webm

This film is not public domain in China, if Wang Ping died in 1990. Also URAA-restored files are ineligible for upload after 1 March 2012. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 01:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FYI, the copyright holder would be the production company, August First Film Studio, not the filmmaker―and regardless, copyright extends from publication date, rather than death date for Chinese films. Anyways, this film is copyrighted in the US, but not China, because it was published in 1964, meaning it would not have been public domain by the URAA cutoff date of 1 January 1996 (although it did become public domain in China in 2014, does Chinese Wikipedia allow local uploads?). Freedom4U (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SATAS Group Mai Vu Minh.jpg

probably not own work https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=de&re=df&p=AbrfA8poHPO4668-R6az97bFtzOEbLIrUIdbh6VdbKkIW0cXwReeh1AuoOHThsJA8XlnQChIgeQX7XZiX6UjpZBsiHErQ9xxll0jR7GiK1Pz4VrA4uKnv8pFZ6JwOcSWVt6XcErJjX7RhV86p9AejgrlhVWQ-ONNhpIEJ2HoSR_Vle6OvrKT0TXMx1ljN2p-2EJUjcOj1R8yZc4MCw%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR0UzWkRreFl6TTFMVFUyTUdVdE5EUTNOaTFpWTJGa0xUVTBaakJoTm1Jell6Y3pZUklmWTNkWFpWZzNZbTFCTm1kV05FWXpjRVF5ZGpoaFkzTXROV1ZuVkVkb2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW11dLFsiNzc5ODUwZmQtY2I3Ni00MDg2LThhNmQtMmU0NjExMzFmNmNhIl1d Mateus2019 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wassily Kandinsky - Inner Alliance - 1929.jpg

Copyright in Germany and other EU nations is life + 70 years.^[a] Since he died in 1944, this entered the public domain in Germany in 2014, well after the URAA date (1 January 1996). That means it is still copyrighted in the US. Freedom4U (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still almost public domain in the US next year, in 2025. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 04:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it can be reuploaded next year. It is still a copyright violation. Freedom4U (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

↑ The website for the museum which has the painting states 1922, zwei Jahre nach seinem Freund Klee, wurde auch Kandinsky als Meister an das 1919 gegründete Bauhaus in Weimar berufen, und wie für Klee wurden für ihn die vielen Jahre, die er dort verbrachte, zu einer äußerst produktiven schöpferischen Phase. and Es ist denkbar, dass sich in diesem 1929 gemalten Bild mit dem mysteriösen Titel Innerer Bund auch die Krise spiegelt, die das Bauhaus in eben diesem Jahr durchmachte. making it clear that he had made this in Weimar Germany in 1929.

File:Wassily Kandinsky - Inner Alliance.jpg

See nomination here Freedom4U (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasilij Kandinskij, Innerer Bund, 1929, sezione dx, foto scattata alla mostra Kandinskij. L'opera 1900-1940, Palazzo Roverella, Rovigo.jpg

See nomination here Freedom4U (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasilij Kandinskij, Innerer Bund, 1929, particolare, foto scattata alla mostra Kandinskij. L'opera 1900-1940, Palazzo Roverella, Rovigo.jpg

See nomination here Freedom4U (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasilij Kandinskij, Innerer Bund, 1929, foto scattata alla mostra Kandinskij. L'opera 1900-1940, Palazzo Roverella, Rovigo.jpg

See nomination here Freedom4U (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GO System Map 2.svg

Unusably low quality derivitive of File:GO System Map.svg. Out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Día de la Memoria 2016 - 02.JPG

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unclear reason, but if the subject of this nomination is the image of Eva Perón, the source work is PD (File:Evita.JPG). Frodar (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frodar, not a valid reason for deletion. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wassily kandinsky, testardo, 1929.JPG

Copyright in Germany and other EU nations is life + 70 years (The Brooklyn Museum confirms that this was made in Germany). Since he died in 1944, this entered the public domain in Germany in 2014, which is well after the URAA date (1 January 1996). That means it is still copyrighted in the US. Freedom4U (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TyreSour-AyatollahKhameneiBanner RomanDeckert01112018.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Lebanon A1Cafel (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @A1Cafel,

many thanks for checking potential copyright violations, which I really appreciate as a very important task. However, since your objection msot probably relates to Khamenei's photograph on the banner (I think it cannot concern the architecture of the pictured buildings since they are either too old or only partially depicted), I understand that official photos from Iran are generally in the public domain. Whatever one may think of the Iranian regime, it seems rather progressive in that regard and one can therefore find extraordinary amounts of official portraits etc. from Iran on Wikimedia Commons. Please consider this argument and let me check in the meantime to verify it.

Best regards from Geneva,

Roman RomanDeckert (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my focus is the banner of Mr. Khamenei, but I don't see any sign that media from the Iranian Government are in the Public Domain, also I don't see any indication that the banner was freely licensed. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwacher Bogen (Weak Arc) by Wassily Kandinsky, 1929.jpg

This work was published before 2003 (at bare minimum, it was published by 1994 when Vivian Barnett's book Kandinsky Watercolours was published, as mentioned here). This painting was made in Germany, and Germany and other EU nations have copyrights of life+70 years. That means this work was still copyrighted by the URAA date of 1 January 1996, making it copyrighted within the US. Freedom4U (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ben during Pre Production.png

This image is a cartoon animation of Ben 10, protected by copyright. Astrinko (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear copyvio. Günther Frager (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trente Kandinsky 1937.jpg

Copyright in France is life+70 years (painted in Paris), meaning this was still copyrighted by the URAA date (1 January 1996) and is therefore still copyright in the US. May be appropriate in French Wikipedia if they have local uploads. Freedom4U (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Wikipedia does not accept local uploads like illustrations, audio, or other files. Only copyrighted logos accepted, which had "skill and labour". Unlike Japanese Wikipedia, does not allow locally uploading copyrighted material. 206.42.27.113 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by BallonsDuMonde (talk · contribs)

Varying sizes and quality, multiple cameras. Doubtful own work.

--Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMNO logo.svg

UMNO was founded in 11 May 1946. While I couldn't find an original publication date for this work, assuming it was made in 1946 or later, the copyright of this work extended until at least 31 December 1996 in Malaysia. That means that this work was copyrighted on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, making it still copyright in the US. Perhaps it could be moved to Malay Wikipedia if they have local uploads. Freedom4U (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep URAA does not apply to logos, even there is no copyright restrictions in the US per Commons:Threshold of originality. --2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 04:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The URAA applies to all works which can be copyrighted in the US, specifically it does not make an exception for logos. It does not cover works that cannot be copyright in the US, but I seriously doubt this can be considered below the US threshold of originality. Freedom4U (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsure to have URAA-protection to have threshold of originality in logos, emblems, and other symbols. There is situation in Malaysia, it remains unsure. If you want to discuss about URAA in flags, emblems, logos and others, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 05:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas (born 1931) is the creator of UMNO's official logo. According to source, he design UMNO's logo during teenage for his uncle Dato'Onn Jaafar (founder of UMNO), that's about 1940-an. And UMNO owned the right of their party logo like other organization done. And the copyright has been expired in Malaysia but they still own the right as a trademark. That's another story.--白布飘扬 (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@白布飘扬 That source only states that he designed it as a teenager. That means he could have designed it anywhere from 1944 to as late as 1950. It doesn't evidence that this work was public domain by 1996. Freedom4U (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Malaysian copyright is life+50 years, so now that an author has been identified and confirmed as still alive, this is clearly still copyright in both Malaysia and the US. Freedom4U (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he still reserves the copyright but it has been donated to UMNO since the party formed. That's why less document mention his name about the logo history.-- 白布飘扬 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@白布飘扬: But there is no consensus about URAA on flags, symbols, and logos. Perhaps, this symbol depicts a Islamic calligraphy-like symbols, for example, the shahada and tughra. In Malaysia, the threshold of originality for organizational logos or symbols are currently unsure. 2001:4452:152:2600:75FD:A8E4:FCD3:969 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@白布飘扬: I would also request to keep for Commons:Deletion requests/File:UMNO (Malaysia).svg. 2001:4452:152:2600:75FD:A8E4:FCD3:969 10:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The logo is a calligraphy, spelling out the letters ف ک م ب, an abbreviation of فرتوبوهن کبڠساءن ملايو برساتو, which is United Malays National Organisation in Malay. It is textual and not eligible for copyright similar to signatures. EmpAhmadK (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that it was a calligraphy. Image should then be kept then since lettering can't be copyright unless they are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship. Freedom4U (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Keris symbol ineligible for copyright protection in the US as an abstract isotype. For example, according to this infographic, showing how the "threshold of originality" varies by region, it depicts an abstract "Wilbur" isotype can be protected in Austria, UK and other "skill and labour" countries, but the exception in the US. 201.217.246.212 01:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMNO logo baru1.jpg

Same reasoning as here Freedom4U (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Non-sense nomination. --114.134.90.33 04:48, 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.

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

Private images, Commons is not a Webspace provider or a social media platform.

Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of these are usable photos of dogsled teams, gondolas, etc. Please request deletion of the photos in which individuals are posing, not the entire lot of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree. These have to be checked image by image. Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: deleted the out of scope ones, kept any borderline or in scope ones. feel free to renominate individual files. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

The user seems to upload entire Flcikr albums without paying attention to the content. The albums have several good images, but they also contain typical personal / family photos that have no educational purpose. The files on these DR fall in the latter category.

Günther Frager (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first 9 photos, and they are indeed all personal images. I would trust that Günther has accurately described all of these, and if so, they should indeed be deleted unless there are any views that are otherwise valuable and we lack photos of them without people posing in them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

Violation of COM:FOP Japan. Copyrighted characters.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Günther Frager (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma Watson 2023 head and shoulders 1.jpg

Youtube [3] not cc-by shizhao (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And File:Emma Watson 2023 head and shoulders 1 (cropped).jpg shizhao (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? It literally has the Template:Youtube license, see the video description TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder It's not the file that is missing a license. It's the YouTube video itself that is missing a cc license. You can only upload screenshots of YouTube videos if the video itself was published under a compatible cc license. I'm not seeing any obvious cc license tag in the video description. Nakonana (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video has the CC youtube license, click on see more under the video and the license section TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you are right, the license is there. It's just at the very, very bottom, below the video description. So,

Keep. Nakonana (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Video has a cc license. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 12:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KasabianForCryingOutLoud.jpg

Out of scope Astrinko (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMNO (Malaysia).svg

This article confirms that this flag is from sometime in 1946. That means that its copyright in Malaysia extended until at least 31 December 1996. Since this work was still copyrighted on the URAA date of 1 January 1996, it is still copyright in the US. Freedom4U (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no evidence of threshold of originality in Malaysia, so this logo is ineligible for copyright. --2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 04:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this even mean? Of course Malaysia has a threshold of originality, you can't have copyright law without it. Within Malaysia, since they use the common law system as a former British colony, we can assume they apply the restrictive British TOO. In the US (which is the applicable nation here, since it's out of copyright in Malaysia), this also more than likely falls above the TOO.^[1] Freedom4U (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is too complex to have copyright protection. If you want to discuss about symbols, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 05:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is too complex to have copyright protection. I'm sorry? Freedom4U (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag depicted with kris is almost ineligible for copyright protection for silhouette design. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 05:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep British copyright cannot apply in Malaysia as the cut off date was on 7 April 1956 for West Malaysia where UMNO was created, and the British Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was made in 1988. The copyright law that governs anything in Malaysia, including what was formerly the Federated Malay States, would use the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987. Under Copyright Act 1987, this file falls under public domain as it was created circa 1946, over 50 years before today. The kris is a symbol based on a weapon that has been designed centuries ago (even used as a cultural symbol for a long time), which means there's no threshold of originality even under US law, comparable to the Yin-Yang symbol or Fleur de Lis as they are historically common designs. EmpAhmadK (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the flag is currently in the public domain in Malaysia (my point was simply that it was eligible for copyright in Malaysia, a point brought up in the previous discussions linked here). The Keris, as depicted, is not a common shape or symbol like the Yin Yang or the Fleur de Lis. This depiction contains irregular sharp corners, curves and other features that contain the modicum of creativity to protect the work in the United States.^[2] Freedom4U (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Keris symbol ineligible for copyright protection in the US as an abstract isotype. For example, according to this infographic, showing how the "threshold of originality" varies by region, it depicts an abstract "Wilbur" isotype can be protected in Austria, UK and other "skill and labour" countries, but the exception in the US. 201.217.246.212 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UMNO (8412857015).jpg

Per my nomination here Freedom4U (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Non-sense nomination. 2001:4452:152:2600:549A:7BE:31C5:B6B0 04:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by TheLoyalOrder (talk · contribs)

Not cc-by-sa, see Copyright and privacy of source

shizhao (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you linked says it images from that site under crown copyright are licensed "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand". Whoever uploaded the original I cropped these from put the wrong license but its still a valid license so should just go through and change the license to the correct one. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Paisajes360.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo LSMConseil.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LogoADN.JPG

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Worldgroup Worldgroupgames (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo ostadhesab.gif

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jeanbasurto (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images for station; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bruno Caitano de Almeida Neves (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Esibitar (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lidogeneraciy.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo.shan.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:18, 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.

File:Madhabkunda waterfall in winter.jpg

Author request Shahriar Islam Alvi (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful, and no reason given to request deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, CC licenses are not revokable. --Strakhov (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madhabkunda waterfall in winter.jpg

Unused file without context. 2404:1C40:390:D65E:38A1:D4EC:8D94:BFAB 06:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many unused files without context on Commons. This is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason for deletion. Also, the photo is categorized, so it does have context. Günther Frager (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Test fotka za Sandobx 2016.jpg

low quality personal drawing, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Allec Petrescu Art Gallery (talk · contribs)

Credited to Jorge Allec - we need VRT for the photo and the artwork

Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:الشعار الرئيسي.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company (see userpage); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upacara HUT ke-79 RI di Istana Garuda, Nusantara (IKN) - 2024.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a panorama of public asset, whose photo taken by the national government. It is public domain. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph was freely licensed, but this photo showed a newly constructed building, and this violated the architect's copyright. On Commons, freedom of panorama (FoP) is an 'exemption" to photograph a copyrighted artwork/building without asking for permission. Since Indonesia doesn't have FoP, permission from the architect is required. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Joko Widodo inspecting the construction of the Presidential Palace in Nusantara, 5 June 2024 (2).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question The buildings are under construction which is protected by copyright? TentingZones1 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building is almost completed, and it is complex enough to be copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:President and Regional Heads in Indonesia's State Palace.jpeg

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a panorama of public asset, whose photo taken by the national government. It is public domain. Bluesatellite (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The photograph was freely licensed, but this photo showed a newly constructed building, and this violated the architect's copyright. On Commons, freedom of panorama (FoP) is an 'exemption" to photograph a copyrighted artwork/building without asking for permission. Since Indonesia doesn't have FoP, permission from the architect is required. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:صورة اصلان شهيد.png

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:가수이박사.png

Obviously a screenshot and unlikely own work, as the other uploads of this user. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with:

Files uploaded by Saugdgsiudk (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: alternate history content.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These "cropped" images that have had their information corrected:

Comment Source file for File:Lowden Later Crop.png doesn't appear on Commons, but found a version at NYPL. No clear PD statement there, but file was uploaded with 1928 creation date.

Delete All the "Kaiserreich ElectoralCollege" maps as alternate history. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Publicidad de Sr. Santos (Arcangel).jpg

Advertising billboards are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main subject here is the building, not the billboard --Wilfredor (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the category and the usage on enwiki+eswiki, the advertisement is clearly the subject of this photo, so de minimis cannot apply. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am referring to the photo visually, I see a photo of a building, regardless of aspects of its use and categorization, name, etc. that can be changed. Wilfredor (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/4 July 2006 incategory:"Photographs_by_Mack_Male"

Mass upload from Flickr included these images of a wedding - They prominently feature people who I doubt have given their permission, and these are out of scope. For privacy reasons please delete these.

-- Deadstar (msg) 08:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should second-guess privacy, but my question would be whether these are personal images that lack sufficient educational value to be hosted by Commons. Maybe File:Throwing the bouquet (181207449).jpg or one or two other photos (File:Walking down the aisle (181202785).jpg?) could be kept as potentially useful, but I'll leave that decision to the closing admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysaliksen Temppeli.jpg

It is no longer in use and I do not want my name to be associated to the file anymore Riina Kantola (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luminary Blackthorn.png

The photo is out of date and I do not want my name to be associated to the file anymore Riina Kantola (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a pretty interesting photo, though. I'd want to keep it but feel bad if it would give you pain. You did give this an irrevocable CC license, but I don't think it's likely to be a selfie, and if it isn't, it should be deleted on the basis that there is no proof of consent to the license by the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Eckernförde

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Walter Baasch, who died in 1964. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2035.

Rosenzweig τ 09:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Austria with sudetland.jpg

it's a (low quality) photo of an existing file Kreuzecharmeur (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Gampe (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wiki24+Bubi-Pros (talk · contribs)

Book covers etc , none of which have exif. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones that I have clicked have exif data (if we're just talking about the images). As for what they depict, this might be a case for VRT — the uploader is possibly the author of those books. File:WP16-P057.C1- 03.2024 - Werkzeuge - MG 5738.tif has an email address printed on it that contains "Bubipros", i.e. Bubi-pros. And the uploader's username is "Wiki24+Bubi-Pros". @Wiki24+Bubi-Pros wenn Sie der Urheber der abgebildeten Bücher und Fotos sind, dann schicken Sie bitte eine Email an die Leute bei COM:VRT. — Nakonana (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I've gone through them all and if I didn't miss any, then all photos, except for the last one (File:P054.C03.02 - 11.09.2021.jpg), have exif data. They were also all taken with the same camera, with the exception of the second to last one (File:OB06.22-a - Vergoldeofen - Spiritus - DSCN7698.tif). Most of them also don't show book covers but bookbinding tools. The only files that show book covers or pages from a book are:

File:P054.C03.02 - 11.09.2021.jpg — the photo that is lacking exif data
File:WP15-P056.C402.01-280619 - Sonderarbeiten- AMG 5741.tif
File:WP14-P054.C03.02-11.09.2021 - Buchobjekte - AMG 5740.tif
File:WP16-P057.C1- 03.2024 - Werkzeuge - MG 5738.tif
File:WP08-P317.01 - Schliessen und Beschläge.tif

Nakonana (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also quoting a statement by the user from De Wiki regarding this topic: "Die eingestellten Bilder sind alle von mir aufgenommen und mein Eigentum. Ich komme zur Zeit nicht dazu alle Anforderungen zu erfüllen. [...] Bitte geben Sie mir Zeit." Nakonana (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LennaDuFin2023.jpg

no author given, cannot be a selfie as is claimed Hoyanova (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Emanuele currò (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work, more than one is credited to the military in a watermark. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civic Boulevard Entrance, Syntrend Creative Park 20220806.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan メイド理世 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only copyrightable portions of the image are the characters, possibly one of the logos, possibly the musical notes, and the warning sign. All are believed to be de minimis. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This character from japanese anime, so de minimis cannot apply. of can blurred this characters. メイド理世 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Commons:De minimis verbatim; "De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required."

The photo appears to focus more on the building, rather than the characters, who appear to be pretty trivial parts of the image and not a focus. I'm not an expert, so I'm sending this to the village pump immediately. I'll reply once I get an answer. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you may have been right. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not de minimis. The copyrighted material makes the photo interesting. Glrx (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish man from siirt province 2021.png

File:Shiva gardi award by rudaw.png

Author:Sikorki?! 186.173.14.172 10:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Sikorki (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sabetcommons (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own work. Mix of cameras, no exif and exif with FBMD. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, agradezco la contribución. Las fotografías son todas propiedad Xisco Barceló, el sale en todas ellas en compañía de distintas personalidades públicas y del mundo del espectáculo y que participan en sus eventos. Estas imágenes fueron tomadas por su propia cámara y smartphone, bajo la autorización de las personas que en ellas aparecen. Ruego por tanto se considere su permanencia.

Sin embargo, la última imagen subida https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homenaje_a_Los_Javaloyas_en_Teatre_Principal_de_Palma_y_Auditori_de_Manacor.png aunque si es cierto que presenta el evento y así figura en el cartel oficial, realmente no es obra suya, lo cual no tuve en cuenta a la hora de subirla y creo correcto su eliminación. El resto como comento, son propiedad del Xisco Barceló

Muchas gracias Sabetcommons (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish clothes in various regions.jpg

Author is María T. O'Shea 186.173.14.172 11:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sikorki (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ewa Lipska, Kraków 2024.jpg

Ewa Lipska (the person in the photo) withdrew her consent to publish this image and asked me to remove it as soon as possible. JanuszJablonski (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per COM:PEOPLE. People can change their minds about photos of themselves, and that's totally fair. Ewa Lipska has clearly withdrawn her consent for the publication of this image, and her request for its removal should be respected. WTM (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE and uploaded in January, way beyond the courtesy deletion period. The photo was also taken in public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rizki86 (talk · contribs)

These logos look too complex to be free

Gbawden (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JZimbalist (talk · contribs)

Mix of cameras, all credited to someone. PCP for the others. Category:Jeff Zimbalist Can also be deleted after this

Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frank Weyen.jpg

Probable copyright violation. The uploader declares the picture as an own work. But he ist obviously identical with the person depicted on the photo. It is hardly beleivable that he took it with a self tomer. He probably confounds the right to use the photo, that he holds, with the copyright, that the photographer holds. Thus, the declaration is dubious. Zweioeltanks (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by SamVuFabianDivani (talk · contribs)

male masturbation files with intentionally misleading file-title, file-info, thumbnail; nonsense file info

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by UtahLyon (talk · contribs)

One credited to David lubbers, another to Dave Titensor / The University of Utah - PCP for the 3rd, none of these are own work

Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MacOSX Server1.0 Logo.png

The gears are probably above the threshold of originality, despite being arranged into a letter. Xeroctic (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Group-413.png

Copy of https://www.calogena.com/calogena-notre-solution-technique/, under copyright Pa2chant.bis (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Bibliothek Witten

copyright violation; book covers and mural are contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo quality is quite poor. So it shouldn’t be a copyright violation. Reclus (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reclus (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First and last one might be borderline cases, but as for the rest, I'd say

Keep per de minimis. Nakonana (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep de minimis cases. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing copyrightable on the last one. Just a list without creativity. Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wall-painting! Martin Sg. (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Witten Zentralbibliothek Übersicht.jpg could be problematic because of the "Erased Wall Painting." File:Witten Zentralbibliothek Kinderbibliothek 5.jpg might contain violation of the copyrights of the stuffed animals. File:Witten Zentralbibliothek Kinderbibliothek 1.jpg might or might not be de minimis in regard to the book covers, though if so, that could be remedied by blurring them more. The other 2 are definitely de minimis views of rooms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recognise that there's an artsy wall painting (or what remains of it, whatever...). These stuffed animals should count as de minimis as per common sense – this photograph would "work" with any other stuffed animal there or even with no one. Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. I am definitive only in regard to the 2 photos that are definitely de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Janier Molano (talk · contribs)

per COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST. Personal/Private photo(s).

大诺史 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per COM:INUSE. 大诺史 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Request withdrawn by the nominater. (non-admin closure) -- CptViraj (📧) 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Janier Molano (talk · contribs)

Various low quality files of derivative works, logos etc, unlikely own work

~TheImaCow (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture De Kapitan Massalanra Van lowa.jpg

This photo has been edited without permission from the original owner Feryardi167 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where can we see the original? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Uttarbanga Tourism.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pasquale Florio (talk · contribs)

Photos of non-notable band, questionable if own work

~TheImaCow (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jeunes Leaders de Lokossa (talk · contribs)

Low quality photos of random event without context/EXIF, out of scope

File:Jeunes Leaders de Lokossa au soutien de Talon.jpg
- Context is in the title, I added categories and description
File:AFANOU Landry.jpg
File:HOUNNOUANDJAN Mahoulawè Jean-Fernando.jpg
File:Jeunes Leaders.jpg
- Context is in the title, I added categories and description
File:Jeunes Leaders de Lokossa au soutien de Talon Talata.jpg
- Context is in the title, I added categories and description --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:AGBASSOU Crespin le vis-président.jpg

~TheImaCow (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added categories and description for the 3 group photos which may be of interest to illustrate articles on WP. The 3 others one are single members of the same group, tell me if you want I add quite the same categories. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 20 IMG 5233.JPG

Unused low-quality random image of nondescript fence and bushes, no educational value, out of scope. Also added for similar reason:

-- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's a garden with corn in it, if they want to delete it they can I don't have any problems with it Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Customers lining up at Lawson store, WFC Beijing (20200721114934).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China メイド理世 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep De minimis. S5A-0043^Talk 08:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the character is too prominent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jblancoibarreta (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snow01.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cleartrip.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Routofy wordmark.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Washburn tornado 2017-02-28.jpg

This image was taken in 2017 in the United States by Cameron Nixon.

There is no claim that he was a US Federal government employee performing his duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As an image made in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

Nixon sells prints of his image here: https://www.limitless-printing.com/printsforsale/p/nightmare and, not that it's required, but the page carries an explicit copyright notice: ©2024 A Limitless Production Group LLC Company

This image is not free. Rlandmann (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Comment — Cameron Nixon works for NOAA: SPC Staff. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to reach out to him to ask if he made this in the course of his duties (or subsequently released it into the public domain, or would be willing to)? --Rlandmann (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further information. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this guy literally works for the NOAA. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But Rlandmann has a point in that just because he was an employee doesn’t mean he was acting in his official duties. I would recommend that someone try to contact him and ask him directly if it’s PD. If he says that it is; well then my !vote is going to be a strong speedy keep. But if he says it’s not; then I’m probably going to be pinging a couple of Commons admins like I did with that other image and get their take on speedy deletion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed him. Let's see what he says. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Welshwiki2022 (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused fictitious symbols.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:11 30 pm (5736086928).jpg

Unused photo of non-notable event/persons, no educational value, out of scope. Likely personality rights issue as well. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anguillara Veneta-Stemma.svg

Questo stemma non è quello del comune di Anguillara Veneta, deve assolutamente essere cambiata l'immagine riportanto lo stemma corretto che si può trovare nella pagina del sito del comune di anguillara veneta 79.45.48.210 15:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lo stemma è conforme alla blasonatura (riportata qui), pertanto è corretto. Neq00 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bhilgi (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely site rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Saskatoon

Unused poor quality random photos, nothing meaningful visible or just unusable, out of scope. Part of uncurated mass upload.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's donated to Creative Commons; if you don't see a use for it, don't use it. These are useable pictures and appear to be better than most pictures on Wikipedia. Note that your bot is not looking at the right context when it comes to the pictures. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6442.JPG - https://meewasin.com/ - It's a hiking valley crop in Saskatoon - they have benches and much more around the province. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 08 25 IMG 6478.JPG is not just a random sidewalk in the middle of nowhere, part of River Landing a common public space. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just appears to be a not so good image recognition algorithm backed by a confused human Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6299.JPG is a good picture showing public issues in the right context, editors will want this and won't find it if it is removed. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some images must be blurry due to copyright laws. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6359.JPG The algorithm seems to have trouble with rocks and fences. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6364.JPG This is public art and for sure your image recognition algorithm didn't know that. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6487.JPG public art Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6503.JPG yes, the image recognition algorithm to figure it out but it's a statue the car is for the copyright laws. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6524.JPG framed like that to give it the context of the traffic bridge in Saskatoon. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6528.JPG faces of people are not visible and it's showing a landmark. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6625.JPG it's a bridge with painted rocks. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6653.JPG bridge river rock seen from another bridge. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 25 IMG 6661.JPG The rocks are important; you must stop attacking rocks. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 08 26 IMG 7395.JPG hot air balloon might be out of scope. The River Landing rocks are not out of scope and fences don't make pictures blurry. !!! Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm addressing some concerns about how images I've uploaded to Wikipedia are being handled. These images are donated under Creative Commons, so they’re free to use, but it seems like an image recognition algorithm is misinterpreting their content. For example, several photos I uploaded from Saskatoon, showing public art, landmarks, and natural features like rocks and fences, seem to be getting misclassified or considered irrelevant. These images are important because they provide necessary context for articles, and I’m worried that they might be removed or overlooked due to these algorithmic errors. I want to make sure these valuable images aren't dismissed just because the algorithm didn’t recognize their significance. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you accusing of being an "image recognition algorithm"? Omphalographer (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of photos in this mass upload, but I only nominated a few. So I have been very, very selective. These are really shitty images and are unusable, no benefit to Commons, especially since there are better alternatives in this massive set of images anyway. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You Looked at all of the picture with as much thought as me the entire catalog of them. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person I was replying to P 1 9 9 - that's two different massage. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving options with the subjects and perspectives. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What wonders me is, why do these photos have such a low resolution? Is this intentional? Looking at other images made by the same camera model (https://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_rebel_t6/), they are all at a much much better quality?

So, if you are already dumping thousands of such photos without any of them having any description or generally any curation whatsoever, then they should at least be of decent quality. ~TheImaCow (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's for compression Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to update the tags so just wait there is more info in the coming months. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

decent quality yes but I feel like compression is more important. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's common for other people to tag the pictures on Wikimedia Commons takes too much work. So, if that's the only issue you should wait or erase all of the pictures I have ever uploaded. Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader of these images, you are expected to describe and tag them appropriately. Don't upload images with the expectation that someone else can figure out what they are. Omphalographer (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not taking up any space don't delete them - all of them are less than 500KB so just keep it and people will find use as I add more tags on them Dfsjlk1 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is no reason to keep useless photos. If everyone treated Commons the way you do - by just dumping all your images on Commons as if it were your own storage medium - it would become unmanageable (which it already is to some extent). In additionto what User:Omphalographer said, you should be selective in what you upload and then describe and categorize it properly. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more of these photos here: Category:Media with default locations

They have terrible file names, no categories, no desctiptions, and default coordinates. They are not usable by the community like this. Uschoen (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mer-Niga burns the snakeskin. Image facing page 26.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no license (No license since)

Artist Hilda Roberts died in 1982, Undelete in 2053. This is PD in the US so it can be uploaded to English Wikipedia Abzeronow (talk) 15:44, 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.

File:Logo Coyote.png

not own work/possible copyvio. Bracquetball (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Coyote.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope (previous DR was delete, also unclear if it's the same entity) Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Home Hygiene Products.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 16:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belkys.png

likely copyrighted artwork. Ooligan (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renthobo Tag full.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VioletaHodar.jpg

Not freely licensed Brunnaiz (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Wallonia (1913).svg

This rooster is an extraction of the cockerel from the painting Le coq hardi by Pierre Paulus (1913). This work falls within the scope of Belgian copyright law. (https://economie.fgov.be/fr/themes/propriete-intellectuelle/droits-de-propriete/droits-dauteur-et-droits/droits-dauteur/protection-des-oeuvres/duree-du-droit-dauteur). The rooster that can be used is the one from legal decree of Walloon Region Sthubertliege (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual painting, which the legal decree just traced, is also on Commons. Cfr. Category:Pierre Paulus

I no longer care enough to argue about the specifics of this. I will not resist this being deleted until 70 years after the death of Paulus, which is already at the end of this decade. And if in the meantime this spares me from the incessant spam in my inbox caused by Sthubertliege's bizarre edit wars, sock puppetry and vandalism, I'll be very happy indeed. Tom-L (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the flags from the Flag of Wallonia category use the design by Pierre Paulus (including the current official one and a file you created, Sthubertliege). If we delete this file because of a copyright interpretation, we'll also have to delete all the others. It doesn't seem to me that such a drastic measure is necessary, given the problem you raise.--Lionel June (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteYou are mistaken. The rooster I imported corresponds to the rooster on the flag and coat of arms of Wallonia as defined by a legal decree (decree of 23 July 1998 : https://connaitrelawallonie.wallonie.be/sites/wallonie/files/livres/fichiers/98_07_23_decret_emblemes_gaillarde_1.pdf). Article 2 of which states that the rooster may be used on its own as a symbol of Wallonia. I am therefore authorised to import this version of the rooster. Legal rooster of the flag which by its very nature is in the public domain. You may notice that the drawing of the rooster in the legal decree is not at all the same as the one in the painting (particularly the head). This file « flag or Wallonie (1913) » should be removed from Wikipedia because it represents a transformation of a work for which copyright can still be obtained. In fact, this is what the Wallonia website indicates (https://connaitrelawallonie.wallonie.be/fr/histoire-et-symboles/symboles/un-embleme-le-coq-hardi: "Copyright Province de Liège - musée de la vie wallonne"). This file must be deleted and can be imported when copyright can no longer be claimed on the work (2029). Sthubertliege (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by W barbara (talk · contribs)

Very low quality "icons" of youtube interface, out of scope, unused

~TheImaCow (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Natietietie (talk · contribs)

personal artwork, out of scope

~TheImaCow (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LIE000090.jpg

Per source this is a 2013 painting by Etzlstorfer Hannes, based on an anonymous painting. No suggestion at source that Hannes released it under a free licence. noemuseen.at releases their photo of it as CC BY-ND, which is a forbidden licence at Commons. Belbury (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury I'am sorry I haven't seen that this kind of images can't be uploaded. Delete it if it's forbidden. I will try to find another source for the portrait that is open source. Kkupus (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Eudatto (talk · contribs)

Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before upload (e.g., File:Solange recebendo o trofeu danado de bom. .png is here), user copyvio history, etc.

Эlcobbola _talk 18:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by RickyCourtney (talk · contribs)

These images have several problems:

They use {{PD-NASA}} and {{PD-SpaceX}} and it imposible as only one of them can be the copyright holder
The metadata gives credit to SpaceX, but it doesn't state they have a CC0 license.
The Source is https://images.nasa.gov/ that gives no information, as they are not available on the front page.

To keep these images, we need the actual sources that prove their have a CC0 license.

Günther Frager (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, the NASA website is a mess when it comes to licenses. These images have all the hallmarks of being shot by SpaceX, for the benefit of NASA, and therefore should be covered by public disclosure law. I think we could make an argument to that effect. However, I found the same images on Flickr and NASA has indeed tagged them as CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (the new SpaceX photo license).

(For example File:Jsc2024e050150.jpg is https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/53879108383/in/album-72177720314540969 on Flickr)

I'll let other, more experienced editors decide what should be done. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We treat if "use NASA image policy" is written for that Pic in Flickr that means we must use PD-NASA which is allowed on wiki @RickyCourtney say that treating these are nasa images but they are sold to NASA by SpaceX or something like that

If credit doesnt say NASA dont use it. So far out of 84 NASA Johnson Flickr images only 8 are under this lisencing. RIP B1058 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compare nasa kennedy with nasa Johnson. Nasa has bad habit of listing non nasa but nasa affiliated project images like SpaceX, gctc in its catalog so we must be careful. RIP B1058 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not entirely clear on the point that you are trying to make. However, I do notice a lot of those images, taken by NASA employees, are also tagged with CC BY-NC-ND licenses. I believe these would absolutely fall under our PD guidelines.

I guess my question for the images credited to SpaceX is… if the image is taken on restricted government property, of government employees, in the commission of their acts as a government employees, and the staff is being paid through a government contract, and the photos are for the benefit of the government agency to promote its work, at what point do these photos become subject to public disclosure/domain? RickyCourtney (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you made a thing and sold your patent to another. The other person gets copyrights. Same for NASA Kennedy images, whether its criedited to SpaceX, if its says "use NASA image policy" its literally under NASA PD laws. The other images in NASA Johnson aren't with this tag so their copyrights are likely still with or never left SpaceX. So they must only be under deletion discussion, if i am right. RIP B1058 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly almost all NASA images in Flickr or image.nasa.gov are CC BY-NC-ND licensed. But what i know if the image is NASA lisenced, PD-NASA overrids in all types of CC lisenses on those files. RIP B1058 (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASA image policy[4] states the following regarding third parties:

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.

Also, your argument of work for hire [5] is only relevant for salaried employees or if there is a written agreement between parties. These images were made and credited to SpaceX. They are not an US employees and there is no indication they transferred the copyrights. Günther Frager (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager I am still not clear what's the use of "use NASA image policy" then in NASA kennedy. Explain it to clear my doubts. RIP B1058 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RIP B1058: I don't know what is your doubt. Flickr says "use NASA image policy" and the mentioned policy says that for third party content you should contact the copyright holder if you plan to reuse it. That is, if you want to reuse the image you linked you should contact SpaceX. Günther Frager (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then ok RIP B1058 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above two are conditions for NASA third party imae usage.@RickyCourtney RIP B1058 (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So File:Jsc2024e050149.jpg, File:Jsc2024e052322.jpg and File:Jsc2024e050140.jpg must be excluded RIP B1058 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all SpaceX work without an explicit CC0 licence tag. The new "standard" licence of SpaceX is a CC "no commercial" licence which is not free enough for Commons --Ras67 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood @Ras67 but how to track other SpaceX images. Wikimedia Commons is flooded with such images. RIP B1058 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ras67@RickyCourtney@Günther Frager https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/ is the tool as only their images are allowed but even if you track all most will be left as many don't use nasa Kennedy in their image source while publishing. RIP B1058 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RIP B1058: That Commons is full of images that should be deleted is not an argument to keep an image in DR. If you find a problematic image you can start a DR. I should also point you out that in the past SpaceX released their images under CC0 and that is the case for the majority of images in the category Media by SpaceX. Günther Frager (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Výletní.jpg

book covers are copyrighted, not own work, see XIF Gampe (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oflajňák.jpg

book civers are copyrighted Gampe (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inxignia JV .jpg

Old file The Sammirs (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rankec.7 (talk · contribs)

User with bad history, small images of personalities without EXIF data, unlikely to be works.

Yann (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:West Park Hospital.jpg

Replaced the image with a better pic Cltjames (talk) 19:15, 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.

Files uploaded by Nyasha20245 (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE as nothing educational other than raw text.

Belbury (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nyasha20245 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: plain text. These research papers don't appear to have been published. (They also look like they may have been previously deleted above.)

Omphalographer (talk) 19:16, 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.

File:Zhong youtube01.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: YouTube statistics. Useless for Wikipedia article too. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in use. --93.132.83.238 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zhong youtube01.png

Out of scope, unused low quality screenshot of stats on random video, no longer in use (ping also User:EugeneZelenko from previous nom) ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris 2024 decoration at the Olympics.jpg

Primarily focuses on non-free banners, which lack FOP in France. One of the banners contains a flame within a circle posing as a "0". De minimis doesn't apply, so the photo doesn't belong here. George Ho (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:19140825 Krecic e Weber Norbert a.jpg

If this is "own work" -- the user's own writing, rendered as a jpg file -- how can it possibly be in scope? (Similar questions arise for all of the content of Category:Caduti I Guerra Mondiale Trieste, but I thought I'd start with one test case.) Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out of scope as plain text regardless. The maps in some of the other images in the category might be in scope, but the text-only images certainly aren't. Omphalographer (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erin Sanders August 2023.png

Nominating a photo I uploaded for deletion per criteria G7 (author or uploader request deletion). Also, the Youtube channel/uploader has chosen to remove the Creative Commons license of the video. Diddykong1130 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cosa azul.png

random blue square w/ throwaway description, clearly out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:BAV Schienennetz

User dos no longer exist BAV Schienennetz (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tri State Tornado F5.png

Copyright violation, manipulated image of Wichita Falls, Texas tornado made to look older. Cutlass ^Ciera 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god this is getting removed. I should have known better when I found this image on the website I had found.CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dk Palash.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo proiect.jpeg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gracefoolee85 (talk · contribs)

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Naii16 (talk · contribs)

Low quality photographs of generic plants, PDF format, which is highly unsuitable for photographs

~TheImaCow (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Neodeltos (talk · contribs)

I would assume these designs are copyrighted? Please have a look. Thanks.

Sinigh (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SmithvilleSUV.jpg

This photo was taken in Mississippi in 2011. The NWS attributes its sourcee as the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency.

The MEMA is not a federal agency, but an agency of the Mississippi state government.[6][7]. Works of the Mississippi state government are not ineligible for copyright.[8] and there is no claim that this image is ineligible for any other reason.

As an image made in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

I have attempted to verify MEMA's ownership of this image and their willingness to release it, but have been told "I have reviewed our records and can not find any pictures MEMA took from the Smithville tornado. MEMA may or may not have taken that picture, but if we did, it has been lost in our archives."

Per COM:HIRTLE, unless ownership can be established, this image will enter the public domain in 2107 as an w:orphan work. Until then, we must delete it as an unfree image. Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The image is used by third-party news organizations (with editorial reviews). Per w:The Weather Channel in [9] & [10] & [11] & [12]: Mississippi Emergency Management Agency/NWS-Memphis, Tennessee. Per WAPT in [13]: National Weather Service Office in Memphis. Per Weather Underground in [14] (no attribution). In a self-published article by Eric Brown, a meteorologist from University of South Alabama, credit was "NOAA" for the photo. Given MEMA did not verify they owned the photo, and we have sources attributing them along with NOAA, we have enough to say PD. I do not believe their is "significant doubt". Basically: NOAA says MEMA took it. MEMA said they cannot verify if they took it. RS media and meteorologists attribute both MEMA and NOAA. The lack of "significant doubt" to me came from MEMA failing to claim ownership of it. PRP says "significant doubt", not "any doubt". We have not hit the threshold in my opinion to call it "significant" doubt. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, unless ownership is established; we get to wait 83 years before it becomes PD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that would be true, then we 100% ignore the words of RS media and the words of the U.S. government. Like I said, just because they couldn’t say on the spot “we took the photo”, doesn’t mean they didn’t. What it does mean though is there is no proof or evidence it is copyrighted. We have a disclaimer saying it is PD, RS media attributing the U.S. government (i.e. a PD license), and the person who was said to have taken the photo can’t even verify if they took it. There is literally no evidence it is copyrighted, while there are statements of it being free-to-use. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antoine Lebel At CyberSocket 2016.png

It was online in 2016, see Lens. 186.175.144.44 21:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:French Twinks Prowler Awards 2018.jpg

Small file by unreliable uploader. 186.175.144.44 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinkaw.jpg

Published in La Voi du X before upload. Use Lens. 186.175.144.44 21:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tj2376207 (talk · contribs)

Unused (mostly) low quality personal pictures of non-contributor, out of scope.

Nutshinou ^Talk! 22:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EF3CampCrookSDTornado2018.JPG

This image was taken in 2018 in South Dakota by Daniel Kalbach.

There is no claim that he was a US Federal government employee performing his duties, or that this image is ineligible for copyright for any other reason.

As an image made in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

Prior to the NWS's publication of this photo, it appeared in w:The Ekaklaka Eagle, the day after the tornado.[15]

Not that it's been required since 1989, but the newspaper's footer includes an explicit copyright notice: "© Copyright 2024" and its copyright policy reads in part: "Any commercial or promotional distribution, publishing or exploitation of the Web Site, or any content, code, data or materials on the Web Site, is strictly prohibited unless you have received the express prior written permission from authorized personnel of The Ekalaka Eagle or the otherwise applicable rights holder. Other than as expressly allowed herein, you may not download, post, display, publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, modify, perform, broadcast, transfer, create derivative works from, sell or otherwise exploit any content, code, data or materials on or available through the Web Site. You further agree that you may not alter, edit, delete, remove, otherwise change the meaning or appearance of, or repurpose, any of the content, code, data, or other materials on or made available through the Web Site. This includes, without limitation, the alteration or removal of any Trademarks (as defined in Section 4 below) or any other proprietary content or proprietary rights notices. If you make other use of the Web Site, or the content, code, data or materials thereon, except as otherwise provided above, you may be subject to liability for such unauthorized use (including, without limitation, for violations of copyright and other applicable laws)."[16]

This is not a free image and we must delete it. Rlandmann (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Neutral per Rlandmann's below statement. (previous statement they replied to was deleted, as I admittedly can't figure out strikethroughs on source).Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you might have forgotten the part of the disclaimer that reads "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." And also that the NWS generally just captions works under third-party copyrights as "Courtesy of..." or "Photo by..." (examples), as they did here. That reading of the disclaimer only works if (a) you deliberately choose not read any more than one sentence of it, and (b) deliberately ignore all the evidence of how the NWS has generally applied captions to images. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pan Zhanle (潘展乐) celebrating at the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris in August 2024 (cropped).png

Copyright violation. Although the video is licensed as CC 3.0, the photo shown here which is used in the video, is taken by Rob Schumacher of USA Today and hence copyrighted. Source Bookish Worm (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ViploveTyagi (talk · contribs)

this appears to be a crop of an unknown original photo which the uploader should upload instead, else copyright is suspicious.

File:Udgaonkarin2000.jpg

RZuo (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear copyvio. The original image can be fond on https://ssbprize.gov.in/Content/Detail.aspx?AID=95. Günther Frager (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

↑ For example, the Juneteenth flag [17] is also above the US TOO and is similar in complexity.
↑ See, for example, the ruling on the Stitch Design logo for Cooperstown Vodka (decision).

[1] The website for the museum which has the painting states 1922, zwei Jahre nach seinem Freund Klee, wurde auch Kandinsky als Meister an das 1919 gegründete Bauhaus in Weimar berufen, und wie für Klee wurden für ihn die vielen Jahre, die er dort verbrachte, zu einer äußerst produktiven schöpferischen Phase. and Es ist denkbar, dass sich in diesem 1929 gemalten Bild mit dem mysteriösen Titel Innerer Bund auch die Krise spiegelt, die das Bauhaus in eben diesem Jahr durchmachte. making it clear that he had made this in Weimar Germany in 1929.

[2] For example, the Juneteenth flag [17] is also above the US TOO and is similar in complexity.

[3] See, for example, the ruling on the Stitch Design logo for Cooperstown Vodka (decision).

[a]

[1]

[2]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/30

August 30

Files uploaded by Razar08 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by BallonsDuMonde (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Fabe56 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by TheLoyalOrder (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Worldgroup Worldgroupgames (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Jeanbasurto (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Bruno Caitano de Almeida Neves (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Esibitar (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Allec Petrescu Art Gallery (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Saugdgsiudk (talk · contribs)

Files found with Special:Search/4 July 2006 incategory:"Photographs_by_Mack_Male"

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Eckernförde

Files uploaded by Wiki24+Bubi-Pros (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Emanuele currò (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Sabetcommons (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Rizki86 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by JZimbalist (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by SamVuFabianDivani (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by UtahLyon (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Interior of Bibliothek Witten

Files uploaded by Janier Molano (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Janier Molano (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Pasquale Florio (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Jeunes Leaders de Lokossa (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Jblancoibarreta (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Welshwiki2022 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Bhilgi (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Saskatoon

Files uploaded by W barbara (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Natietietie (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Eudatto (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by RickyCourtney (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Rankec.7 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Nyasha20245 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Nyasha20245 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Gracefoolee85 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Naii16 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Neodeltos (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Tj2376207 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by ViploveTyagi (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search