Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/31

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

August 31

[edit]
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.

Opening to contest speedy deletion ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋17:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep according to NWS photo submission information "By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others." Hence the photos are in the public domain and can be used on Commons ~Gwennie🐈💬 📋17:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons stated above. It is even stated in the {{PD-NWS}} template that third-party photographs submitted to the NWS "have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process." TornadoLGS (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per NWS provisions. --King of ♥ 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken in the United States in 2020.

The uploader sourced it to https://www.weather.gov/dmx/2020derecho and authorship and Mike Zevenbergen as the creator.

However, this image is not at that URL, and not in the Internet Archive snapshot two days after it was uploaded to Commons.

TinEye and Google Image searches do not find this image on any NWS site or channel. Other (unfree) sources credit the image to "Tim Rogers".[1][2], and others attribute a number of different people, including "Greg Galbraith For Agri-View"[3]

Bottom line, it appears that the uploader made a good-faith mistake while uploading other similar images, and we have nothing verifiable that connects this image with weather.gov.

Per COM:PRP we should delete this unless verifiable source info becomes available. Rlandmann (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will as a courtesy ping everyone involved in the previous deletion request: @Gwennie-nyan @TornadoLGS @King of Hearts Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Extraction from File:Muslim Percent Population.svg; uploaded simultaneously; not of much use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extraction from File:Muslim Percent Population-ar.svg; uploaded simultaneously; not of much use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted posters in Vietnam. Solomon203 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A formal PR picture of an Israeli businesswoman, clearly taken by a photographer. As there's no EXIF, it's probably copied from her LinkedIn account. Without a proper VRT (formerly, OTRS) release note, it cannot stay in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in-use picture of an unknown person. The Commons is not an online photo album and cannot be a repository for just anything. Ldorfman (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in-use picture of an unknown person. The Commons is not an online photo album and cannot be a repository for just anything. Ldorfman (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 91.126.85.34 as no source (No source) Krd 06:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: Personal photo with low quality Michel Bakni (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: Book covers Michel Bakni (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Noahjhittie (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused AI images supposedly depicting a food that looks noticeably different from the AI output.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a stretch to say that the photo looks noticeably different. True, the photo quality is much higher than an average stock photo, but the food itself is not depicted as significantly different than other versions. That being said, I would be more than willing to accept a Wiki user's own photo Shanzhagao over the photo I uploaded. Noahjhittie (talk) 22:49, 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.

This file was initially tagged by A1Cafel as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6|2=courtesy of Jason Ward, not works from NWS A1Cafel (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per NWS provisions. --King of ♥ 03:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken in the United States in 2020 by Jason Ward, a firefighter in Ottowa, Illinois.

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, a version of it (without the embedded caption that appears on weather.gov) was published by Shaw Media explaining how and where the photo was taken, and its significance.[4]

Not that it's been required since 1989, but Shaw Media's footer includes an explicit copyright notice: "Copyright © 2024 Shaw Local News Network"

The site's copyright policy says "This website (the “Service”) contains material that is protected by international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. Unless otherwise specified, the Service is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way any material, including code and software, from the Service."[5]

This image was uploaded to Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

  1. when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
  2. the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office.

Without clearer evidence that the creator intended to place this image in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings to all editors involved in the previous discussion: @A1Cafel @Gwennie-nyan @TornadoLGS @King of Hearts @SHB2000 Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


no permission from designer Barbara Muha Anne Hoyanova (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission from given photographer Keke Keukelaer Hoyanova (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stefanacci (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused AI images supposedly depicting real people, but in actuality generic faces with no basis in reality (because the AI would have no visualization of these people from which to train from). Should never be used, so out of scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Rider poster. {{NoFoP-Japan}}. 07:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Blurry and not clear, absolutely unusable in any article. In addition, the file name is also sloppy.

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.nimbarksocialwelfare.com/index.php/aacharyas/ Yann (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! This file:Parshuram Devacharya.png is being used free by the Indian printers offline. So can't we can use this online as well ? C (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Automatic10: What is the source? Which book? I guess it might be the reproduction of an old work, but we need more information. Yann (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get the direct link: [6]. Yann (talk) 09:59, 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.

This music is under copyright by the Vietnamese government under Law No. 36/2009/QH12. Therefore, this file is a free content only in the United States but non-free or potentially non-free in its country of origin. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: per Holly. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 87.229.205.227 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Probably sourced from YouTube Yann (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per previous DR. S5A-0043Talk 12:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very low resolution of a painting we have in different high resolution images Carl Ha (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a child taken at a non-public event is of concern in terms of privacy rights. Presumably, it is the editor's own child, trying to place it in as many wiki articles as possible. No added value to articles. Pallerti (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake image, unused and out of scope Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, copyrighted picture from the internet: https://socic.ru/org-info/employee-card?id=58 Leokand (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a screenshot from a video under copyright by WHO13 TV, Des Moines, shot by their reporter on the scene, Roger Riley. He posted it to X from the scene[8] (this frame is at about 0:06) and you can see it in context in WHO13's coverage as posted to YouTube[9] (frame is at about 1:34)

It was filmed in the United States in 2022.

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

As an video made in the United States after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made. Individual frames from a video under copyright are also under copyright.

This image was uploaded to Commons under rationales expressed in the {{PD-NWS}} template at the time; that

  1. when the weather.gov general disclaimer says that material not in the public domain will be specifically noted, it means that it must be published with a formal copyright notice. Whereas in reality, not only has the NWS never promised any specific form of notation, there is ample evidence to demonstrate this is not their general practice. This belief also chooses to ignore the words elsewhere in the disclaimer that state that third party images are used by the NWS under license, and to contact the third-party creators for re-use.
  2. the words of a NWS Sioux City regional office policy that placed some public submissions in the public domain somehow applied to this image, although there is nothing to connect it with that office. (The still was published by the Des Moines office).

Without clearer evidence that WHO13 intended to place this image in the public domain, we need to delete this under COM:PRP. Rlandmann (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright violation with [10] file published under All rights reserved (Russian: "Все права защищены") Jarash (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by FlorianH76 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license, the source is not free Yann (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be PD-Russia. Yann (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer died in 1944. He was a participant in WW2 and was working as a photo correspondent for the newspaper Izvestiya. We have a whole category with his photos: Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin. His son died in 2015 according to Ru Wiki. Nakonana (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Webster.PNG. Yann (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation; artist died in 2024, no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation, copies from a website https://www.grimme-online-award.de/fileadmin/Grimme_Nutzer_Dateien/Online_Award/Grafik_und_Fotos/2014_preistraeger_pressekompass.jpg Achim Adotz (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation, copies from a website https://www.grimme-online-award.de/fileadmin/Grimme_Nutzer_Dateien/Online_Award/Grafik_und_Fotos/2014_preistraeger_pressekompass.jpg Achim Adotz (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veraltete Informationen; kein Mehrwert. Bitte löschen. 2804 (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No location given so difficult to ascertain whether that sculpture can have Freedom of Panorama. No information about the sculpture either but looks modern. Headlock0225 (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Google image search reveals that this statue is in front of the La Carita Hospital at Via dell'Ospedale 1, 6600 Locarno, Switzerland. According Alamy it's the La Visita sculpture by Nag Arnoldi (1928-2017). Nakonana (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Switzerland has a rather generous understanding of FoP that allows photos of anything (except 2D works) as long as it is permanently situated in a public space. Nakonana (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But who is the woman next to the sculpture, though? I can't find any murderous nurse with that name. The uploader also calls her an Italian nurse in the file description, but an English nurse in the caption. Or is the sculpture said murderous nurse? But on Google one can see that there's more than one sculpture. And if it is in fact the sculpture that is about the nurse, then the photo is the woman's vacation snapshot and thus out of scope? Nakonana (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unklare Urheberrechtslage. Bitte löschen. 2804 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unklare Urheberrechtslage. Bitte löschen. 2804 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unklare Urheberrechtslage. Bitte löschen. 2804 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyrigth violation; shows work by artist who died in 1986; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this photo, it can have copyright issue due to its blurred resolution. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue, unsured it free. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be copyrighted University of Albany Kzirkel (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be taken from Bard College website; uploader doesn't appear to be the photographer Kzirkel (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person depicted and I never consented to this picture being uploaded to wikimedia commons. This picture connects me with political activism that can have negative repercussions to my career. 92.195.99.22 12:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First, this IP did not proven if this is in fact the depicted person. Second, as per description this is the depicted person speaking, on 09.08.20, in the founding party conference of the radikal:klima Berlin, i.e. the depicted person spoke publicaly in a public political event, i.e. this is a public event of event public relevance Zeitgeschichte so even if that ip is indeed the depicted person. per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany
The same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda Havenstein (50219345157).jpg Tm (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how would I proof that I'm the depicted person? Send in an ID? Give me instructions and I will do proof that I'm the person depicted. The party in question has since dissolved and again, I never agreed to having this uploaded to wikipedia. Speaking on a public event is one thing, the other is the rights to my own image per § 22 Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG). 92.195.121.77 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said by other user, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda Havenstein (50219345157).jpg, "The event was open to the press and therefore everyone speaking knew that photos of them will be published". and the depicted person has an article on the german Wikipedia in de:Linda Havenstein, so also not an anonymous person and, again, § 23 Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG), makes it pretty clear a case of Zeitgeschichte. Tm (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@92.195.121.77: You may ask the Flickr user to delete the image, this can be a proof. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person depicted and I never consented to this picture being uploaded to wikimedia commons. This picture connects me with political activism that can have negative repercussions to my career. 92.195.99.22 12:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First, this IP did not proven if this is in fact the depicted person. Second, as per description this is the depicted person speaking, on 09.08.20, in the founding party conference of the radikal:klima Berlin, i.e. the depicted person spoke publicaly in a public political event, i.e. this is a public event of event public relevance Zeitgeschichte so even if that ip is indeed the depicted person. per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Germany
The same applies to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linda Havenstein (50219344117).jpg Tm (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep For same reasons as above. The event was open to the press and therefore everyone speaking knew that photos of them will be published. GPSLeo (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the depicted person has an article on the german Wikipedia in de:Linda Havenstein, so also not an anonymous person. Tm (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is behind a paywall and thus no actual information can be gleaned as to *what* exactly this is, but based on the context it appears to be a graphic representing their presence in tunisia and western europe. it makes no actual sense for a tunisian jihadist group to be using this as a symbol NorthTension (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invented fantasy flag. COM:OOS NorthTension (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, the image is clearly a screenshot from a video. To keep it, we need the source video to check it has a free license. Günther Frager (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I send you the source video? Reinedesarchers (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reinedesarchers: place the link in the "Source" part in the "Summary" section and add the time when the screenshot was taken. Günther Frager (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a video taken by me and is in my photo gallery. I can't post the link to the video. Reinedesarchers (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT team. Günther Frager (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no source, wrong licence, probably not Malevich, not in his Catalogue raisonné, therefore author unknown, maybe not in PD Carl Ha (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DICK Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wollen wir, dass hier jeder seine selbsterfundenen, historisch belanglosen Familienwappen hochladen darf? Oder ist das hier nicht vielmehr eine Variante der Selbstdarstellung bzw. des Einstellens persönlicher Dateien ohne edukativen Wert? Sind wir demnach out of com:scope? GerritR (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ob das Wappen meiner Familie historisch bedeutsam oder belanglos ist, werden spätere Generationen beurteilen. Wir führen dieses Wappen nunschon seit mehreren Jahrzehnten. Für wappeninteresierte Menschen kann es edukativ sein, dies kann jeder selbst entscheiden.
Die Wappensammlung auf commons.wikimedia finde ich jedenfalls sehr schön und würde mir wünschen, dass sie weiter ausgebaut wird. Gerade weil es aufgrund der vielen Kategorisierungen möglich ist, nach bestimmten Teilungen, Bildern, Heroldsfiguren oder Symbolen zu suchen, ist diese Sammlung nützlicher als so manches Wappenbuch, welches thematisch, regional oder chronologisch aufgebaut ist, aber eine inhaltliche Suche nicht zulässt.
Daher wünsche ich mir, dass hier möglichst viele Wappen abgebildet werden, auch wenn diese jünger sind als hundert Jahre.
Daher bitte ich, unser Wappen in der Sammlung zu belassen. Detlef.Schmitz63 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Wer hat das Wappen denn entworfen? Der Heraldiker? Und wann wurde das Wappen entworfen? Das Hochladen eines lediglich "mehrere Jahrzehnte" alten Wappens auf Commons könnte nämlich schnell eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellen, denn lt. deutschem Gesetz kann man jemandem das Urheberrecht nicht abkaufen. Man kann nur Nutzungsrechte erwerben, während das Urheberrecht beim Heraldiker bleibt. Und der Urheber ist der einzige, der das Wappen hier unter einer CC-Lizenz veröffentlichen darf.
"Urheberrechte sind nicht veräußerbar. Sie verbleiben bei demjenigen, der das Wappen entworfen hat. Bei einer Wappenstiftung durch Pro Heraldica verbleiben diese Rechte daher bei uns." (Quelle: https://pro-heraldica.de/wissenswertes/nutzungsrechte/)
Also, wer hat das Wappen entworfen? Und wann? Nakonana (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wollen wir, dass hier jeder seine selbsterfundenen, historisch belanglosen Familienwappen hochladen darf? Oder ist das hier nicht vielmehr eine Variante der Selbstdarstellung bzw. des Einstellens persönlicher Dateien ohne edukativen Wert? Sind wir demnach out of com:scope? GerritR (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ob das Wappen meiner Familie historisch bedeutsam oder belanglos ist, werden spätere Generationen beurteilen. Wir führen dieses Wappen nunschon seit mehreren Jahrzehnten. Für wappeninteresierte Menschen kann es edukativ sein, dies kann jeder selbst entscheiden.
Die Wappensammlung auf commons.wikimedia finde ich jedenfalls sehr schön und würde mir wünschen, dass sie weiter ausgebaut wird. Gerade weil es aufgrund der vielen Kategorisierungen möglich ist, nach bestimmten Teilungen, Bildern, Heroldsfiguren oder Symbolen zu suchen, ist diese Sammlung nützlicher als so manches Wappenbuch, welches thematisch, regional oder chronologisch aufgebaut ist, aber eine inhaltliche Suche nicht zulässt.
Daher wünsche ich mir, dass hier möglichst viele Wappen abgebildet werden, auch wenn diese jünger sind als hundert Jahre.
Daher bitte ich, unser Wappen in der Sammlung zu belassen. Detlef.Schmitz63 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. When later generations decide that the coat of arms has historical significance, they can request to undelete it. If it has no current historical significance nor is used in any article in Wikimedia projects, it should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Majority of uploader's images already deleted as blatant copyright violations confirmed with reverse image searches. These last 3 I didn't find in a quick search, but I doubt they're any better and upoader has forfeited assumption of honest claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

super low resolution version of File:L. Popova Untitled.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pierrevang3 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Doubtful own work. Varying sizes. Some files such as File:Av Pak 2.jpg & File:Angkor Court member costumes with floral pattern.jpg are screenshots.

--Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpture by French artist Georges Saupique (1889-1961) installed in Sèvres. There is no freedom of panorama in France. I din't include the postcards in the category as they may be considered de minimis. If I'm not mistaken, we can undelete it in 2040 (70 years pma + WWII extension).

Günther Frager (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Günther, I am completely in agreement for the removal of illustrations ! In the wikidata for the wikibox of the page I will replace the image of the subject with a postcard. Very cordially GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean there is no commercial FOP in France. I know that's what you mean and that Commons requires commercial FOP, but we should be accurate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by NepgearMahoNickel22H2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Fictional content (such as flags and emblems) is out of the project scope

Nutshinou Talk! 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no evidence of PD for the badge itself. Secondly, not own work by original en.wiki uploader, but taken from eBay (see metadata), and photographer’s permission missing, which is obligatory for the photos of 3D objects, even if the object itself is PD or freely licensed. Quick1984 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personal file of non-contributor Xocolatl (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong image meant to upload another one LostplanetKD73 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not "own work" - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not "own work" and wrong date - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not "own work" - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not a selfie - so who's the author? Xocolatl (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably not a selfie, who is the author? Xocolatl (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who's the author? this is not a selfie. Xocolatl (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The given website doesn't belong to Government of Bihar. It is a non profit website as stated which doesn't hold copyright of the image. Incorrect source. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, the author is government of Bihar, because the Prs website has taken it from Bihar Vidhan Sabha website which is managed by Bihar Vidhan Sabha secretariat, falling under Government of Bihar's jurisdiction. It was first uploaded on Election Commission of India website by the candidate themselves while filing the nomination for election and w:Election Commission of India falls under jurisdiction of Ministry of Parliamentary affairs of Government of India. Hence 'GODL-India licence may also be applicable. (An example is File:Ram Ratan Singh.jpg, which was originally uploaded on Election Commission of India website and later on Bihar Vidhan Sabha website. It was reviewed by an Indian administrator who confirmed that it was available there at that time. You can find same image by typing Teghra Assembly constituency in Know Your MLA section of Bihar Legislative Assembly website. To Sum up, these images are free and can be uploaded under any of the two or three licences.) However finding it on Election Commission of India website is difficult. The stuff on prs website are available under CC Attribution 4.0 International license and it has been cleared by the administrators earlier like this one. File:Satyadeo Singh Kushwaha.jpg. PS: Prs uses only those stuff which are freely available, it hasn't there otherwise.Admantine123 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admantine123 Always try to be brief. First copyright is with the one which publishes it first. Not every publisher is the copyright holder. Any image can have just one valid license. All others release it under the same license. Also the source you mentioned has nowhere stated that where have they taken that file from. Only if the original source is given then this file can be kept. ShaanSenguptaTalk 04:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many images from PRS are already cleared by multiple administrators as licence reviewed. How can we explain them ? I started uploading images from PRS only after I saw some of them getting reviewed. Otherwise I am happy with uploading the images from Government of Bihar website which are available under Attribution license. A large number of them are reviewed here on commons. I remember you also supported retaining of one such image which was nominated by someone. Admantine123 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ofc I supported bcoz that was the right to do as it was coming directly from a website of the Govt of Bihar. But here it is taken from a different website which has nowhere mentioned about the source of the image from where it has been taken. Once it is clear, there won't be any problem. ShaanSenguptaTalk 06:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1935 British photograph that has a photographer credit. Not PD in the US because of URAA, bogus CC license Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a 1930s-1940s airplane, likely taken in the 1930s or 40s. Possibly PD in the Netherlands, but not the US due to URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Lwansamulenga (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Low quality images/out of scope

~TheImaCow (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infographic became so lengthy. I will create short and crisp content. Avik Ian (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. This is essentially plain text; it should be presented within the text of a wiki page (if such a comparison is in scope somewhere), not as an image. Omphalographer (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and another photo in the history are not related to the title and rather useles, at least from my point of view NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. No source named. Goroth (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: "fictional country roleplay" content (per en:User:Rk 98743/sandbox). Omphalographer (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://vgt.vn/quang-vinh-nam-ca-si-bi-don-la-thieu-gia-tap-doan-nguyen-kim-va-nghi-van-yeu-duong-dong-gioi-ihyes-20211122t6168046/?lang=en Yann (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional shot, so we need a permission, but the link you give is not the source. Our copy is older, and of high resolution with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Wickey as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not created by uploader PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Chainwit. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo of https://www.meungnarai-hospital.com/ PD-textlogo, but may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Deadstar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: advertising/not own work PD-textlogo, but may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

debe eliminarse ya que este escudo es de una pagina web de heraldica , no es necesario tenerlo Zzcarloszz (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Deadstar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own work PD-textlogo, but may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

debe eliminarse ya que este escudo es de una pagina web de heraldica , no es necesario tenerlo Zzcarloszz (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Foxynton1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works, no source, no author, wrong license.

Yann (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are having a beautiful blessed day Amen. I saw that you have requested to vote my Photographs especially the one of my 3rd great gramothers Maria Betzabeth Neira González who is the sister of a historical Figure of General Bruno Neira González. I see that I didn't provide any proper license. I also didn't add a proper link or author. Just the fact is I am a 1 month old user of this website and I'm still trying to understand how competitive yet how un resourceful this website is due to its unfortunate lack of citations and copyright. I want to ensure this photograph shall not bring any problems to this platform but moreover a necessary figure to make sure we have a detail personal Life of Bruno Neira Gonzalez and his family. That would also include his sibblings. In general if you do want a link and at least evidence she is the sister by blood I can give you this Biography link of Bruno Neirahttps://studylib.es/doc/8234093/biograf%C3%ADa-pdf---san-buenaventura . Unfortunately due to the photograph of Betzabeth being more personal and less common only to be discovered by me a few months ago I cannot site it since it's impossible to do so. With what website and with what company to sue over this Wikipedia platform in general. Anyways I'm not here to cause anything negative on this platform but to ensure it's certain political figures have their own fair of shared information they need. May you have a blessed day 🙏. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxynton1 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't shoot the photos in question, you need to establish that they are freely licensed. Read COM:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Technological Gyan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

User with bad history, small files without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. 191.125.138.55 21:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No VRT..? 191.125.138.55 21:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer's permission? 191.125.138.55 21:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two photos with no permission 191.125.138.55 21:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Evelin.naaa (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal/Private photo. COM:OOS & COM:NOTHOST.

Mitte27 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least File:Харків (Фельдман ЕкоПарк).jpg might be in scope for the park of which we don't seem to have any other images, plus it's not too obvious that the girl was probably supposed to be the subject of the photo rather than the pond. Nakonana (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal picture, not in use.Possible copyvio. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal picture, only used in the user's workshop after the deletion of his promotional autobiografy in es.wiki Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. This image is owned by Getty (as the editor correctly attributes), but Getty doesn't use anything like a Creative Commons license. Danbloch (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]