Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
4 November 2023
6 November 2023
Deletion requests on 5 November 2023

November 5[edit]

File:Флаг села Шекпээр 16.png[edit]

ошибка Shekpeer (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Scapulairebonconseil.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Veverve as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The user has not credited the image they used in their work. They have at least used File:Emblem of the Holy See (no background).svg, and the image of the Virgin Mary and Jesus, as well as the scapulaty image, are likely taken from somewhere else. Per COM:PRINCIPLE, this image should be deleted. Uploader added some sources, but the Virgin Mary and Jesus still needs to be cited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@King of Hearts (Sorry, I speak French and Spanish (and a picard language (regional language) and Esperanto) but not very good English.. I read and hear but writing is another story.)

À l'époque de la création de l'image, j'ignorais qu'il était possible de créditer les images, ce que je fais maintenant, par courtoisie envers les créateurs originaux et pour garder une trace de l'œuvre dans le cas où j'en aurais de nouveau besoin. Mais je ne vois pas d'obligation de créditer les images SVG dans : COM:PRINCIPLE. Je cherche l'image SVG de Notre Dame du Bon Conseil, je la rajoute dès que je la trouve.

En la época que creó la imagen, no sabía que era posible acreditar las imágenes, ahora lo hago, por cortesía a los creadores originales y para tener un rastro de la obra en caso de que lo necesitara nuevamente. Pero no veo ninguna obligación de acreditar las imágenes SVG en: COM:PRINCIPLE. Estoy buscando la imagen SVG de Nuestra Señora del Buen Consejo, la agregaré tan pronto como la encuentre.

At the time the image was created, I was unaware that it was possible to credit the images, which I do now, as a courtesy to the original creators and to keep track of the work in case i would need it again. But I don't see any obligation to credit SVG images in: COM:PRINCIPLE. I'm looking for the SVG image of Our Lady of Good Counsel, I'll add it as soon as I find it.

--Majella1851 (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is: if the image(s) you used is (are) not compatible with the license you gave your compound image, then your file must be either deleted or put under a compatible license. The latter is only possible if all the sources are given, otherwise it is better to delete than to have a copyright/copyleft-infringing image. Veverve (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok i understand, I added SVG of Our Lady of Good Counsel. I will correct gradually my other images Majella1851 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest image you have added, File:Escudo de Bernardo Álvarez Afonso.svg, is under CC3.0. The problem is that another one of your sources, File:Brown Scapular.svg, is under CC4.0. Therefore, I do not know whether this file can exist under a proper license.
@King of Hearts: what do you think? Veverve (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The resulting derivative work can be licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0; see official guidance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sebastian-Plocharski-korespondent.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, found on https://patronite.pl/MCNWInfo. Contested by uploader on their talk, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This is a derivative work of two different images, the image on the left is already being discussed on this DR. I haven't search for the image on the right, but the composite image appear on his Patronite page] and as the avatar on his Instagram. In order to keep this image we need a COM:VRT ticket from the authors of both photos. Günther Frager (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sebastian Tomasz Płocharski.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, un-cropped image found on https://makecoffeenotwar.info/en/about. Contested by uploader on their talk, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment As an un-cropped version was available on https://makecoffeenotwar.info/en/about and on Płocharski's webpage we need a COM:VRT ticket from the actual photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sebastian Tomasz Płocharski dokumentalista.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, found on https://wnet.fm/broadcast/raport-z-kijowa-14-03-2023-ewakuacja-z-bachmutu-i-okolic-jest-prawie-niemozliwa-rozmowa-z-sebastianem-plocharskim/20230313_141330/. Contested by uploader on their talk, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment As the image appeared 7 months before in WNet with the same metadata we need a COM:VRT in order to keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sebastian Tomasz Płocharski na rowerze w Donbasie.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as no permission (No permission since). Contested by uploader on their talk, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@King of Hearts I don't get this why this got transformed into a DR. If the uploader claims its their copyright, then they should send a COM:VRT, what the {{No permission since}} ask for. The user already has to do it for the other 3 images they uploaded that were already available on the web. Günther Frager (talk) Günther Frager (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:250609 Suzana Houzel17 (3796215852).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo that focuses on a copyrighted book cover. Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Historical settlements of Mizo people.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Haoreima as no permission (No permission since). Heavily used upload from 2009, converting to DR to hopefully give the uploader enough time to notice and explain the "Khampat .COM" source. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait of Claudia Peus 2021.jpg[edit]

The uploader left a copyright symbol in the Summary WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FOTO PROFILO.jpg[edit]

the subject died in 1995 not in 2011, it seems like a scan from some book, so author, source and license are incorrect ZioNicco (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep PD-Italy. Italy awards only 20 years of protection. --RAN (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cebu Port Passenger Terminal (Cebu City; 09-05-2022).jpg[edit]

Wrongfully transferred without sufficient review of the architectural work. The building dates to 2014. The local image should be restored, as long as the Philippine law does not allow commercial exploitations of copyrighted public artworks and architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Correct I forgot to check this point, I simply relied on the licence on en.wp (which was CC-BY-SA 4.0). I see the licence has been clarified on en.wp, can be deleted here. Binabik (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Binabik the uploader's licensing does not necessarily extend to architect's licensing. Also, much of Patrickroque01's photos on enwiki is not suitable for hosting here as the images show recent government and school buildings that are certainly or suspected to be post-1972, as long as commercial freedom of panorama for free uses of copyrighted public artworks and architecture is not granted in the Philippine law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:M12 highway in construction aerial photo from Avtodor(2).jpg[edit]

This is image is absent at given url (https://avtodor-tr.ru/road/m-12/) and there is no mention of CC-BY 4.0 license there Numbered (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection[edit]

These are United States photos from the flickr "found photos" collection recently discussed in the Village Pump. The assumption is that these are mostly personal (family) photos never published anywhere else before they were scanned and published in the flickr collection. So, for example for File:Catherine Budy, March 13, 1938.jpg, {{PD-US-no notice}} wouldn't be applicable as this template relies on publication "in the United States between 1928 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice". Or another example: File:Two women with a car, 11-1936.jpg. If we can assume that this is a personal photograph that was never published before (and it very much loooks like that) and the first publication was in the flickr "found photos" collection (thus, "2003 or later"), then per COM:HIRTLE, I assume it's protected for "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first". In this case of a 1936 photo, that would be 2056 (1936 + 120). As the pictures are now published (on flickr), I'm using the Hirtle entries for published works, not for unpublished ones, for my argument.

I will note that RAN has argued, also in other discussions, that "USA case law has sided with the concept that images found in the wild have been made public once they leave the custody of the creator", but I haven't seen him back that claim up with references, and I haven't found it in our Commons documentation. To me, assuming "publication" as soon as a photograph "leaves the custody" of the photographer (like: photographer takes photo, gives it to a family where it then rests in the family album) at least doesn't seem to be consistent with our usual assumptions regarding "publication". But I would be happy to accept this with reliable sources, we also then would need to adapt COM:HIRTLE and similar documentation pages, probably.

Gestumblindi (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Mass deletion without real arguments. At least you should create individual DRs if you have an argument against a specific image. Some of them have obviously been publushed at the time of creation, e.g. File:Delta Gamma 1955.jpg (obviously distributed to people on the picture), File:Mr and Mrs Ova Mead, wedding portrait.jpg and File:Danha and Jules wedding day, 02-08-1969.jpg (distributed as wedding announcements), etc. Then we assume that documents are published as the time of creation unless proven otherwise. And them please read COM:L#Old orphan works. And then there are pictures from around 1900 which should be {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}: File:Portrait of a black man with a moustache and a tie.jpg. Then it is complete nonsense to think that 100-years old picture such as File:Two men in boater hat by the sea.jpg and File:Allen age 15 yrs, Emmius age 10 years, Mary Jean age 3 yrs, Summer 1922.jpg were never published before 1989 (yes, it still required a copyright notice until that date). Then you forgot some of my uploads. So not a well-thought DR. Should I continue? Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm completely open to arguments for keeping specific pictures, and feel free to add "keep" votes to those. I think that for most certainly no kind of prior publication can be assumed, however. For File:Delta Gamma 1955.jpg, I wonder whether (assumed) distribution to the limited group of depicted persons already counts as "publication". Wedding portraits such as File:Mr and Mrs Ova Mead, wedding portrait.jpg are usually also not widely distributed. File:Allen age 15 yrs, Emmius age 10 years, Mary Jean age 3 yrs, Summer 1922.jpg is too recent for {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} and I don't see why you would assume that it is "complete nonsense to think" that this image was never published before 1989, as it looks like a family photo where it's actually quite likely that it was never published - unless we follow RAN's argument, but he hasn't cited any sources for the "publication once they leave the custody of the creator" claim in his response here either. File:Portrait of a black man with a moustache and a tie.jpg and File:Two men in boater hat by the sea.jpg aren't dated more precisely than "early 20th century" so we really can't say whether {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} would be applicable. - Regarding "forgetting some of your uploads", I only nominated the images in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection for the time being, because they're all US photos. - And finally, I was really not happy how you introduced COM:L#Old orphan works in June 2023 with a proposal by yourself, which you then closed also yourself as "accepted", which I think is poor style and I don't think that the discussion was that unanimous. My own position there was "if a picture looks like it was created with publication in mind (especially publicity and similar photos), it is a reasonable assumption that it was published close to the time of creation; photos made for a family album are a different matter", and this is still the stance upon which also this DR is based. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then close this, and open new DRs for specific cases. I am going to repeat myself: at that time, publication occurs when the photos left the photographer's custody. Yann (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Certainly not, because I would need to nominate nearly all of the photos in the category. As I said above, you certainly can add "keep" votes to individual files in this nomination if you think there is a strong argument for keeping those. Regarding "publication occurs when the photos left the photographer's custody", neither you nor RAN have cited any sources for this assumption so far. As I said in my nomination, if you have good sources you can cite (and then please add to the appropriate Commons documentation pages), I will gladly accept it - and then also withdraw my deletion request. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We usually assume old pictures were published at the time of creation. I am being bold here, but that's what is done on Commons recently. Yann (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Yann: "We usually assume old pictures were published at the time of creation" - I'm actually quite on the same page there as you and have advocated for such a view in the past as well, but I think that "found photos" that seem to come from family albums (mainly) are a different matter. The default assumption of publication at the time (or close to the time) of creation isn't applicable for those, in my opinion. Most prior discussions didn't focus on photos of that type. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Gestumblindi: There are at least 5 different cases regarding copyright here: 1. pictures from around 1900 (PD-old-assumed-expired), 2. pictures from 1904-1928 (PD-US-expired), 3. pictures from 1929-1977 (PD-US), 4. pictures from 1978-1988 (PD-US-1978-89), 5. pictures from booth machines which should be {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-algorithm}}. And then there are prints and slides, for which there are different publication arguments. Combining all in one DR is very bad practice whatever are your arguments. Yann (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure I follow the logic here. The argument seems to be that if a random person finds an unpublished photo and posts it on Flickr, a new copyright is created and we can't use it here. But if they post it here first. we deem it {{PD-US-unpublished}} and it can then legally be posted on Flickr. Why the difference? Also, is the nomination for everything in the category, or just the images listed above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The nomination is for everything in the category at the time when I created this request, which is all of the images listed above. I didn't see any images in this category that would be old enough (pre-1903) for {{PD-US-unpublished}} but of course it's possible that there will be some in the collection that would qualify for that, though I think that none have been uploaded to Commons so far. See COM:HIRTLE - {{PD-US-unpublished}} is only for works by known authors who died before 1953, or which have been created before 1903, if the author isn't known. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: @Pigsonthewing: I notice that Yann uploaded more images to the category today, so there are now more images than I nominated (when I nominated all that were in the category at this point). I'm not going to nominate the new uploads for now, but await the outcome of the deletion request. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep If we assume that publication happens the first time something is posted on the internet and not once it leave the custody of the creator then there would be a ton of images on here from GLAM organizations that suddenly wouldn't be OK because they were the first ones to "publish" the images. So its clearly a flawed and unworkable standard even if correct, which I don't think it is, but why should GLAM organizations be able to upload what are essentially found photos on their end in mass and that be OK, but a user doing the same with a few photographs from Flickr not be? It really doesn't make sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    GLAM uploads actually usually are of pictures with known provenance, authors, and copyright status, not "found photos" without any of the essential information, so I don't think that comparison fits. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some sure. Quit a lot of photographs are donated or baught from private collections and the GLAMs thrmselves don't gurantee their copyright status. People on Commons just tends to take their word at face value and don't bother to read fine print, which usually says they don't know the copyright status of the photograph, "because GLAM." I'm sure a lot of photograps from GLAMs on here would have questionable copyright status' or be copyrighted if we scrutinized them as much as we do with photographs from other sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Photo booth images would not be eligible for copyright in the USA, there is no one operating the shutter. The Wikimedia Foundation upheld this as recently as 2011. See: Monkey selfie. I can see arguing that an image has never been made public if we find a copy in a commercial archive like Getty Images, where they are making an active copyright claim. Getty Images buys negatives directly from photographers, and we assume they have been unseen by the public since creation, until proven otherwise. We have also accepted that reliable institutions can release images found in the wild under "no known copyright restrictions" at Flickr Commons, and we have honored claw backs from the public domain if a creator is identified. --RAN (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ( Comment As largely personal family photos, how do these images pass the requirement for commons images to be educational? I just don't see a reasonable use case for most of these images. Many of the image descriptions contain personal information about non notable people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems like there's a pretty lax standard in general on here when it comes the educational merits of historical photographs. You could probably argue that this image of a black man with moustache isn't educational, but it's no different then hundreds of thousands of other similar images that are already being hosted on here. Not to say that's an excuse to keep the image, but there's clearly consensus that images of black men with moustaches, modern or otherwise, are in scope. And this isn't really the venue to have that changed. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Every image from every time period captures fashion and interior design. You can earn a degree in either, I imagine to earn a degree in either you need factual material to study. You can look at any single image and question whether we need it or not. --RAN (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep RAN is paraphrasing U.S. case law that basically says that publication before 1978 occurred when a photograph left the custody of the original photographer. There is a DR that has citations of this, and I'm sure @Clindberg: can remind me again of which one that was. Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It had to do with the dividing line between "limited publication" (which did not lose copyright) and "general publication" (which did). A canonical example is that a book author distributing copies of manuscripts to publishing houses would be "limited publication", with the general publication happening when the publishing house actually distributed copies to the public. Naturally, different U.S. circuits have come up with some different tests for it. A common one though is distributing copies to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution. If it fails any of those three tests, it would be general publication. That definition is mentioned in the Copyright Compendium section 1905.1 -- Generally, a limited publication is the distribution of copies of a work to a definitely selected group with a limited purpose and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution, or sale. A limited publication is not considered a distribution to the public and, therefore, is not publication. See White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744, 746-47 (9th Cir. 1952) (explaining that a publication is limited if it “communicates the contents of a [work] to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale ... [and is] restricted both as to persons and purpose.”). One of the examples they give there says Giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction constitutes publication of that work. Such giving away had to happen before 1989 of course, and with authorization of the copyright holder. So, it's a pretty common question to find out how a copy left the control of the copyright owner, and whether that action constituted general publication. Lots of gray area, naturally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Carl for the detailed explanation. I think all these files can be considered to meet "general publication", as when the photographer distributed these, even if to one person only, s/he didn't restrict further distribution. Yann (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg to differ. Giving photos to a family which intends to keep them in their family album doesn't necessarily amount to "giving away copies of a photograph without further restriction", in my opinion. Also, we don't really know anything about the circumstances in which most of these photographs were taken / transferred / kept. Several look like amateur photos taken directly by family members, so they haven't necessarily been "given away" by the photographer - if a family member took the photo, then put it in an album, until it was later "found" (maybe sold on ebay), scanned and published on flickr. @Clindberg: What is your opinion on the files nominated here? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the photographer's client does with the picture doesn't matter. What does matter is that when selling a picture, the photographer doesn't restrict what the client will do with it. Yann (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I presume that many, if not most of these photographs were never sold by a professional photographer, but, like File:1951 Pontiac Chieftain.jpg which looks like an amateur photo, directly taken by a family member or friend and kept in the family until the album was sold in a yard sale, on ebay or the like. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's kind of pedantic, but at least in the United States most, if not all, photographs taken between like 1910 and the mid 1950s were printed professionally (or semi-professionally) through either a photography studio or local pharmacy. Sometimes there were amateurs who would do it in their garage or a spare room, but they were the rare exception. Cameras weren't super available at that point either. So 99% of the time one person in the family would take photographs on a family trip or they would have a stuido photograph do portraits. Then the negatives would have to be professionally developed. Those professionals would then keep copies of the negatives in case the original person who ordered the prints or someone in their extended family wanted copies. Sometimes they also republished images from the negatives as postcards or include them in small run, independently published photography books.
Anyway it's hard to tell who owns the original copyright in those cases. Since the negatives aren't "published." The printed photograph is. So who would own the copyright in that case? Who knows. I do know that "publication" would have taken place at the time of printing though since the "printer" would often save and reprint copies of the negatives. Otherwise you'd have to argue the person who printed these photographs was the original photographer, who developed the negatives in their spare room by mixing chemicals on some photosensitive paper, but you'd have a hard time doing that. So...--Adamant1 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have to admit, the "found photograph" thing does rub me the wrong way. I think if a photo was taken by a family and remained in that family, there is a good chance it remained unpublished. Actual copies needed to be distributed to others (even if just loose friends) to lose copyright. In terms of who actually developed the photos, I don't think that mattered -- just who actually took the photo and thus had the initial copyright. For say an old studio photograph, the photo was distributed from the photographer to the family, and almost certainly with no restrictions on further distribution. Nothing is 100% in this area, of course. Looking at a sampling... there are some I would go both ways. Stuff that looks like it could been actually taken by a family member, and remained in a family photo album until recently, could well be issues if not old enough. How were these images "found"? If someone sold family photograph albums long ago, that would probably be OK, but otherwise not sure. Normally I don't like keeping stuff with that little provenance. That said, there are several which appear to be studio photos (say File:Booth photograph of an unknown girl, 2.jpg or File:Three portraits of Libby Goldberg.jpg) and were probably published then. File:Seated woman with flowers.jpg for sure looks like that. File:US Air Force man portrait.jpg has a PD-USGov license. File:La Jolla shore on Pacific Ocean, Bird haven at Pelican Rocks and far away to get the birds, October 5, 1929.jpg looks like a more professional print when you look at the Flickr original. A lot of the others though leave me nervous, as date of publication is more likely when the photo album was distributed outside the family, which I don't think we know. Some may be scope issues too, just photos of random people. I'm sure some to an extent are interesting to document typical dress of the day, but not sure about all of them. I'm not sure it's possible to vote on the list as a whole -- there are definitely some I'd keep, and some where I don't think we know enough. Obviously the real-life risk is minimal, but for some I'm not sure we really have enough info. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would anyone prove who took the original photograph anyway? Like I don't think someone saying they seem to remember their great uncle having a camera in the 30s would hold up in court. Not to mention my guess is that most, if not all of these photographs probably lacked/lack copyright notices. So they wouldn't have been copyrighted to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright notice only mattered if they were generally published; that is why the question is important. If none or only limited publication, then they kept their common-law copyright (at least until 1978, when it changed to 70pma if a known photographer or 120 years from creation). If they were published before 1989 though, the lack of notice would be meaningful, but you only needed a copyright notice on published copies, since that is the point where common-law copyright ended and federal copyright started, and federal protection needed notices. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Could we at least agree that "booth photographs" were published? These were most probably used for some official documents anyway. And File:Delta Gamma 1955.jpg was certainly published, as well as pictures from the 1920s. What about wedding photographs? Yann (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wedding photos comes into that gray area of who owned the copyright of commissioned works before 1978. By the photo studio example, they could be published. Copies likely go to several people. Agreed on File:Delta Gamma 1955.jpg, that is fine. If booth photographs means a photo booth, there may be copyright eligibility issues as well, but yeah I'd say those are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm always open to reasonable arguments, so I'm going to withdraw my deletion requests for all photos that look like photo booth photographs as well as for File:Delta Gamma 1955.jpg. I'm striking them from the list and will remove the DR template from the file description pages myself. Note, I'm upholding my request for File:Catherine Budy, March 13, 1938.jpg because the background doesn't look like a photo booth to me. The other photos (including wedding photos) I still think are problematic, also in light of Carl's comments. I also don't see why pictures from the 1920's should be considered "certainly published". I have family photos of our own family from this time that never left the family album which is still in the family's possession. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment This is just my assessment of the files that are left and can be kept based on Carl Lindberg's comments and my research, but I have a lot of experience in the area. So I think it fits.
  • I'm going to quibble here. We agree that it looks like a personal family photo, and from my personal experience with old family albums, these can stay for decades in an album without any copies being made. My assumption here would still be "unpublished before the flickr publication". Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Semi-posed press photograph"? Why do you think that? I don't think these are well-known people and the Exif data says "handwritten on back of photograph, "Carol Ralston, Ursula Reimer, Ruth Magee, Joan Hess, Patty Lynas, Nedra Greer, waiting for mail at P.O." - so it looks like a personal photo of someone's acquaintances waiting for their mail to me. It has all the characteristics of a personal snapshot. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Carl Lindberg, "Wedding photos comes into that gray area of who owned the copyright of commissioned works before 1978". COM:PCP? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Definitely disagree. Developing (personal) photos on paper with rounded corners was not uncommon in the 1960's and is as such no sign of publication. The square format looks like it was taken on 126 (Instamatic) film - compare File:Innerdeutsche Grenze nahe Ratzeburg-0003.jpg (an example without rounded corners) - which is further indication of a personal/amateur photo. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can agree with that. I'm going to withdraw my nomination for that one, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do you assume it is a postcard? The corners show that the photo was printed on thick, robust paper or rather cardboard, which makes it look like a Carte de visite to me. As a carte de visite was made for distribution ("commonly traded among friends and visitors", as the article says), I can agree with keeping that one, though, even if I disagree with assuming it's a postcard. I will withdraw that nomination. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Same as above, too: Disagree with postcard assumption, but I'm willing to withdraw my request for an assumed carte de visite. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Disagree. We don't know who took this photo at all. Not necessarily a member of the military. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not sure there. Could have been sent to just one person. Doesn't look like a typical photo made for wider distribution. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 November 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: My assessment is partially different, I'm adding comments above to the files you commented upon. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. I could quibble about a few of your points, but this is already long enough. If I can make a suggestion, it might be good to procedurally close this and renominate the remaining files for deletion in a separate DR. BTW, cartes de visite were usually regular photographs glued on a hard cardboard backing, not images printed on the cardboard itself like with postcards. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have withdrawn a good deal of my requests and we had a quite thorough discussion on many cases, I think it would be more efficient if the processing admin made a decision on the remaining ones (also individually) directly here instead of me having to nominate the files again, which I would certainly do, but well, leaving that to the closing admin. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works to. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Heinrich Franzmeyer.jpg[edit]

1960 veröffentlicht, dann ist der urheber nicht schon zwangsläufig 70 jahre tot Xocolatl (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep The image appears to be from 1940, and was republished in 1960 after his 1959 death. --RAN (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"Film Magazine Network"[edit]

The Flickr account appears to be publishing third party copyrighted works under CC license. No evidence that any of the material belongs to them. Please also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luca, 2019 Malayalam Movie Poster by Arun Bose.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Myth of Kleopatra by M Adeyapartha Rajan Poster.jpg.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Melingo.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:DP from safari filming in Corbett.jpg[edit]

Previously published at https://www.indulgexpress.com/entertainment/tv/2020/apr/21/wildlife-special-munmun-dhalaria--kartick-satyanarayan-chat-about-covid-19-earth-day-and-a-new-na-24250.html. Please follow the steps described at COM:VRT and verify that you are the copyright owner. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ALLL6250si 1200.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mrmr-fashion.jpg[edit]

Although it goes to PD due to com:too, it might be com:csd#g10, as an uploader's username and the message in this picture. Wutkh (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mrmr fashion company logo Mrmrfashion (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood your point. Let's others leave comments. As my experience, this kind of picture is going to logotype which being public domain (everyone can use it, without any permission required, except if it is registered as a trademark which some limitations)) and allowed to remain in this site. However, as you said, this one might against to the Commons due to promotional purpose. Please refer to com:csd#g10. Normally, I often request for speedy deletion. But I think we should seek more opinions before. Wutkh (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Juan c distefano la necesidad del arco iris.jpg[edit]

The photo shows an sculpture and its author in a temporary exhibition in Buenos Aires. The artwork is still copyrighted in its country of origin, it is not de minimis, and there is no FoP in Argentine. Günther Frager (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Facha Interior del Ingenio San Marcos.jpg[edit]

Por el titulo que no esta correctamente escrito 181.188.179.219 12:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Daniel Guerrero Romero.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10: But it is in use by eswp. DaB. (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Imran Abbas 2022.jpg[edit]

Not own work. (https://www.incpak.com/entertainment/urwa-hocane-imran-abbas-drama-serial-amanat/) MarinaMann (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Noelia Moncada.jpg[edit]

This is not the work of the Buenos Aires government, the metadata states the image was taken by Kevin Carrel Footer, a photographer, musician and artist manager in the Buenos Aires tango scene. Thus, we cannot apply the copyright terms of https://buenosaires.gob.ar. Günther Frager (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Picture dcam 1.jpg[edit]

Not properly licensed, source is [1] from here PM3 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dawn Mk-II Aurora in flight.jpg[edit]

Not propery licensed, source is [2] PM3 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dawn Mk-II Aurora.jpg[edit]

Both other uploads of this user have been copyied from some website without permission, this is probably from www.dawnaerospace.com. PM3 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Frédéric Pillot.jpg[edit]

Very low resolution, no context, no exif / metadata. "Own work" very unlikely in my opinion. Titlutin (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Frédéric Pillot en dédicace.jpg[edit]

Very low resolution, no context, no exif / metadata. "Own work" very unlikely in my opinion. Titlutin (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Xeulh9rbwtw71.webp[edit]

Possible copyvio Poppytarts (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Loli Molina - blanco y negro.jpg[edit]

This image is not the work of the Buenos Aires goverment. The image appeared initially in Molina's website and the author is Jesús Cornejo [3]. Thus we cannot use the license from https://buenosaires.gob.ar. Günther Frager (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Palmar cooling used in NCAA Softball.jpg[edit]

Copyright issue: The author lists this image as "Own work" and claims to be the copyright holder. The image is a picture of a television broadcast of a college softball game. Television broadcasts are routinely copyrighted by the broadcaster. Taking a picture of a copyrighted broadcast does not grant the author a copyright for the image. Pemilligan (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Братська могила радянських воїнів. Поховано 19 воїнів. Пристін.jpg[edit]

Uploader requested deletion for old, in use file. But there could be COM:FOP Ukraine issues for at least some of these. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also:

File:Flag Of Ingushetia.svg[edit]

File missed in Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Arkshugh. Fry1989 eh? 17:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bandera de Öland.svg[edit]

File missed in Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by Arkshugh. Fry1989 eh? 17:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Bratleeks[edit]

As per [4] and the Duck Test. Fry1989 eh? 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Poster Siberian battalion-1.jpg[edit]

I doubt that PD-UA-exempt is relevant to this poster. Copyright status? Original photos status and author? Drakosh (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Nichalp's Reuploads[edit]

As per [5] and the Duck Test. Fry1989 eh? 18:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Perm Oblast Flag.svg[edit]

Black & white copy of File:Flag of Perm Krai.svg without a clear purpose. Fry1989 eh? 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Flag of Bahrein.svg[edit]

Duplication of File:Flag of Bahrain.svg. Fry1989 eh? 19:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Bahrein.svg[edit]

Unused revision of File:Flag of Bahrain.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Yamal-Nenetsia.svg[edit]

Unused revision of File:Flag of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of the UAE.svg[edit]

Unused revision of File:Flag of the United Arab Emirates.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Madhusudan Rao.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Madhusudan Das.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Samanta Chandrasekhar.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Gopal Chandra Praharaj.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Fakir Mohan Senapati.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Gangadhar Meher.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Gajapati Raja.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Radhanath Ray.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Surendra Sai.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Paiting at State Museum Odisha.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Painting of Harekushna Mahatab.jpg[edit]

No information was found about the painter. Not sure about the copyright. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 19:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Monique Caron-Renoult - cross huma - fevrier 1954.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 81.41.182.243 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No proof that the BNF relased this specific 1954 issue into the public domain or under the cc-by-sa 4.0 license. It may be undeleted after 1 January 2025, after 70 years since its original publication in France. Yann (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion took place on FR WP [Bistro]. to support adding these files to Commons. Further to this, Conditions d’utilisation explains that "The non-commercial reuse of this content is free and free in compliance with the legislation in force and in particular maintaining the mention of the source of the content as specified below". « Source gallica.bnf.fr / Bibliothèque nationale de France » OR « Source gallica.bnf.fr / BnF ».]}}.
Happy to discuss further.
Charc2018 (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Non-commercial reuse" is not sufficient for Commons. Beside Gallica doesn't own the copyright, so what they say doesn't matter. So the current license on Commons is not valid.
In France, the copyright expires 70 years after the author's death, or 70 years after publication if the author is anonymous or a corporate, so not before 2025 at the earliest. Yann (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Roger Peterson 1959.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Diannaa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5682/roger-arthur-peterson Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Reposting an image to FAG does not restart the copyright clock or transfer the copyright to the poster or FAG. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On what grounds are you basing the {{PD-US-not renewed}} claim for this photo? That claim specifically depends on our knowledge that the photo was published before 1963, and that its copyright was not renewed. Neither of those are clear from the photo alone. Omphalographer (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep as per RAN. Yann (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Thpthn (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Yann (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: There's another user, Chris Vineyard (talk · contribs) who uploads very similar images which are also copyright violations. Should this be investigated or we can assume that this is basically a new user who hasn't learn the policies about alternative accounts? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Những bức còn lại đúng là tôi lấy trên mạng, khi mới lập tài khoản. Ngoài ra tôi cũng không hiểu hết được các loại giấy phép 00, 01,02,03,04 đâu vì nó rất lằng nhằng và thường xuyên hiển thị bằng tiếng Anh. Khi tôi vào đọc "lệnh cấm" ở đây cũng toàn tiếng Anh, không có tiếng Việt. Tôi sẽ không tải những ảnh như vậy nữa, nhưng 5 file tôi kể tên này thì đáng được giữ lại. Nếu mấy cái ảnh bản đồ để giấy phép sai thì hãy sửa lại giúp tôi. Xin cảm ơn! Thpthn (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thpthn: Các loại giấy phép đó được phân loại theo từng mức độ, đại loại là: được sử dụng rộng rãi không hạn chế, hay bị hạn chế không được sử dụng cho mục đích thương mại... (cái này thì ngay nguồn ảnh tác giả phải ghi rõ ràng, nếu trang nguồn không ghi gì thì phải mặc định hiểu là tác giả không phát hành nó, và nếu bạn tải lên thì nó sẽ là vi phạm bản quyền). Về cơ bản ở đây chỉ nên tải những ảnh do chính bạn chụp, tuyệt đối hạn chế tải ảnh của người khác. Vì bạn chưa hiểu nên vấn đề này tôi thông cảm cho bạn được. Tuy nhiên tôi thắc mắc tài khoản Chris Vineyard có phải cũng là bạn không? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Đúng vậy, đó là tài khoản tôi tạo chục năm rồi nhưng không sửa gì, mới nhớ ra và xài gần đây và cũng có cả ảnh từ internet. Bên đó cũng có ảnh bản đồ và ai đó đã sửa bản quyền giúp tôi thì phải. Tôi mới biết Wiki không cho dùng 2 tài khoản và giờ tôi cũng không định dùng tài khoản thpthn này nữa. Thpthn (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Thừa tuyên Sơn Tây trong bản đồ Hồng Đức thời Hậu Lê.jpg is in the book and I have linked it from archive.org. The book is a translation from Chinese to Vietnamese in 1962, but the map (with Chinese characters) was drawn in the 15th century.
File:Bản đồ các huyện của Giao Chỉ thời Hai Bà Trưng, vẽ bởi nhà nghiên cứu lịch sử Đinh Văn Nhật.png is in the Historical magazine in 1990 and I took pictures again. The article author is Đinh Văn Nhật is in the file name.
File:Thành cổ Sơn Tây 2021.jpg is my picture in my phone. You can't delete it.
File:Đê Quai Chè, xã Tam Hiệp, Phúc Thọ, Hà Nội.png and File:Làng Mỹ Giang, Tam Hiệp, Phúc Thọ, Hà Nội nhìn từ trên cao.png is from my video by flycam, in my hometown. You can't delete it. Thpthn (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Official Flag of Nakhchivan AR.svg[edit]

Seems to be fake. Looks like there is no such thing as "The official Flag of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic". The flag itself is the flag of Azerbaijan with slightly changed colours. --Blacklake (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Official Flag of Nakhchivan AR.svg[edit]

There's no image of Official Flag of Nakhchivan AR, Invaild SVG Paildens (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Nakhichevan - Variant.png[edit]

Reuploaded by Jonteemil and was deleted by Yann Paildens (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Nakhichevan - Variant.png[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Nakhichevan - Variant.svg SouthTension (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Casa do Beco.jpg[edit]

Subi o arquivo por engano. Lotushist (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Орден Святого благоверного великого князя Александра Невского (РПЦ).jpg[edit]

These are awards of the Russian Orthodox Church, not the Russian state. So it's not PD. — Redboston 23:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  On hold Thank you for your comment, I’ll try to get an VRT (OTRS) permission from the Russian Orthodox Church. — Niklitov (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • According to current russian law organization can't be an author. We don't know who is the author of this picture. Permission from the church will not solve the problem.— Redboston 13:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ОРДЕН СВЯТОГО БЛАГОВЕРНОГО ВЕЛИКОГО КНЯЗЯ АЛЕКСАНДРА НЕВСКОГО II.png[edit]

This is an award of the Russian Orthodox Church, not the Russian state. So it's not PD. — Redboston 23:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/05&oldid=823980810"