Commons:Deletion requests/2023/07

July

July 13

File:Flag of the Special Security Unit (Saudi Arabia).svg

This file was initially tagged by Mdaniels5757 as Logo.

Per the uploader on my talk: "Hello..I think that the logo on the flag is not protected by copyright, as it follows the Saudi intelligence service and its laws DavidFirst1 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)" —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

July 15

File:Berlin en 1947 (6328971517).jpg

I'm pretty sure Flickr user Jean-Pierre Dalbéra from Paris, France did not take this 1947 aerial photo of destroyed Berlin himself and was not authorized to release it under a free CC license.

So the question is, who is the author of this photo? If it is a military photo by either US or UK forces, it might be in the public domain. If this is a photo by someone else however, it could still be protected in either its source country (Germany? The UK?) or the USA (because of the URAA), or both.

So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless we get a satisfactionary rationale why the photo is in the PD or freely licensed. The photo could then be restored in 2068 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Rosenzweig τ 15:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be part of a video that was originally published (here (archive URL) Unfortunately, the video can't be seen (requires flash). The source specified is Les Actualités Françaises - 10/08/1945 - 01min58s, so probably some sort of news magazine. But they certainly didn't take the video themselves either, the only thing that could eventually work is PD-anon. Hier ist das Video übrigens jetzt. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment This is certainly in the public domain in Europe (either PD-France or PD-UK-unknown), but copyright status in USA is uncertain (PD there at least in 2043). Yann (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not see this aerial photo anywhere in that 1945 news report. So I don't think it is part of that video. --Rosenzweig τ 02:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I didn't have time to watch it yesterday. This one is closer, but I still can't find that exact picture in there. Probably doesn't change much though, since the US copyright is probably the main problem here (I don't really understand those URAA rules, though. They make absolutely no sense) --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This is probably either a UK government or US government work. In both cases, it would be OK for Commons. It is unlikely that a private photographer took this. Yann (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

July 17

File:Bibilov Anatoliy.jpg

This file was initially tagged by FlorianH76 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work of the user, taken from not free source https://parliamentrso.org/node/421

• File:Anatoliy Bibilov, 2012.jpg

High-res with EXIF not available at link, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Rudolf Höß.jpg

No publication date and publicator, no information that this is made by court. Also Commons:CROP violating. Matlin (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The current version has a watermark from the INSTYTUT PAMIĘCI NARODOWEJ on it, and I found this at [1]. The caption, according to Google Translate, reads "Rudolf Höss during his trial, 1947". There does not seem to be any information about the creator, however, whether it was PAP or the court. Previous deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rudolf Höß.jpg. —holly {chat} 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

July 19

File:Vestimenta de las personas con colores del grupo LGBT.jpg

This picture was taken in Yarinacocha no in Lima. And I'm the owner of it. Txolo (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Txolo: Hi, do you mean Jimmy Enciso M uploaded your photo and claimed it to be his own? If yes, where is your original photo? —holly {chat} 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:IMG-20230701-WA0080.jpg

This picture was taken in Yarinacocha not in Lima. I'm the owner of it Txolo (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Txolo: To clarify, are you also the owner of the account Jose Carlos 28, who uploaded the photo? Or, are you saying that you took this, did not give permission for it to be hosted under a free license, and it's still up anyway? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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:Alkoholersterwerbsalter in Europa.png

Redundant png version (newer version: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drinking_age_Europe.svg) furthermore outdated/inaccurate Areatius (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

outdated (showing a historic situation) is no reason for deletion. If it has not been accurate before: what are the inaccuracies? --Enyavar (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to retain this file because there already exists a better version with precise data that is actively maintained and utilized. As the author of this file, I kindly request its removal. Areatius (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: in use. --Krd 11:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

July 21

File:Cheb Kadil.jpg

Possible copyvio: looks a lot like the miniature of this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q-XEuBYQTs CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've looked through the YouTube video and, while I see some photos of this individual in the same outfit, I don't see anything that could be this exact image. @CoffeeEngineer: Would you be willing to expand upon your deletion rationale a little bit? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: it seems really suspect to me that a picture looking a bit like a picture made during a photoshoot has been uploaded by an account for which it is its only upload. For me it is a promo picture that has been found, then uploaded to Commons. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

July 23

File:Réception au Palais de la République.jpg

Historical photo, likely to be a derivative work, thus a proper source and license is needed A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The uploader claims to be the brother of one of the people in the photo. Any reason to doubt that? —holly {chat} 18:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Valdiodio Ndiaye Mamadou Dia Léopold Sédar Senghor(1960).jpg

Historical photo, likely to be a derivative work, thus a proper source and license is needed A1Cafel (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The original uploader claims to be the brother of one of the people in the photo. I don't see any reason to doubt that. —holly {chat} 18:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Sirqus Alfon.png

Possible copyvio: The models are marqued as the authors, Found on this blog from 2009 http://babiestageblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/rheinufer-fest-kehl-1992009.html CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have written to the email addresses shown on https://www.sirqusalfon.com/contact and will update if I get a response. —holly {chat} 20:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am working with their representative to get a new photo. Once I have that sorted out, I'll come back and delete this. I'll use CommonsDelinker to do a universal replace with the new photo, so I need the old one to not be deleted until then. —holly {chat} 17:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

July 24

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:Placa neural é induzida pela mesoderme.jpg

copyright violation; this file is from the book "Principles of Development" 4th edition p. 181 Thomas03876 (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 11:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

July 25

File:Coat of Arms of Kingdom of France.png

Misleading and useless : no achievement exists with such crown and flags 2A01:CB00:D26:F600:295F:2440:5B7E:18B 01:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the other files by this uploader? At a minimum, [:File:Flag of King of France.png]] directly includes this coat of arms, so if this CoA is incorrect, the flag can't be right either. Omphalographer (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

July 26

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/mynewsdesk.com.se.atg/

Mynewsdesk.com is listed under COM:Bad source: Mynewsdesk.com is a site for marketers and promotional uploaders. Its default license is a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, but this is not adequately understood by their uploaders, who frequently post images for which they do not own the rights to release under the Creative Commons license. [[<tvar name="1">Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/05#Mynewsdesk.com verdict</tvar>|Consensus is to avoid using the site]].

ATG, a Swedish harness racing and sports betting company writes this on their website: Upphovsrätten för utseendet på samt innehållet på ATG:s webbsidor (inklusive men inte begränsat till texter, bilder och video- eller ljudfiler) skyddas av svensk upphovsrättslagstiftning och diverse utländska lagar och konventioner. Vidare omfattas ATG:s databaser av databasskydd. Samtliga rättigheter tillhör ATG eller någon av ATG:s samarbetspartners. Alla rättigheter förbehålls. Det är inte tillåtet att utan skriftligt medgivande från ATG eller föregående avtal med ATG, framställa exemplar av, ändra, distribuera, sända, visa, publicera, licensiera, överföra eller sälja innehåll från ATG:s webbplatser eller ATG:s databaser. Samtliga varumärken på webbplatserna tillhör ATG eller någon av ATG:s samarbetspartners och det är inte tillåtet att utan skriftligt medgivande från ATG eller föregående avtal med ATG, använda ATG:s varumärken eller något annat varumärke som återfinns på ATG:s webbplatser. Användandet av ATG:s webbplatser eller någon av ATG:s tjänster ger inte användaren några som helst rättigheter till materialet.

Google translate: Copyright for the appearance and content of ATG's web pages (including but not limited to texts, images and video or audio files) is protected by Swedish copyright legislation and various foreign laws and conventions. Furthermore, ATG's databases are covered by database protection. All rights belong to ATG or one of ATG's partners. All rights reserved. Without written consent from ATG or prior agreement with ATG, it is not permitted to copy, modify, distribute, broadcast, display, publish, license, transfer or sell content from ATG's websites or ATG's databases. All trademarks on the websites belong to ATG or one of ATG's partners and it is not permitted to use ATG's trademarks or any other trademark found on ATG's websites without written consent from ATG or a previous agreement with ATG. The use of ATG's websites or any of ATG's services does not give the user any rights whatsoever to the material.

Some of these files are as far as I can tell from ATG themselves but most are from Kanal 75, a ATG-owned subsidiary. Its terms and conditions can be seen here.

It seems as though this is a clear case of 462 uses of a COM:bad source. In this case however, the uploader is in fact the copyright holder. The uploading process on Mynewsdesk.com is however evidently not transparent enough that the uploaders actually understand that they are waving all commercial rights to their works. To take their waving of rights sincerely we need to make sure they understand what they are doing, which they clearly aren't.

There are a bunch of discussions regarding Mynewsdesk as a source of which Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/02#Huge problem with copyright on Mynewsdesk probably is the best. Quote from Gunnex from that discussion who made an account themself on the site: There is no indication that — choosing "Creative Commons Attribution" — the work may be used/explored by others commercially. And I don't understand why they (mynewsdesk.com) have chosen a CC-BY-SA license as default setting: that could well be overlooked by the image posters --> normally, posting on similar public relations portals like http://www.openpr.de/, you do not expect this.

See also Special:Diff/78029466 by Fastily.

Lastly, I guess the following line from the Swedish law book is also applicable (https://lagen.nu/1915:218#P36S1): 36 §  Avtalsvillkor får jämkas eller lämnas utan avseende, om villkoret är oskäligt med hänsyn till avtalets innehåll, omständigheterna vid avtalets tillkomst, senare inträffade förhållanden och omständigheterna i övrigt. Har villkoret sådan betydelse för avtalet att det icke skäligen kan krävas att detta i övrigt skall gälla med oförändrat innehåll, får avtalet jämkas även i annat hänseende eller i sin helhet lämnas utan avseende.

Google translate: Contract terms may be adjusted or left without regard, if the condition is unreasonable with regard to the content of the agreement, the circumstances at the time of the agreement's creation, later circumstances and the circumstances in general. If the condition is of such importance to the agreement that it cannot reasonably be required that this otherwise apply with unchanged content, the agreement may also be adjusted in other respects or be left without regard in its entirety.

To summarize: It is indisputable that these files were posted by ATG to Mynewsdesk.com with a CC license. It is also clear that a CC license is irrevocable. Since the CC license was/is(?) the default license at the site however, it is clear that the uploader didn't realize what they were doing, hence per Swedish law, the license is not valid without OTRS proof from ATG or the respective copyright holders.

Jonteemil (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question Has there been an attempt to contact ATG? PaterMcFly (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. Jonteemil (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Leave for now. I'm in touch with MyNewsDesk and have reached out to ATG with a link to this page. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Axel Pettersson (WMSE): It's been nearly 3 months. Any update? —holly {chat} 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:STACKVDOWDEN114ChatsworthhouseRegisteredTrustLandRegistryForm19First page.jpg

No source specified, and definitely not Own Work as stated. Not at all clear that this document is free for use under UK law MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The images were made by me using my scanner of a public document, TR1 and Form19 which I bought from HM Land Registry for seven poundseach which any body can buy and in theory they are going to be kept by the HMLR for ever. It is a copy of a copy of an original "thing" which if possessed would make that person or persons the absolute owner of that land. As a thing its source is the address on it. It is the "thing" that is held for a person to be called a freeholder. In legal terms it is grounds and replaces an act of picking up a handful of soil form the land and handing it over to the new owner known Livery of seisin which comes up as a page in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_of_seisin and sometimes Feoffment and sometimes is combined as Feoffment of livery of seisin. There is no stamp of copyright on them. MarcFitzBall (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:STACKVDOWDEN114ChatsworthhouseRegisteredTrust page2.jpg

No source specified, and definitely not Own Work as stated. Not at all clear that this document is free for use under UK law MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The images were made by me using my scanner of a public document, TR1 and Form19 which I bought from HM Land Registry for seven poundseach which any body can buy and in theory they are going to be kept by the HMLR for ever. It is a copy of a copy of an original "thing" which if possessed would make that person or persons the absolute owner of that land. As a thing its source is the address on it. It is the "thing" that is held for a person to be called a freeholder. In legal terms it is grounds and replaces an act of picking up a handful of soil from the land and handing it over to the new owner knownas Livery of seisin which comes up as a page in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_of_seisin and sometimes Feoffment and sometimes is combined as Feoffment of livery of seisin. There is no stamp of copyright on them. MarcFitzBall (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Second page TR1 form showing SvD signed agrement to sell.jpg

No source specified, and definitely not Own Work as stated. Not at all clear that this document is free for use under UK law MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Third page of Stack v Dowdens TR1 registration of sale.jpg

No source specified, and definitely not Own Work as stated. Not at all clear that this document is free for use under UK law MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel

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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 1 What says the 2013 OTRS permission, please? File:U.K.-Japanese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg File:U.K.-Indian minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg File:U.K.-Chinese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg File:U.K.-Indonesian minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)  Keep, perhaps Patrick should find the OTRS volunteers before opening the DR. --A1Cafel (talk ) 02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) @A1Cafel: Each person its job, please: you should tell us, you are the uploader after all. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)  Delete all, Ticket:2013061310007371 has nothing to do with Twitter.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Deleted per Jeff G.-- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 2 Any evidence that they are photos by an employee of the Office of the Speaker as part of that person’s official duties. Besides uploader states Nancy Pelosi as creator but she ios obviously not. File:Nancy Pelosi with CA Governor Gavin Newsom.jpg File:Nancy Pelosi meets with Afghanistan President Ghani.jpg File:Paul Ryan meets with Israeli President Rivlin.jpg File:Pelosi meets with California Rep Maxine Waters.jpg File:Nancy Pelosi meets with Stacey Abrams.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)  Keep, this is an "an official Twitter (social media) account of the Speaker". No matter it is a selfie or not, the image is still in PD. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)  Info false author info: the images does not seem to be selfies. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)  Delete Pending further information. You cannot simply take a photo from an official twitter account, or even from a .gov website or an official government report unless you can demonstrate that the photo was the work of a US federal employee and taking that photo was part of their official duties. At the very least, this normally requires some form of clear attribution. GMGtalk 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Ridiculous. If it is the case, then all images from Twitter/Facebook/Instagram of the US Government have to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) If we don't know who took the picture, then we don't know whether they are public domain. This image was posted the same day on the Facebook page for Gavin Newsome. Was it taken by a staffer for Pelosi, a staffer for Newsome, an employee of the Democratic party (not a government employee at all) or any other person present at the governor's association conference taking place at the time? If the photographer was actually associated with either Pelosi or Newsome, were they a paid employee or were they an unpaid intern? Unpaid interns are not employees and their works are not public domain. Unless we know who took the picture we have no way of knowing whether the image is public domain. Pelosi (or more likely some intern or low-level staffer) has apparently posted hundreds (thousands?) of images on her twitter account, and there is no guarantee that she understands copyright law, or has thoroughly inspected the nature of the image with regard to it's copyright status. Government websites and social media accounts regularly post content either under fair use, or (like 90% of people on the internet) without regard to copyright whatsoever. Because of that merely appearing in one of these outlets is not sufficient to determine the copyright status of the work. GMGtalk 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Unpaid interns working for Congress should fall under PD-USGov. It's still a work for hire, paid or not, I'm pretty sure -- it is part of duties ordered by the employer. I think my best look at that question is here, where agency law still applies to volunteers. (I think Congress is about to make sure that interns get paid going forward, anyways.) All of these photos are of people visiting Washington, where the Congressional staffers are most likely to be present. People operating official Twitter accounts for senators or representatives should have a reasonably clear idea of copyright. It would make sense that such a photo would be supplied to the visiting California governor (and would be PD-CAGov if taken by his staffers anyways). Yes, it's always theoretically possible that someone else took such a photo, but those do not seem to be reasonable doubts, and the usual assumption by publishing on official government sites is that such works are treated as PD-USGov even if it was not technically that way prior. I would certainly treat elements being published on official Twitter accounts the same thing as being published on their governmental website. If there is a strong indication that a particular photo was taken by someone else, please nominate that one individually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC) As to volunteers, Community for Creative Non-Violence specifically examining copyright, stated that among the reasons Reid was not considered an employee (and retained the copyright to his work) was because the organization did not pay his payroll taxes, provide any benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance, and in fact, the court simply presumed method of payment as one of the essential determining factors in defining employment (not whether he was paid, but how he was paid). Regardless, the onus is not on me to provide a strong indication that it was taken by someone else; the onus is on the uploader to demonstrate the content is in the public domain. Whether it was published on this Twitter account simply has no bearing on US copyright law any more than the person depicted does. The only thing US copyright law cares about it who created the work. If someone wants to demonstrate that this image is public domain, then they should email Pelosi's office and ask who the creator was. Otherwise, the only way we keep it is by simply throwing COM:PCP out the window. GMGtalk 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC) That specific court case says that agency law determines "employee", and Reid was determined to be an independent contractor instead of employee by that definition. Agency law however says that: (a) an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work, and (b) the fact that work is performed gratuitously does not relieve a principal of liability. So it is not the lack of payment that determines employee, but other conditions. The court case primarily said, Reid engages in a skilled occupation; supplied his own tools; worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from Washington; was retained for a relatively short period of time; had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work in order to meet his deadline; and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants. In other words, it depends on how much control the employer has over them; it is a distinction between "employee" and "independent contractor". Congressional interns are not independent contractors, as the employer has as much control over their activities as paid employees. Reid was paid, but in the manner of a contractor, not employee. COM:PCP is for *signficant* doubts, not just theoretical possibilities. These do not qualify, in my opinion. We allow claims of "own work" all the time, even though those are similarly not proven. For a DR, someone needs to supply a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) The significant doubt is that we do not know who the author is and we regularly delete modern works where the author is unknown. Posting on the twitter account merely tells us who the author might be and who might be able to tell us. GMGtalk 16:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC) Sorry, just completely disagree. Stuff posted to congressional websites is presumed to be PD-USGov all the time. We do not need to identify the photographer's name in every case. For works where we don't even know the source of initial publication, absolutely unknown authors create significant doubts. Not the case here. Where we do know the place of initial publication, and no author is named, that is then "anonymous" and different laws can apply which we then use. For PD-USGov, the distinction is irrelevant. If it's overwhelmingly likely to be done by a staffer (paid or otherwise), that is generally enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter." GMGtalk 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC) That part of PCP is for a completely different situation than this. Again, that policy is for significant doubts as to copyright status. We don't require the actual employee name on every PD-USGov upload we have -- by your logic we should delete them if we don't. We don't require that "own work" uploads identify who they are -- user accounts are just as anonymous, and the "own work" claim is assumed there. If further information comes up -- such as the existence of an "own work" photo elsewhere on the net (and especially with a differently-named author), or (in this case) the appearance of the photo elsewhere which would indicate it was not PD-USGov, then we nominate then. But we have to make some assumptions on nearly every upload. Stuff like this is far more likely to be OK than an "own work" upload, and at that point it's not worth forcing uploader to come up with unreasonable detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC) As a matter of course, yes, content tagged as PD-USGov needs to have sufficient information about authorship to determine that it was the work of a US government employee. Ideally, that is done like this (U.S. Navy photo by Erik Hildebrandt/Released) or this (Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA) or this (Air Force Staff Sgt. Jordan Castelan). If you don't have this information then you do not know the copyright status of the work and merely taking it from a government website is not a guarantee of authorship. GMGtalk 18:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)  Keep for me. The official Twitter accounts are generally done by staff, i.e. employees of the government. The photos in question above look to be of the type made by staffers. A claim of "Nancy Pelosi" of author is really just claiming it came from her staff, realistically. While it's theoretically possible for these to be photos taken from outside sources, I don't think that rises to a reasonable doubt per COM:PRP at least for the ones above. We would not have any issue if they were published to a .gov website, and I don't see why official Flickr accounts would have a different assumption. If some aspect of the photo makes it more likely it came from a non-USGov source, that could be reason to question the license, but all of the above look to be situations where her staffers would be present. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)  Keep per Carl and caution A1Cafel to stop alleging false author info.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC) I second Carl Lindberg's points. These five photos were taken with phones by someone that is most probably the staff. A challenge is possible only if for example it is shown to be (almost) identical to a non-staff person's photo. Or for example https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1159919184127692800 is obviously not a work of Pelosi's staff.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I've cluttered up this DR enough already, but if someone reuses this in their book or website, I have serious doubts that "probably staff" is going to give them much comfort if they get threatened with a lawsuit. GMGtalk 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Same goes for any "own work" upload, which is far more likely to be a problem than this. As Commons:General disclaimer basically says, nothing here is guaranteed so re-users should look at the evidence provided and determine their own comfort level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Kept: Per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 3 Missing EXIF informations + photographer's watermarks on files. File:Perth (48763770528).jpg File:Perth (48764282872).jpg File:Perth (48764096451).jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)  Delete per nom and don't trust https://www.flickr.com/people/160136040@N02.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Deleted by Túrelio. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 4 https://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/gandhi-downing-street?family=editorial&phrase=Gandhi%20Downing%20Street&sort=mostpopular#license File:Mahatma Gandhi arrived at Number 10.jpg File:Mahatma Gandhi on the steps of 10 Downing Street.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)  Keep, similar photos are also in PD. File:Gandhi outside 10 Downing Street, London.jpg, File:Mahatma Gandhi standing outside 10 Downing Street in 1931.jpg. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC) @A1Cafel: May you explain what {{PD-India}} has to do with British pictures? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC) There were a bunch of photographers standing around making photos of that scene. So each different photo can have its own copyright status, depending on where it was first published (probably which company the photographer worked for) and the like. Some of those may have been first published in India (or some other country who had correspondents there taking pictures), and some may have been simultaneously published in many countries. So, we need to track down sources, and unfortunately some of these are all over the net. Many are probably PD today, but some are probably not. The first one above can be found here, with a credit of "J Gaiger" of the Topical Press Agency, whose archives were bought by Getty. That looks like a raw source version. So, probably first published in the UK, and with a named author it's not PD-UK-unknown meaning we would need to know the death date. That was discussed a decade ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg and was deleted due to lack of information. Maybe we could find more info now, but it would seem as though Getty would indeed hold the copyright if it still exists, and it's not just a PD picture that Getty is claiming ownership of (which does happen). The second one, yes it's on Getty here. They claim a source of "Daily Herald Archive/SSPL". There is another copy here with a claimed copyright owner of "Camera Press". It's been on covers of books too. There is an SSPL source here, where they say the source is a gelatin print. So they are likely claiming copyright ownership because they own a print that was distributed in 1931. If anything, they can only claim copyrights on that particular scan, and probably valid in the UK at most (if even there). But, not sure who the source of the original print was. If it was anonymous UK, then it's PD-UK-unknown today. If it was also simultaneously published in the U.S., it would avoid the URAA as well (if not, it would be Not-PD-US-URAA until 2027). Sure feels like most of the world is treating it as PD, but not sure we know the true source either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Deleted: based on the analysis by Carl. In the second case the PCP applies due to the uncertainty. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 5 Commons:Derivative works from posters. File:Ceroula Rosa no Dia Internacional da Mulher (5529658782).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502777624).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502186383).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502778114).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502187845).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502196207).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502204873).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502809724).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502219965).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502219825).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502813968).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502815452).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502225997).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502825794).jpg File:Manifa 2011 - Warszawa - 06.03.2011 (5502234659).jpg EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 6 Commons:Derivative works from posters. File:COVID-19 notice at Starbucks (49701394008).jpg File:Darebin City Council sign at closed playground due to COVID-19 pandemic, Thornbury (49997920997).jpg File:Sign to COVID-19 testing clinic on Hoddle Street, Abbotsford (49953993137).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus information poster at Fairfield Station (49889103663).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus information signs at entrance to Coles Northcote (49889931647).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus information signs at entrance to Coles Northcote (49889103818).jpg File:Sign on front of closed shop inside Northcote Plaza advising of COVID-19 coronavirus (49889621801).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus closure notice on front of shop, Melbourne (49889104063).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus information sign on Commonwealth Bank branch, Fairfield (49889104973).jpg File:COVID-19 coronavirus closure sign on Fairfield Library (49889623111).jpg File:Playground closed due to COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, Fairfield (49889933842).jpg EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)  Delete File:Sign to COVID-19 testing clinic on Hoddle Street, Abbotsford (49953993137).jpg and File:COVID-19 coronavirus information poster at Fairfield Station (49889103663).jpg as COM:FOP Australia.  Keep the rest of them are mostly text only per {{PD-text}}. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Kept: per User:A1Cafel comment above. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC) 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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs) where does it say that the twitter account is also covered by OGL? File:UK Prime Minister - The UK condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack on the people of Ukraine..webm RZuo (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep UK government Twitter channels become archived at the end of the year at nationalarchives.gov.uk, when they become explicitly OGL3. See webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk for this one. You could argue that the link to to the number10.gov.uk website on the Twitter author page, which website also explicitly has the OGL 3.0 license, is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC) ok. users should specify that the video became ogl by way of being included in the archives like https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/twitter/10DowningStreet/post/bd72bc8e-963d-11ec-b845-62848c3126f2/video , though. i dont agree that the licence on another website can be interpreted as covering twitter, unless someone can find ogl websites in which twitter posts are somehow embedded. RZuo (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Quite possibly not, though you know the contents will definitely become OGL at the end of the year, so it's arguing over technicalities and timing. If the same content is on the website then it's definitely fine, but unsure if it was on the website when uploaded. It would be helpful if they mentioned a licensing statement on the Twitter author page, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)  Question Are we sure the music in the background is freely licensed? I agree that it would appear to be under the OGL, but I don't think the U.K. government can extinguish the copyright of a music recording just by placing an excerpt in a video that they then post to social media. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) you're right. it seems to be the first 40s of "Music Of Filmmaker - My Lord - Song by Yarin Primak" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQOI_2Anfs . i didnt watch the video beyond a few seconds initially. difficult to isolate and remove the music. muting it renders the video useless.  Delete. the footage of bojo speaking is from house of commons, though. so it's actually possible to find those raw footage. RZuo (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Deleted: per discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs)

No FOP in South Africa.

• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678654899).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678649467).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678643953).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4679260318).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4679265560).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4679244896).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4679233812).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4679228788).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678574107).jpg
• File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678556705).jpg

Edelseider (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Question Does bridges in South Africa exceed COM:TOO? --A1Cafel (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete File:Nelson Mandela Bridge (4678643953).jpg, derivative work of a photograph of unknown copyright status. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I hate giving an answer to this because I am against deleting South African images on Commons for FOP reasons as the law in South Africa is in the process of changing to include a FOP copyright exception. If I had to give an answer it would be... maybe, bridges might (but if so then perhaps not always) also exceed COM:TOO. I have a vague recollection of photographs of South African bridges on Commons having being deleted in the past. That's why copyright exceptions tend to use the term "public works" dropping the term "art" or some other word that might imply creativity so as to be as broad as possible. Also because the law recognizes that it is not a good judge of what is "art" or not but instead tries to use tests for novelty in patents and creativity (or "sweat of the brow" intellectual work that does not plagiarize) for copyright. However, it must be noted that many bridges, it can be convincingly argued, are effectively simple objects consisting of geometric shapes. In this interpretation bridges that do not have a decorative facade would not be copyrightable but ones with such a facade would be. The same would be true of buildings. I can get a legal opinion on this later this week as I am no IP law scholar. Then I can give a better answer. Either way I can see this falling into a gray area.--Discott (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

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 A1Cafel (talk · contribs)

Duplicates.

• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33282938036).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33195806621).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (32940992740).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33282934936).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33323470805).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33168381632).jpg
• File:Angelobung von Pamela Rendi-Wagner (33323470395).jpg

RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Always the same problem with A1Cafel using Flickr2Commons without due diligence. He has been told so many times to avoid creating duplicates, which is in fact very easy: stay away from Flickr2Commons, use the Upload Wizard instead. @Jmabel: this raises again the question of the usefulness of F2C (see [2]). --Edelseider (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete If they are duplicates, they can be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: If they are duplicates, why a DR instead of {{Duplicate}} to speedy-delete them? - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment matter was discussed at Commons talk:Flickr2Commons#Duplicates 2 but it seems no one takes this thing seriously. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I take it very seriously and have raised it multiple times in the past. There is only so much you can do when the designer of this tool doesn't fix it. F2C is responsible for millions of duplicates that have appeared and been deleted here over the years. It's also very helpful when it is used properly. Edelseider (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete and see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Topic_ban_of_A1Cafel_from_uploads_with_Flickr2Commons regarding a topic ban on A1Cafel against using this tool in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: Looks like they were already converted to redirects. —holly {chat} 21:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:2008년 8월 남양주소방서 의무소방원 이창형, 박철진, 최광모, 권용중, 고석승, 주기완.jpg

without portrait right consent 최광모 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2013-12-06 17.13.51 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent 최광모 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2013-12-06 17.13.31 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2013-12-06 17.10.58 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep You can't really argue the persons in the picture didn't know they where photographed when they are obviously posing for a photo shooting. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2015-05-08 11.44.26 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2014-11-20 15.50.45 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2014-11-20 16.00.48 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2014-03-27 12.43.48 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2014-03-28 17.35.49 최광모.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep "the person in the pic"? There are several persons in this picture and none of them is prominently shown. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2009년 6월 12일 남양주소방서 의무소방원 권용중, 주기완, 최광모, 이창형, 소방공무원 김영희.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2008년 10월 13일 남양주소방서 의무소방원들 등.jpg

without portrait consent (also request by the person in the pic) 최광모 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Chateau du Val St Germain vue demi lune fin XVIIe.jpg

le document ne peut être à la fois du XVII e siècle et l'oeuvre d'un contributeur Limfjord69 (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I think this is CGI. Looking at Franck devedjian's user page, I see several other generated images containing this female character: File:Bellegarde Loiret pré du duel en bas.jpg, File:BRUNOY vue depuis la grille du fond du parc.jpg, and File:Chantilly vue bassin octogone haut cascades.jpg (there are more). @Franck, could you please comment? —holly {chat} 23:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

July 27

File:MCI logo latest.pdf

This file was initially tagged by Elisfkc as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Weak delete. Borderline case; I'm inclined to delete in light of the precautionary principle if I'm 50-50 on whether or not something's above or below TOO. It's a bit more complex than the New York Arrows logo and the Nikon logo, but it seems also more complex to me than the Car Credit City full logo with a border (which is registered and over TOO). It's arguably at around the same level of complexity as the BP Helios logo, which is over TOO. In any case, I can't say with confidence that it's below COM:TOO USA, so I lean towards deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:HK TKO 將軍澳 Tseung Kwan O PopCorn mall Star Cinemas January 2023 Px3.jpg

Copyrighted screenshots in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

These look like de minimis to me. —holly {chat} 22:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The screenshots don't seem trivial to me. A Gaussian blur of the screenshots would remove any infringing elements as it would still be a useful file without them as the rest is just simple text. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

File:제16기 소방간부후보생 김영진.jpg

Request for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Xhazrx (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

• File:Sekolah-kebangsaan-tunku-muda-serting.png
• File:Majlis-Daerah-Jelebu-Logo.png
• File:SUKNS.png
• File:Darjah Setia Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Changgai-Puteri.png
• File:Darjah Seri Utama Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Darjah Mulia Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Darjah Tertinggi Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Darjah Kerabat Yam Tuan Raden.png
• File:DKNS.png
• File:Setiawan Tuanku Muhriz.png
• File:Ahli Setia Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Darjah Pekerti Terpilih.png
• File:Darjah Tuanku Muhriz.png
• File:Darjah Setia Bakti Negeri Sembilan.png
• File:Darjah Setia Tuanku Muhriz.png
• File:Darjah Dato’ Paduka Negeri Sembilan (D.P.N.S.).png
• File:SSNS.png
• File:Darjah Seri Setia Negeri Sembilan.jpg
• File:Lembaga-Muzium-Negeri-Sembi.png
• File:JATA-NS-PROTOKOL2.png
• File:Manual Kualiti PSUKNS-MK-PSUKNS-01 Tahun 2022.pdf
• File:Sukn9.png
• File:Panca Persada.jpg
• File:Logo-PTGNS.png
• File:Logo-PKNNS.png
• File:Logo-MD-Tampin.png
• File:Logo-MD-Rembau.png
• File:Logo-MDKP.png
• File:Logo-MDJelebu.png
• File:Logo-MPPD.png
• File:Logo-PLANMalaysia-Negeri-Sembilan-N9.png
• File:LogoPLANMalaysia-Negeri-Sem.png
• File:DVS-NS-logo.png
• File:Logo-Jabatan-Pertanian-Nege.png
• File:LOGO-Perhutanan.png
• File:JPSNS.png
• File:Logo JKMNS.png
• File:Logo-JKSNS.png
• File:Jkrn9.png
• File:Jkr-n9.png
• File:Yns-n9.png
• File:Mains.n9.png
• File:Pknns.png
• File:Struktur-pentadbiran-kerajaan-negeri-sembilan.jpg
• File:Changgai Puteri.jpg
• File:Wisma Negeri, Negeri Sembilan.jpg
• File:Skuasy-seremban2b.jpg
• File:Logo-Sekolah-Kebangsaan-Ser.png
• File:Logo-sktms-bahau.png
• File:Logo-skseremban2b.jpg
• File:Logo-Sekolah-Kebangsaan-Tunku-Muda-Serting-Bahau.png
• File:Logo-SKTMS.png

Didym (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Many of these are not photos but logos, for which the question is what the COM:TOO Malaysia standards are, the problem being that they aren't very clearly presented on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

July 28

File:State Council Gazette - 1989 - Issue 09.pdf

Given s:zh:Wikisource:版權討論/2023年中華人民共和國政府公報特別提刪討論頁, there are some evidences to indicate that government gazettes aren't PD-PRC-exempt available, see also statement from Supreme People's Court of China Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:State Council Gazette - 1999 - Issue 35.pdf

Given s:zh:Wikisource:版權討論/2023年中華人民共和國政府公報特別提刪討論頁, there are some evidences to indicate that government gazettes aren't PD-PRC-exempt available, see also statement from Supreme People's Court of China Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20151003강릉소방서RX10DSC03474.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Out of Scope. No need to keep this one, particularly if it became a privacy problem for this person (who is not a public person). Miniwark (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2007년 남양주소방서 의무소방원 박근록, 최광모.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Out of Scope. No need to keep this one, particularly if it became a privacy problem for this persons (who is are public persons). Miniwark (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20151003강릉소방서RX10DSC02979.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Out of Scope. No need to keep this one, particularly if it became a privacy problem for this person (who is not a public person). Miniwark (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:2010년 8월 제16기 소방간부후보생 최광모 사진 432 최광모 iPhone 3GS.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Out of Scope. No need to keep this one, particularly if it became a privacy problem for this person (who is not a public person). Miniwark (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Guanyin Throwing Food to Preta.jpg

The actual author of this painting is Jiang Yizi (江逸子), not in Public Domain. (see https://www.sohu.com/a/396075618_466973) Not a Japanese 17th century work. 120.229.229.123 09:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20150724시민안전파수꾼 안전교육강사 교육과정DSC00114.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Image made during what look like to be a public event. Miniwark (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20151009예수 그리스도 후기성도 교회 교인 체육대회 (강릉경찰서 수련원)DSC03948.jpg

I apply for deletion to protect the portrait rights and privacy of the person in the photo. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Look like it was done during a public sport event. Miniwark (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20151218최광모 거울 응시DSC05905.jpg

I request deletion to protect my personal portrait rights and personal information. also it is out of cope. It is true that I agreed to the CC copyright when I uploaded this photo. However, as the photo is continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, my portrait right and personal information are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my intention to agree to the copyright at the time of upload. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Neutral No need to keep this one, particularly if it became a privacy problem for this person (who is not a public person). That said, i find this image artistic. Miniwark (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MANS257 (talk · contribs)

no trivial logo

• File:המהדורה הצעירה לוגו.png
• File:חדשות הבוקר 2022.png
• File:פאולה וליאון 2022.png
• File:הכל כלול 2022.png
• File:הדוח היומי סמל 2022.jpg
• File:העולם הבוקר לוגו 2022 בלי מנחים.jpg
• File:Microsoft edge.png

· ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 14:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep File:הדוח היומי סמל 2022.jpg and File:הכל כלול 2022.png as they appear to be below COM:TOO Israel.  Delete the rest. —holly {chat} 21:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Рава-Руська Меморіальна дошка Євгену Коновальцю.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1991. Derivatives of work. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep This photo does not depict anything that would have individual economic significance. The text is not copyrightable (short fact without creativity), and the picture is a reproduction of a public domain photo File:Yevgen Konovalec.jpg. The economic significance is coming from creating a 3D-plaque, but when photographed as 2D it is a mere reproduction of a public domain photo with trivial text, and so none of economically significant contributions of the engraver can be seen — NickK (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete First of all, it's a 3D work and a photo of a 3D work means there are two copyrights in play: one of the work itself and one of the photo of the work. Secondly, the engraving does not appear to use the same image as the photo. For one, the subject's hair is different. Now if it *is* the same photo and the sculptor made the conscious decision to make the hair different, then that was a creative choice and by definition, that would mean a new copyright. —holly {chat} 21:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  I understand the double copyright, but the new Ukrainian copyright law added a limited freedom of panorama for cases when reproductions have no independent economic significance (note that this is not the same wording as commercial value, unfortunately so far no legal expert explained this norm nor it was yet applied in the court in either way). So the only thing we can do is our own interpretation and comparison with EU countries (which inspired this law), and in this case the 2D reproduction is supposed to exactly result in the original work (which is a public domain photo), essentially being the exact case of no independent economic significance. Now there is indeed something strange going on with the hair, Konovalets never had such a haircut, so probably a problem reproducing the photo in the pre-Internet era. I don't think it creates anything of independent economic significance though, it looks more like a mistake than a conscious choice — NickK (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  @NickK I think the condition on Ukrainian FoP is not a de minimis condition but a clear condition that images should not be licensed under Wikimedia-required licenses that mandate commercial or for-profit reuses (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-zero, and/or PD). Also, the claims of Ukrainian legislature that their 2022 amendments are inspired from the EU laws are not entirely accurate: the EU directive does not mandate non-commercial condition (but also does not require commercial condition) (see Clindberg's input at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#NEW copyright law of Ukraine). The WIPO now has an English copy of the updated law, and that copy uses "value" instead of "significance", so much closer to prohibition of distribution and sharing of images under lucrative Creative Commons licenses than a test on de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

July 29

File:Portallium in 2017.png

Copyright violation, no VRT ticket. It is even on the website itself: "Copyright 2013-2017". JopkeB (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This looks like {{PD-ineligible}} to me. The Portallium logo is probably below COM:TOO Netherlands, and if not, it's probably de minimis. —holly {chat} 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not only about the Portallium logo, but also about Google and the design of the web page. JopkeB (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that, but the remainder of the web page is far below COM:TOO US. —holly {chat} 04:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll let the administrator be the judge of that. JopkeB (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jean-Mowak (talk · contribs)

Pas de copyright sur Commons. Autorisation de Lauren Ransan nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr

• File:Ancre Utile Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan 2013.jpg
• File:Une bouteille à la mer - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Equipe - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Étude du mobilier archéozoologique sur l'Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Gamelle metal Utile - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Ancre de l'Utile - Fouilles sous-marine - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Vestige d'artillerie - balle de l'Utile - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Vestige de l'Utile sur l'Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Fous Masqués - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Tromelin-Piste-Transall-2013-03©LaurenRansan.jpg
• File:Tromelin Piste-Atterrissage 2013 ©LaurenRansan.jpg
• File:Bernard l'Hermite et bébé tortue sur l'Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Station météorologique Serge Frolow - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Piste -Transall -Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Tassage de la piste aérienne - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Message d'une bouteille à la mer - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013- 2013.jpg
• File:Bouteille à la mer - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Bernard l'Hermite au lever du jour - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Ponte de tortue verte - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Tortue verte juvénile - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Bébé tortue verte sur l'Île Tromelin - 1000H Tromelin ©Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Equipe de fouilles - Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Fous à pieds rouges sur l'Île Tromelin © Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Bernard l'Hermite sur l'Île Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Tromelin Vue du Transall 2013 - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Thomas Romon sur le site de fouilles à Tromelin - 1000 heures à Tromelin - Lauren Ransan - 2013.jpg
• File:Pièce de monnaie trouée - vestige - 1000 heures à Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Transall - Fouilles archéologiques -1000H Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Cuillère - vestige archéologique sur Tromelin - 1000H Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Fouilles archéologique - tamisage - 1000H Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg Has OTRS
• File:Tombes à Port-Couvreux - Kerguelen - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Ile au Cochon - Kerguelen - Lauren Ransan.jpg
• File:Baie de l'Observatoire - Kerguelen - Lauren Ransan.jpg

Shev123 (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ticket:2023073010000486 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 03:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ticket:2023073010000511 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 03:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• I have just accepted permission for “File:Cuillère - vestige archéologique sur Tromelin - 1000H Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg” under ticket:2023073010000511. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: I have a few questions. The uncertainty on the description page of this file (and of the other files) is that User:Jean-Mowak claims to be the photographer (in the author and source fields) and to be the copyright owner (in the «self» template with the license) and at the same time says also that the copyright owner is Lauren Ransan (in the description field), whose authorship is also sort of implied in the titles. The conclusion seems to be that User:Jean-Mowak is Lauren Ransan. (Or the uploader could have made a mistake.) I see that you did not change anything to the information in the description page of this file. Does that mean that you are confirming that the information on the description page describes the reality accurately, i.e. that User:Jean-Mowak is Lauren Ransan? The use of both names will cause some confusion for the reusers. Which name are they required to credit? The author field seems to require attribution to "Jean-Mowak", but the description field seems to require attribution to Lauren Ransan. Does the ticket specify to which of those two names the attribution must be given? Is the copyright owner sending the permissions for one file at a time only? If so, it seems somewhat inefficient, given that the situation is the same for all the files. If this ticket confirms that the uploader User:Jean-Mowak is Lauren Ransan, she will still remain the same person and it would not seem necessary to send emails for the other files, as she is uploading her own photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias Thanks for your hint. The permission came from Lauren Ransan. I missed to change the authorship i the fiel description. Sorry for that. I have now made up for this. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias and Mussklprozz: Jean-Mowak mentionned on her user page on fr-WP that she's Lauren Ransan. Géodigital (Talk with a geologist lynx) 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC).

Thank you for the link. See also the user talk page on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias, @Géodigital: To be honest, I do not know how fr-WP deals with such statements. In de-WP, the user needs to verify themselves by an email to de-VRT. They then get a verification tag on their user page by the de-VRT agent. – I think be putting the photographer's name in the author field of the file description, we are on the safe side anyway. Mussklprozz (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: The talk pages are indications (coming from the account), but they're not a verification (coming from the author through a different way). The verification we need for Commons is the same as what you said about de.wp. (Or, alternatively, a mention of the Wikimedia account on the author's official website could do.) That was my question above. Does at least one of the emails already sent to VRT by the author Lauren Ransan include or not the information that the Wikimedia account Jean-Mowak is her account? If yes, then you can place the note on her user page and from now on she can merrily upload her own works with that account as much as she wishes without further verification. And then it also means that she can write any name or pseudonym she wants in the author field. But if her emails do not yet include that simple information, maybe you can send an email to her and explain that situation to her? Because if she sends emails only about photos, without mentioning the account identity, she will have to do it for all her new uploads and it will be a waste of effort both for her and for you. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Asclepias. No, Lauren Ransan wrote in none of her emails to VRT that she is the same person as User:Jean-Mowak. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Question to Lauren Ransan sent per Ticket:2023073010000486. Mussklprozz (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have just accepted permission for “File:Fouilles archéologique - tamisage - 1000H Tromelin - Lauren Ransan.jpg” under ticket:2023073010000486. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Shamsipour (talk · contribs)

One picture has watermark "حوزه ریاست و روابط عمومی" which is the PR department of this college. The other two are also PR-style photographs, these files lack permission.

• File:دکتر کامران رحیمی.jpg
• File:ساختمان آموزش.jpg
• File:سایت.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo di Flash Fiber.png

This file was initially tagged by Vale93b as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: above TOO to be textlogo Yann (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Asia - UN.png

duplicate with File:Asia-UN.png Bennylin (yes?) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Support legend colors didn't match--Albedo (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment These aren't exact duplicates; there are a few territories that are colored differently depending on the version. I'm not sure which is right, but we may want to check on that before deleting this so as not to delete a potentially correct map in favor of keeping an erroneous one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris 2016 10 12 Walk to Montmartre (4) (33644660642).jpg

No Fop in France : according to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. This is a recent street art. Tangopaso (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Mononesh Das.jpg

Uploaded for advertising, uploader is blocked for sockpuppetry. Also the person depicted in the picture is not notable. Related discussions:

• Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/SharifKhanBD
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SanzidaSanambd

— Haseeb (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The photo is in-use at মনোনেশ দাস. I'm a bit perplexed by that page; is that legitimate use that would warrant keeping the photo? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Nicolás como el Señor Cobra en 2020.jpg

Se equivocaron, pero se modificó el nombre Emilio9564 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

ya me cansé. Emilio9564 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Plagio hacia la imagen de Nicolás Orona Carreón como el Señor Cobra en 2020 Emilio9564 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:Cahue Mesquita Pereira

• File:Cassiano Araújo dos Santos “Dos Santos”.jpg
• File:Catedral Metropolitana de Assunção, com a presença do Chanceler do Paraguai, Embaixador Julio Cesar Arriola entregou a Obra “Nossa Senhora Conquistadora” ao Cardeal Adalberto Martínez Flores.jpg

A clear case of COM:FLICKRWASHING. These two images were uploaded before and deleted for being copyvio. This user was even blocked for this reason. However, he found out that he could bypass community sanction by simply uploading these images to Flickr first. Note that he uploaded these images in the Flickr in the same day he uploaded it here. Note also, that these are one of the few images uploaded in that Flickr account under a free license. Meaning that they uploaded these images there simply to get rid with copyvio. --Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Opa @Kacamata, é um mentorado meu quem fez o upload, aparentemente ele contatou o Cassiano Araújo, dono da conta do Flickr (e biografado no artigo da ptwiki onde as fotos são usadas) pedindo pela disponibilização das fotos em CC-BY para ilustrar o artigo. sendo assim não acho que é o caso de Flickrwashing. Kássio Santiago (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kássio Santiago Acho que os comentários em português prejudicarão outros editores que queiram participar dessa discussão. Contudo, só para te responder. Esse mesmo editor tentou fazer o upload dessas mesmas imagens por outros meios e, inclusive, foi bloqueado por esse motivo. Nesse caso, se ele tem autorização do detentor dos direitos autorais, seria muito melhor que ele pedisse a pessoa que enviasse uma autorização via COM:VRT. Assim, acredito que essa questão ficaria resolvida. Do jeito que ele fez fica parecendo FLICKRWASHING. Até porque, a imagem foi originalmente publicada em outro lugar antes de ser publicada no Flickr. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

July 30

File:Roger sauvage pilote 04959.jpg

Obviously not own work in 2021. Kursant504 (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep PD-EU author=anonymous. --RAN (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  PD-EU cannot apply now because it has no source information "scanned from a book" is not enough the exact book must be specified because it matters when and where the book was published.Kursant504 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• It is not from a book. This image belongs to Category:Exposition Normandie-Niémen à Reims, this event took place in 2015. The question is if it can be qualified as a proper source. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's could be a fotos from a private archive that was not published before. In that case we need 70 years from 2015 when it was published anonymously at the first time. Kursant504 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Piet Retief-standbeeld.jpg

The statue was completed in 1962 by Coert Steynberg (1905–1982). There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa. The copyright term of the country is 50 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2033 A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope it will be undeleted along with the information added to it, and that I will be notified again when at that date, 2032 rather than 2033? I wonder whether the fact that it was commissioned and partially funded by the public makes it an exception? Suppose not, as I note that the Nelson Mandela statue, Union Buildings, has also been whittled down to a few distant images. JMK (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can write code to notify the relevant pages where it is currently used, when it is available again. JMK (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:DSC5162 (49565276986).jpg

Copyrighted paintings. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Focus changed to Alexander Schallenberg. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Still one left, and it does not appear to be de minimis. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete, The artwork cannot be cropped out to save this file from deletion. The subject is facing the art- not de minimis. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Can't we just selectively blur it? Bremps... 01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

One could selectively blur it, and then have the old versions revision-deleted. It would remove any FOP-adjacent issues. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Delete/Selectively blur+revdel: To stop any 2D FoP arguments, the description of the Flickr file states that the subject was visiting an exhibition in an Austrian embassy. This means that this is no permanent. Not sure whether Austrian or German FoP laws apply in an embassy, but they both have restrictions on permanence either way. —MATRIX! {user - talk? - useless contributions} 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:DGB.svg

There is another exact same version of the logo: File:DGB-Logo.svg Welkend (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep One has a margin, but not the other. --Leyo 09:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:1. FC Koeln Logo 1973–1992.svg

copyvio (this license is fantasy). In fact it is fully copyrighted. Mateus2019 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The club has already agreed to the use of the club logos several times on request, for the crest with billy goat there is a permission since 2023 (see: ticket #2023021010004546), based on that the same license has been selected. If a separate permission is needed for the modified crest, which has not been used for more than 30 years, then please delete until this permission has been deposited. Nick-4711 (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Online monitoring of the wind map.jpg

File is a derivative work. Although the picture has been taken with a camera, it is effectively a screenshot and is based on other people's work, so cannot solely be claimed as "own work" with no source, attribution or permission specified. Source = this website. Copyright status / permission specified here seems not to apply to general screenshots (this image) as it states "The images at right are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License". i.e. the specific images on that page (only). It goes on to say "Let us know if you're interested in reproducing other images", hence COM:VRT needed or should be subject to deletion. FotoFree (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Per nomination. Willschryver94 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kukulski.jpg

This condition has not been met: "Please provide where and when the image was first published."So PD-Poland doesn't apply. Matlin (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Witoldkiezun1942.jpg

This condition has not been met: "Please provide where and when the image was first published."So PD-Poland doesn't apply. Especially in source page is stated: (fot. archiwum domowe) (translation: photo from home archive) which is not right publicator. Matlin (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Anna Jantar family.jpg

This condition has not been met: "Please provide where and when the image was first published."So PD-Poland doesn't apply. And it's photo by Lesław Sagan (see source page). Matlin (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Z15623494Q.jpg

This condition has not been met: "Please provide where and when the image was first published."So PD-Poland doesn't apply. Matlin (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Die Strafe-3547.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question @CoffeeEngineer: Can you explain a bit why you're confident that the uploader is not the author listed in the metadata? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: It cannot be proven the uploader is the author of the picture. It can be that the person in the metadata uses a pseudonym. Usually, I flag it for precautionary principle. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Die Strafe live 2012.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question @CoffeeEngineer: Can you explain a bit why you're confident that the uploader is not the author listed in the metadata? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: It cannot be proven the uploader is the author of the picture. It can be that the person in the metadata uses a pseudonym. Usually, I flag it for precautionary principle. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Код Удемана.png

Помилка у кодові Любмир (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Schönblick - Ahés Pfuhl.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). 1912 German photograph, no source or author listed. It could be public domain but we need more information on publication to help determine copyright status. Abzeronow (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Stamps of Qatar 1971

Due to the restoration of US copyright in all those works that were still copyrighted in Qatar on 13 January 1996, these images are copyrighted in the US by Qatar Post.

• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Al-farabi.png
• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Al-jahiz.png
• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Al-Mutanabbi.png
• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Avicenna.jpg
• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Ibn al-haytham.jpg
• File:Qatar stamp islamic figure (1971), Saladdin.png

Felix QW (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Old Kurdish carpet which depicts swastikas.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Aintabli as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/gju5ki/central_anatolian_kurdish_konya_carpet_from_1600s/%7Chelp=off Can this be PD-Art? Yann (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment The carpet is clearly old and stated to be from the 1600s, so it is PD. The thing is, is this considered a faithful reproduction of flat art? Because if not, the photo could have been taken as recently as 1945. Have other photos of carpets that are in the public domain been considered PD-art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Le général Raüs Chalwe Munkutu Ngwashi dans son bureau de la police nationale congolaise.jpg

Trabajo propio? 200.111.222.227 16:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:BD LesVieuxFourneaux 1 a 7.jpg

This file was initially tagged by DMacks as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cover art of non-free publications

•  Keep: Only one front cover is displayed in full (out of focus) and is not the focus of the shot (and therefore de minimis), the slices of other front covers are de minimis, and the sides are not copyrightable. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Glasgow Humane Society.jpg

Very doubtful that this is its own work. + This logo meets the threshold of originality. These are not simple geometric shapes. DCB (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a representative of the Glasgow Humane Society who are the sole owners of this logo Scottish editor901 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Scottish editor901 Please send permission to COM:VRT. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Firmenlogo Schuhfabrik Irus in Butzbach.jpg

Very doubtful that this is its own work. + This logo meets the threshold of originality. These are not simple geometric shapes. DCB (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Homenaje a Riquelme (cropped).jpg

The summary cites Victor Santa María (a politician) as author, but the metadata states it is Diego Astarita (a profesional photographer). The image was taken from the Flickr account of the former, thus we should not keep the image unless we have an explicit permission from the real author via COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Homenaje a Riquelme.jpg

The summary cites Victor Santa María (a politician) as author, but the metadata states it is Diego Astarita (a profesional photographer). The image was taken from the Flickr account of the former, thus we should not keep the image unless we have an explicit permission from the real author via COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Homenaje a Riquelme (1).jpg

The summary cites Victor Santa María (a politician) as author, but the metadata states it is Diego Astarita (a profesional photographer). The image was taken from the Flickr account of the former, thus we should not keep the image unless we have an explicit permission from the real author via COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Riquelme firmando autógrafos.jpg

The summary cites Victor Santa María (a politician) as author, but the metadata states it is Diego Astarita (a profesional photographer). The image was taken from the Flickr account of the former, thus we should not keep the image unless we have an explicit permission from the real author via COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:El acordeonista de Arteta IMG 1942.jpg

The painting was created around 1938 [3] by Aurelio Arteta (1879-1940). In Spain the copyright protection for authors who is died before 1987 is 80 years pma. Thus, this painting was not in the public domain in the Spain at URAA time and it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we should not keep it. The earliest time we can undelete this file is 2034 (1938 + 95 + 1). Günther Frager (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Mortadelo y Filemón.jpg

Stamps are not in the PD in Spain, and the copyright belongs to the designer. The author of Martadelo y Filemón is Francisco Ibañez who died in 2023. This file can be undeleted in 2094. Günther Frager (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:13 rue del percebe.jpg

Screenshot of a copyrighted object (a cartoon). The author, Francisco Ibañez, died in 2023, thus still protected under copyright in Spain. Günther Frager (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Aurelio. Batalla de los Alporchones.jpg

Painting from Aurelio Pérez Martínez (1930-2000). Spain has a copyright protection of 70 years pma, and therefore the image is still copyrighted there. This can be undeleted in 2071. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Valeria Mazza 1993.jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1993. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete: no evidence that this is PD in the US. Argentine copyright didn't expire until 2018 so it it not {{PD-1996}}. Even if it were simultaneously published in the US, it's too recent for {{PD-URAA-Simul}} to apply: US publication in 1993 means (as nom says) copyright lasts 70 years from the death of the author. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Octavius V Catto Memorial Philadelphia 20210716.jpg

The pictured work of art was "fixed in a tangible medium in 2017. Per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, such works are not covered by freedom of panorama, and pictures of them uploaded here are presumably copyrighted, absent some other info or evidence of release from the owner of the copyright. This all applies to the other images in Category:Octavius Catto memorial, but I figured I'd get input on the rationale before starting a multiple-image deletion nomination. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Yamila Diaz-Rahi 1994 (cropped).jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1994. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Yamila Diaz-Rahi 1994.jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1994. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Dolores Barreiro Viva 1994.jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1994. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Aviso revista viva 1994.jpg

This is not a photograph, it is a scan of a newspaper published in 1994 in Argentina. The copyright for corporate works is 50 years after publication, thus it would be still protected in Argentina. Regardless of this, it is also protected by US copyright (US joined Berne convention in 1989) where corporate copyright lasts for 95 years after publication. Günther Frager (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Sixto valencia autoretrato.gif

The author is the Mexican cartoonist Sixto Valencia who died in 2015. The protection in his home country is 100 years pma and therefore protected by copyright. The file states "Difusion" as permission, but there is no indication what does it entitle. Günther Frager (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Jay Cutler.jpg

1973. Trabajo original? 186.172.210.67 20:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Falles 2014 - 6.jpeg

COM:Toys from the famous cartoon W:Mortadelo y Filemón. Günther Frager (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Not COM:Toys but Falles. We can't apply COM:Toys--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Idanna Pucci, August 2020, by Terence Ward.png

possible copyvio (photo by Terence Ward) M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Terence Ward in Anghiari, Italy.jpg

possible copyvio (photo by Jane Hawkins) M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:RezaNasirani.jpg

Possible license laundering, the account was created today and it is uploading files previously deleted. One of the photos is a selfie but claims to be "My shot from reza nasirani"[4]. Günther Frager (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The mistake was corrected and it was replaced with a selfie instead of taking a picture, and it was corrected in the description section. Amcocain (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• You corrected a file that is not a selfie.
• A selfie from Reza Nasirani can only be taken by Reza Nasirani.
• This photo happens to be the TikTok profile of the guy [5]
• Reza Nasirani is not a director, he is a random TikToker, thus the photo is a personal photo, not allowed in Commons.

Also, you are not addressing the issue of "files previously deleted" (hint: they were uploaded before you created your account). Günther Frager (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete No evidence of permission from the copyright holder for a work previously published elsewhere online. The Flickr account attributes the photograph to someone who does not share a name with the Flickr account holder, so the alleged permission on Flickr appears to be COM:Flickrwashing, and that account should be blacklisted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Emilia Attias in 2012.jpg

The source link is dead, and there is no archive version. From the name it seems it was a ad video for a magazine. The uploader appears to be the company that produced the video, but generally the copyright belongs to the company that payed for it. Günther Frager (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Ayelen Alancay.jpg

Low resolution, no EXIF information, unlike to be an own work. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Fabian Raul Martinez.png

Low resolution, no EXIF information, unlike to be an own work Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Raul Magnasco.jpg

Also found in a lower resolution here: https://www.parlamentario.com/2023/07/25/un-voto-por-la-vida-2/ The user has two other deletion request for copyright infringement. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Emilia Attias Remix 2012.jpg

The source link is dead, and there is no archive version. From the name it seems it was a ad video for a magazine. The uploader appears to be the company that produced the video, but generally the copyright belongs to the company that payed for it. Günther Frager (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Gabriela Sabatini 1994.png

The file is not in the public domain in the US. The template Not-PD-US-URAA can only be used for uploads before 2012 (this was uploaded 8 years after that). Regardless, this image was always copyrighted in the US because the US grants copyright protection automatically since 1989 to all the works originated in countries members of the Berne Convention, and this particular image was published in 1994. Günther Frager (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Berdan green.jpg

Not uploaders work. See TinEye GeorgHH • talk   21:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Phil Harvey (2021) vertical.png

The file "Phil Harvey (2021).png" had a horizontal configuration, so I created this vertical one to use on Coldplay videography. Since then however, I decided to put all Coldplay individual photos in vertical configuration, thus making this file useless. GustavoCza (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:LaCasaDeLosFamososMéxico.png

The logo is made in 3D style, so it cannot apply in the {{PD-text}} criteria, it could be reaching the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Viva (1) maria vazquez daniela urzi 1995.jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1995. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Daniela Urzi 1995 (cropped).jpg

The image is a scanned photograph from a magazine published in Argentina in 1995. The photo is currently is in the public domain in Argentina (25 years after publication), but it is not in the United States (70 years pma). Günther Frager (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Izcalli 02.jpg

uploaded on 2007, it has a watermark, copyvio? Ezarateesteban 22:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The image has the name of the website displayed; the website is copyrighted. Madamebiblio (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment the uploader's username is the same as the website domain name (which no longer seems to exist). It's the person's only contribution, and TinEye doesn't have anything older, so I'm inclined to AGF on this. —holly {chat} 18:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Holly Cheng, please see that. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Madamebiblio: That doesn't really seem related because this file was uploaded in 2007, long before the user began using sockpuppets. NOTE: I mistyped the domain name earlier and http://www.izcallibur.com/ does exist. It looks very much to be a personal site, so I think it's still very likely that this user first posted this photo to his own site and then uploaded it here. If you can prove that they stole it from somewhere else, then I'm happy to delete it as a copyvio. —holly {chat} 22:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Oriana Fallaci 2.jpg

The source is the Italian Wikipedia where it states "This file cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons!". Apart from that there is no evidence the photo was created prior to 1976 (required to avoid US restoration). The only information available is that it was published in 1979. Thus, we should delete this image and move the image from the Italian wikipedia if applicable. Günther Frager (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I didn't read carefully the Italian text. It says it cannot be moved to Wikimedia due to technical reasons. It however states it should only done if it is in the PD domain in the US. This as commented before it is not clear. It was published in 1979, but there is no evidence it was taken before 1976. Günther Frager (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Jersey City Ward Map.png

Following the decision of the controversial new ward map a year and a half ago, it feels as if the map does not include the entire area of neighborhoods like Bergen–Lafayette. Also, I am not entirely sure it is supposed to be on Wikipedia. 68.198.86.215 14:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. The file is used on w:en:Jersey City, New Jersey, so this file is COM:INUSE and cannot be deleted for allegedly being out of project scope. That being said, we still need to consider the copyright. The claimed image license is {{PD-USGov}}, but that only applies to federal government works, not works of state and local governments (see COM:USA#Works by the US Government for more details). COUNTY OF SUFFOLK v. FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS found that a series of maps produced by a local government was subject to copyright protections; just as those maps were found to be copyrighted, there is significant doubt that these maps produce by the government of Jersey City are in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed. As such, this should be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

July 31

File:Fərman Quliyev.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Dr.Wiki54 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20150209중앙경찰학교259.jpg

As the person(kim) in the photo asked me to delete it, I am requesting deletion. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20150209-20150214최광모C258.JPG

As the person(kim) in the photo asked me to delete it, I am requesting deletion. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:20150209-20150214경찰관P73.jpg

As the person(kim) in the photo asked me to delete it, I am requesting deletion. When I uploaded this photo, I did not obtain the consent of the person in the photo. As the photos are continuously exposed in Google search and used on various commercial sites, the portrait rights and personal information of the people in the photos are being infringed. It is assumed that it is impossible to prevent Wikimedia's photos from being exposed to search engines at the request of the user. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily photographed, portrayed, or publicized about their face, and not to be used for profit. This portrait right is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Therefore, I assert that the intention with which I consented to the copyright at the time of upload is invalid. Best Regards, Choi kwangmo. 최광모 (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kwangmo unsure if your reason is valid, Wikimedia Commons does not necessarily delete non-copyright violations as per COM:Non-copyright restrictions like privacy issues. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

File:House Flag of the China Merchants Group (Since 1984).svg

The file is the flag of the China Merchants Group as used since 1984, which contains a stylized "M" surrounded by a "C". Per COM:TOO China, the Chinese threshold of originality is rather low. As the "M" character was distinctly stylized, it is likely that the character is copyrightable in China (just think about the example where a combination of 2 simple characters leads to a copyrightable trademark). Without free permission, the file will be therefore copyrighted and unfree. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Would it be possible to send it to the English Wikipedia as a non-free image? Swiãtopôłk (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Swiãtopôłk: Of course. I think you may now transfer it to English Wikipedia (while adhering to the standards of w:WP:FU). If you find the file later deleted, please submit a temporary undeletion request at COM:UDR for transferral.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This organization is owned by the government. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Punjab FC official logo.png

Copyrighted logo, not own work. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Not own work, this is a copyrighted logo (for some reason the last request pointed at the wrong image location, apologies). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Might be below COM:TOO India, otherwise  Delete. Jonteemil (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep COM:INUSE and based on the examples given at COM:TOO US and the remarks at COM:TOO India, I believe this is below both countries' TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mohammad Reza Shah's children.png

photograph from some instagram page, no indication of publication in Iran more than 30 years ago HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Mosquito Monarchy.svg

Three files in total:

• File:Coat of arms of the Mosquito Monarchy.svg
• File:Coat of Arms of the Mosquito Monarchy.svg
• File:Coat of Arms of the Mosquito Monarchy.png

This appears to be fan-art. I traced it back to https://www.royalark.net/Nicaragua/mosquito2.htm (Christopher Buyers) I wrote Damian Clavel, whether it was real or imaginary and he wrote: "I do not know if this is a real coat-of-arms for the Mosquito monarchy. For the period I'm studying (early 19th-century), I know that Miskitu kings had designed their own flag, but I've never yet found a coat of arms." The other published author that could be consulted died in 2016. I wrote Christopher Buyers, but no response. As a decoration for the article, it looks fine, but I worry that it will be seen as authoritative and copied by others, not knowing the provenance. It is currently displayed in over a dozen articles. RAN (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Pahlavi royal family at Ramsar.jpg

Photograph taken by Raymond Depardon for Magnum Photos [6] HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete I agree, we assume all Magnum images are under active copyright unless proven they are not. --RAN (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

File:BCT Santa Bárbara(La Línea De La Concepción)..jpg

Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I misread the upload date from 2013 by 2023. I am not sure it is acceptable still, but I would like to pinpoint it. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Shah before return to Iran, after 28 Mordad Coup.JPG

This is a screenshot taken from this footage, from a non-Iranian company. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Ancient Egypt Coat of Arms (Fictional).png

fictionnal + not in use => out of com:scope 80.215.234.12 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep + speedy close. Troll request by IP editor. LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby 03:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

File:1992 Nanjing Crash Footage.png

• File:China General Aviation Yakovlev Yak-42D B-2755.jpg
• File:China General Aviation Yakovlev Yak-42D B-2755 Colored and Enhanced Version.jpg

Author is listed as "Own Scans from CGA memo photo" which indicates that the photo was scanned from a document created by China General Aviation and is not the own work of the uploader. No evidence that the image is public domain. Johnj1995 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)