Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
6 November 2023
8 November 2023
Deletion requests on 7 November 2023

November 7[edit]

File:Dd free dish logo.png[edit]

This is a company's logo and is not a free media or is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Wikiuser13 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment The question would be whether it's above COM:TOO India. "India seems to have a similar threshold of originality as the US Courts, called Modicum of Creativity." I'm not sure about this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Perry Johnson Secondary Portrait.jpg[edit]

More information about ownership needed. Possible copyvio. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Exterior of Southern Sun Cape Sun hotel, Cape Town[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 50 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there any law exists in South Africa that all the buildings are copyrighted to the designer or bulding company. Can you give me some example about the discussion pages of the images of exterior buildings in South Africa. Otherwise how this criteria applicable to these images. Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:President Mahmoud Abbas official image.jpg[edit]

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license 3[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (Mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua, not on their social media. Needed link where this fotos published at Mil.gov.ua. --Kursant504 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These materials were published by the official military press-services of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Despite being published on social media there is no indication they would be covered by a different license.--vityok (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For instance, see Template:Mil.gov.ua KPSZSU FB, Template:Navy.mil.gov.ua FB and similar license templates in that category.--vityok (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That very same license applies even to their profile on Twitter! Template:Mil.gov.ua Twitter. Therefore I am sure that the license applies to the media published by official government/ministry of defense press services on other social networks as well--vityok (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mil.gov.ua Twitter - it seems to be a fake license. Author of this temple can't give a proof that all materials of this twitter account is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Appsoft4 . So it can be deleted soon. In this DR there is NO materials from twitter account of MoD of Ukraine. Also: KPSZSU FB and Navy.mil.gov.ua FB - are free because this accounts have a statements that all posted materials are under a free license. It is doesn't means that all goverment accounts in social media are free. Kursant504 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep. I've started a topic with explanations here:
--VoidWanderer (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Topic is closed and no one has provided any evidence that this content can be considered free:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media_published_by_press_services_of_Ukrainian_military Kursant504 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: Please use internal links like Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media published by press services of Ukrainian military.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license 4[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (Mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua, not on their social media. Needed link where this fotos published at Mil.gov.ua. --Kursant504 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep. I've started a topic with explanations here:
--VoidWanderer (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Topic is closed and no one has provided any evidence that this content can be considered free:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media_published_by_press_services_of_Ukrainian_military Kursant504 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: Please use internal links like Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media published by press services of Ukrainian military.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Alfons Skrauja.jpg[edit]

Probably not a free photo. Confirmation is needed that the photo was anonymously published somewhere more than 70 years ago. Kursant504 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" is correct license. --RAN (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escudo de Albalate del Arzobispo.png[edit]

Lo he vuelto a subir como SVG: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo-Albalate-del-arzobispo.svg Abel Tena (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Golden Gai Poster Final final 3 (3742299778).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by DragonflySixtyseven as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: composite image with no provenance for its component parts. Not a valid reason for speedy, converting to DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Saya 1027.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: from facebook, see EXIF King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep FBMD does not automatically mean that a photo is not own work; I've come across quite a few uploaders who use Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp to store their photos. Usually for these we would request the original photo for proof. However, here the uploader has indicated "張惠春演唱會拍攝的" (photographed during a Saya Chang concert) in the Source field, which is very much language consistent with a self-taken photograph. I cannot find the photo on Tineye or Google reverse image search, and the quality is not exceptional. Putting everything together, I think we can COM:AGF here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Adam Bise.jpg[edit]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait of me.jpg[edit]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Debbie Ngawera-Packer Mar 2022 PANG (cropped).png[edit]

Yes, the YouTube video comes with a license suitable for Commons. The problem is, though, that this is a recording of a conference call and unless the person who recorded the session has the permission from each participant that they agree to freely license their personal video stream, the YouTube license itself is meaningless. Disappointing at this may be. Schwede66 07:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't the organisation that's arranged for this zoom conference panel to happen own the copyright? Like this was made to be broadcast. Genuinely asking i don't know. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok from what I've read since posting this it does look like the organisation would only be joint owners so they'd need permission from each person to freely license their section. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting here other files I've uploaded that i think might have the same problem - Brook van Velden Sep 2022 The Platform NZ.png & derivatives, John Tamihere May 2023 Green Left.png & derivatves, Debbie Ngawera-Packer Mar 2022 PANG.png & derivatives, David Seymour Feb 2023 The Platform NZ.png & derivatives. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I think The Platform NZ and Green Left screenshots should be fine based on previous DRs that lead to keep decisions on commons, given that they seem to be professional orgs that have legal teams that presumably understand copyright, also not all their videos are under that license so they're clearly making decisions and not just absent-mindedly blanket cc TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: the non-cropped version should be bundled with this. ClydeFranklin (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Well, I've asked the copyright question at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Video call: who owns the copyright? because it's (a) not documented in Commons guidance, and (b) this comes up regularly. To my surprise, editors (including Commons admins) say that copyright does NOT rest with the videographer, but with the person who is recording the video call. So if this is recorded by a news outlet, it's up to them to release it with a free license. I suppose that's good news; it'll give us access to a whole lot of photos where we currently have none. Schwede66 02:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ćevapi ingredients.png[edit]

Derived from copyrighted images, probably all stock photos. Example: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/photo-of-cevapi-cevapcici-traditional-balkan-food-delicius-minced-meat-gm900608046-248476277 Smooth O (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Now i see this user uploaded lot of similar files using photos without sources or permission, which are also probably copyrighted. -- Smooth O (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Smooth O. I am a Canva Pro subscriber, which grants me access to their extensive image library. This subscription allows me to use images freely when they are not used as standalone images but rather as part of a collage or other modified versions. As a longtime Wikipedian, I have studied the Canva License Agreement to ensure that I am using these images in compliance with copyright regulations. --GeoO (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Puerto Vallarta.pdf[edit]

wrong file format, superseeded by extracted bitmap File:Puerto Vallarta 2019.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:담양 응용리 및 태목리 유적.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Чермянин Сергей Викторович.jpg[edit]

Not own work, picture from the internet Leokand (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:순천 송광사 천자암 쌍향수(곱향나무).jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files with fake "Mil.gov.ua" license 5[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (Mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua, not on their social media. Needed link where this fotos published at Mil.gov.ua. --Kursant504 (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Disagree These materials were published by the official military press-services of the Armed Forces of Ukraine/Ministry of Defense and the State Emergency Service. Despite being published on social media there is no indication they would be covered by a different license.--vityok (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same case: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_with_fake_%22Mil.gov.ua%22_license Kursant504 (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For instance, see Template:Mil.gov.ua KPSZSU FB, Template:Navy.mil.gov.ua FB and similar license templates in that category.--vityok (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That very same license applies even to their profile on Twitter! Template:Mil.gov.ua Twitter. Therefore I am sure that the license applies to the media published by official government/ministry of defense press services on other social networks as well--vityok (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I am pretty sure that Ukraine's Ministry of Defense has willingly and knowingly made these files available to the public, so that they can be used freely (even in case of those directly published by mass media, you can see the word "handout" in their credit). As a result, I think the solution is an inquiry from the Press and Information Office, asking them to confirm for Commons that they release any file (published on their website, social media accounts or media handouts) with that license. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HeminKurdistan: do you happen to know what is the proper procedure for such kinds of arrangements? Should this be correspondence on behalf of the Commons, or someone from the press service should send an e-mail from their official email address with the clarifications?--vityok (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VictorAnyakin I guess the usual procedure would be through Commons:Volunteer Response Team. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be a fake license. Author of this temple can't give a proof that all materials of this twitter account is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Appsoft4 . So it can be deleted soon. In this DR there is NO materials from twitter account of MoD of Ukraine. Kursant504 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KPSZSU FB and Navy.mil.gov.ua FB - are free because this accounts have a statements that all posted materials are under a free license. It is doesn't means that all goverment accounts in social media are free. Kursant504 (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep File:Izium after Russian shelling (2022-03-06) 01.jpg and File:Izium after Russian shelling (2022-03-06) 02.jpg. Photos are from MOD Ukraine FB which states "Весь контент сторінки доступний за ліцензією Creative Commons", which Google Translates to "All page content is available under a Creative Commons license". Pretty clear both of these are under Mil.gov.ua CC license. Also suggest  Keeping all and create a discussion on COM:VPC before going ahead with deletion. S5A-0043Talk 14:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of types of CC license are exist. For Commons needed a license that allow a commercial use of materials. Kursant504 (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, if MOD Ukraine decides to post the photo on Facebook, it is likely that the photo has a chance to get posted on the Mil.gov.ua website, or vice versa. If there's a chance that the photos could end up on the official website, I don't understand why the photos would be released on a different license, say CC-BY-NC-SA (example only). Imagine a person finds a photo on the MOD Ukraine Facebook which is (as an example) released under CC-BY-NC-SA, but then finds the same photo on Mil.gov.ua under CC-BY-SA. Which license is the photo released under? I don't think this would be an inconsistency a government agency is likely going to create.
Secondly, this issue is fairly complex, as it involves a ton of different photos from different Facebook accounts. Which is why I suggested that this be brought up in COM:VPC as it would be better to have a wider discussion on all photos than several different DRs in smaller batches. S5A-0043Talk 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. It is possible that licenses are different on different sites. For example, on the website of the President of Ukraine, all materials are published under CC-BY-NC-SA license. But the official account of the President of Ukraine on Flickr - publishes the same materials as free CC-BY-SA (similarly, for example, the account of the US White House). Therefore, it is possible that the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine publishes it's materials under different licenses or use copyrighted photos that are not free. We had a lot of such examples when even MoD of UA do a license-washing... Anyway. Here we talk about "Mil.gov.ua" license. And license is incorrect if files not published at Mil.gov.ua. If you sure that they a free - put a correct license. Kursant504 (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VoidWanderer: I would like to ask for your input on this issue, maybe you could point to an official announcement or any similar document regarding licensing of the published media by the military press offices (IIRC there was something like reported in the news)--vityok (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep. I've started a topic with explanations here:
--VoidWanderer (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Topic is closed and no one has provided any evidence that this content can be considered free:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media_published_by_press_services_of_Ukrainian_military Kursant504 (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kursant504: Please use internal links like Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/11#Media published by press services of Ukrainian military.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:서울 경국사 목각아미타여래설법상.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:천사일로일기.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ноздрачов Олексій Олексійович.jpg[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free image. License (Mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua. Needed link where this fotos published at Mil.gov.ua. Kursant504 (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:정읍 내장산 조선왕조실록 보존터.png[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:내장사지.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:영주 비로사 석조아미타여래좌상.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:영주 비로사 석조비로자나불좌상.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:밀양향교 명륜당.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:밀양향교 대성전.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:부산 연등사 석조지장보살좌상.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:칠연의총.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AlecBielingHappyBirthday.png[edit]

Unencyclopaedic, used for vandalism and out of scope The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:장안사 응진전 석조석가여래삼존상 복장유물 일괄.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:전 대구 동화사 비로암 삼층석탑 납석사리호.jpg[edit]

This file is released in KOGL Type 4, not in KOGL Type 1 & CC BY-SA 4.0. KOGL Type 4 is a non-free license. (link) Namoroka (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images from navy.mil.gov.ua[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (navy.mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site navy.mil.gov.ua, not on their social media. Needed link where this fotos published at navy.mil.gov.ua. --Kursant504 (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images from dshv.mil.gov.ua[edit]

Invalid license. Probably a non-free images. License (dshv.mil.gov.ua) applies only to materials posted on the web-site dshv.mil.gov.ua, not on their social media. Needed link where this fotos published at dshv.mil.gov.ua. --Kursant504 (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OkayamaUniversity OUX,Japan.jpg[edit]

De foto is gepubliceerd op www.ehime-np.co.jp in februari 2023, maar is er geen duidelijke toestemming aanwezig. Toestemming van de oorspronkelijke auteur moet gestuurd worden naar VRT. トトト (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Okayama Visionary Commons, Okayama University[edit]

De foto's werden eerder gepubliceerd op https://okayama-visionary-commons.jp/, maar zijn er geen duidelijke toestemmingen aanwezig.

トトト (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:SoLow-logo.png[edit]

I have doubts: this is not just a few letters, but a mix of specific letters and colours in a specific arrangement. The copyright exemption seems not appropriate. Thieu1972 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep per COM:TOO Netherlands. "The product has to bear an own, original character. In short, this means the shape may not be based on that of another work." Do you really think anything in this logo is original? The colors? The lettering? The shapes? I doubt it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think this is original. SoLow is a well-known store chain in the Netherlands and everybody instantly recognizes this logo, based on the letters and coloring. I think this should be re-evaluated. Mondo (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: "Simple logos are okay in the Netherlands but not all logos are". This one seems to be very simple indeed. —holly {chat} 20:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SoLow-logo.png[edit]

SoLow is a well-known store chain in the Netherlands and everybody instantly recognizes this logo, based on the letters, coloring and arrangement. So I don't think this counts as copyright exemption. Mondo (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{PD-textlogo}} case. There's nothing but letters here. Whether everybody knows the logo is completely irrelevant. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Burns Delivery Truck.gif[edit]

superseded by File:C-02433 141.jpg (better file format, no border, no watermark) Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Santo yusup SMPK logo.png[edit]

Very poor image resolution, per COM:SCOPE Rasyialia82 (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carmen Ludwig.jpg[edit]

no own work (no selfie) Dirk Lenke (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Entoria, Mammut Festival Warmup 2023.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Entoria M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nicole schaeren wiemers 2013.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Frank Neumann M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear M2k~dewiki
Thank you for the notification. Frank Neumann will email a statement to Wikimedia with permission to use the photo under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Best
~ Indlekoferw (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Weekly Shonen Sunday logo.png[edit]

著作権侵害のおそれ。 尼崎二零二二 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 「週刊少年サンデー」という文字列そのものに著作権が存在しないことは明らかですが、右上にドジョウかうなぎのような絵が見受けられます。これには著作権が存在するのではないでしょうか。--尼崎二零二二 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 英語版ウィキペディアでは「Shonen_Sunday_mascot.svg」はフェアユースであるとされています。これが正しいとすれば、このWeekly Shonen Sunday logo.pngもフェアユースであり、ウィキメディア・コモンズに置くことはできないはずです。--尼崎二零二二 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    画像を修正してマスコットを削除しても問題ないでしょうか？ MushroomMan674 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    うーむ、私には分かりません。 尼崎二零二二 (amagasaki2022) (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jehane Benoit 1970.jpg[edit]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the BaNQ website, it seems like the license for this photo is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, not CC BY-SA 4.0. It's my understanding that that's not a permissible license for use on the Commons. Denniscabrams (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct. The NC-ND licence seems the licence that BAnQ often offer when they own or have the right to manage (or when they believe that they own or have the right to manage) the copyright of some items in their collections. So, one thing seems clear. The BY-SA licence applied by the uploader is wrong. However, the copyright evaluations by BAnQ are not necessarily always perfect, accurate and updated. They mention that the photo was made for the government. That would likely make it Crown copyright, which expires 50 years after publication. The question becomes when was it published. The photo is in the subfonds of the Film Board in the fonds of the Department of Communications of the government. The public domain lover in me likes to assume that photos in those subfonds and fonds were made for use in public relations and for publication near the time of creation. A Crown copyright photo made and published in 1970 could be PD-Canada since 2021, but I understand that one might not want to challenge the licence claim of BAnQ even if its accuracy may be somewhat unclear. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Photograph of Shri Rajkumar Shitaljit Singh.jpg[edit]

This file has been previously uploaded as w:en:File:Photograph of Shri Rajkumar Shitaljit, Aiga Idhou.jpg, albeit uncropped. Once permission was requested there, within a few hours, this version was uploaded here. That stretches my assumption of good faith beyond its elastic limit, and feels like an attempt to game the system by "asking the other parent".

There, it is being considered for lack of permission. While I could have nominated it this here, I feel a full DR is warranted.

The photograph is patently a scan of a physical photograph. Because of the circumstances I doubt it to be the Own Work of the uploaded, and I feel permission is unlikely to be forthcoming or it woudl have been submitted to w:en:WP:VRT. I am certain that COM:PCP applies, and I believe the uploader must supply permissions to COM:VRT for this file to remain here. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment From uploader's talk page in reply to this deletion notice: "It is your decision, no problem. Krakhesh (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)" reproduced verbatim for the eventual closer to consider 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carl Sarap.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Komarof as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: CC BY-NC-SA at the source website.

Converted to DR for easier undeletion. 1940 photograph by an author who died in 1968, Undelete in 2039 when it becomes public domain in Estonia. Abzeronow (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johanna Triefeldt, died in 1968, was Sarap's wife, but he used her name as his pseudonym. Liilia Moroz (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sarap is the subject here, it's unlikely that he was the photographer as well. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete and restore in 2039. I never understand why archives use the NC license. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Seems simple to me. Scholars don't need to profit from using photos. Commons might consider that someday... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Estibalitz Jalón.jpg[edit]

Because she has asked for it, she does not work anymore as a ilustrartor. Lore Agirrezabal (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Natalia Senatorova (talk · contribs)[edit]

No FoP in Russia for contemporary sculpture.

Xunks (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Natalia Senatorova (talk · contribs)[edit]

Bunch of low-value amateur images of some park. Not in use. Wiki is not a hosting.

Bilderling (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment I looked at the first 5 of these photos, and they are all perfectly usable as thumbnails in articles. This deletion request seems to be overbroad at best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Natalia Senatorova (talk · contribs)[edit]

Private images of some guy. Not in use. Wiki is not a hosting.

Bilderling (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete In this case, I agree. Photographs of unknown people that are not in use and not otherwise of note can and usually should be deleted as out of scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Natalia Senatorova (talk · contribs)[edit]

Part of a promo. Not in use now.

Bilderling (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:INSIDE 03.png[edit]

Press image for the game Inside, taken from their website, which got "© 2023 Playdead. All rights reserved.". 80.62.117.98 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made Playdead e-mail the following permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If this is not enought, please advise on what to do.
Playdead tilkendegiver hermed, at være skaber af og/eller enerettighedshaver af Limbo_spider.jpg.
Playedad giver hermed tilladelse til frigivelse af det/de angivne værk(er), under licensen CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0.
Playdead skal krediters i hendhold til den angivne licens, værket må ikke udnyttes kommercielt og eventuelle afledte værker må ikke ikke distribueres.
Pleayded accepterer, at hvem som helst får rettigheder til anvendelse under iagttagelse af de angivne betingelser for den valgte licens og gældende lovgivning overholdes.
Playedad beholder i enhver henseende rettighederne til værket, og at bibeholder retten til at blive krediteret i henhold til den angivne licens' betingelser. Eventuelle afledte værker skabt af andre vil ikke blive påstået udarbejdet af Playedad.
Playdead er opmærksom på, at jeg bibeholder retten til at agere fornødent overfor folk, der anvender værket på injuriepådragende måde, i strid med privatlivsrettigheder, varemærkelovgivning m.fl.
Playdead accepterer, at denne tilladelse ikke kan fortrydes, samt at værket kan forblive permanent på Wikimedias projekter.
København den 03-11-2023, Playdead ApS, info@playdead.com Haugethor (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Milan Tepić.jpg[edit]

Unlikely that book is published under the CC0 licence 93.143.160.172 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File is uploaded on Serbian Wikipedia and there for years, plus photograph is taken by Yugoslav army for military file, so?... Kanikosen (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Isometric logo Cult of Geek.png[edit]

Cult of Geek is not mentioned in en.wiki. Educational value is not shown. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. Taivo how come in your profile you brag about blocking someone, isn't that against the rules (targeted personal attack)
Also, why do you peculiarly dedicate an entire section boasting about what you have deleted?
Lastly, why must an image exist in a wiki to support Wikimedia Commons' purpose of "making available public domain and freely licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone" 67.160.210.112 21:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stating that you blocked a notorious cross-wiki vandal is not a personal attack. Taivo can address the rest if they so choose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Franco Moschini Gastel.jpg[edit]

Not own work ("fotografato da Giovanni Gastel) & previously poublished here: https://www.arketipomagazine.it/il-compasso-doro-ha-fatto-tredici/ Bradipo Lento (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Western Fair 1975.jpg[edit]

The badge being from 1975, I don't think PD-Canada applies in this case. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Boy Scout Parade Scotland.jpg[edit]

1940s/50s photograph from unidentified photographer. Unclear that PD applies here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Good catch, "PD-EU-no author disclosure" is correct license. --RAN (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nexus Player.svg[edit]

Appears to be based on web photos. While this isn't an exact recreation of product photos found on the web, this is close enough to be considered a derivative work. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Delete AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Fermat's Great Theorem.pdf[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zelmar Michelini jpg.jpg[edit]

wrong date, copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Forcalquier exercice pratique.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, see source Xocolatl (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Markus Harm.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:RTI Honorary Commander Tour (2) (cropped).jpg[edit]

If the picture isn’t of Chuck Winder, then I would consider it to be an unnecessary crop. TaurusEmerald (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hard Rock bomb plot nuclear.jpg[edit]

Not own work, scan or screengrab. Missing original author, source, date, and permission. Also added:

P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vertically oriented Canadian flags.jpg[edit]

Unused low-quality photo of random road, little educational use, unusable, redundant to better alternative (File:Vertically oriented Canadian flag.jpg). P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SalPIQUÉ su chicle aquí (letrero en Calle Venustiano Carranza).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Maometto97 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Luisalvaz (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is within FoP-Mexico. --Luisalvaz (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Missile M51.pdf[edit]

Je ne souhaite plus partager ce fichier qui est ma création personnelle. Shironi29 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Great Kohler print ad (3167174708).jpg[edit]

non deminimus of worok SecretName101 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Œuvre de mort en 1977; une autorisation des ayants droit par COM:OTRS/COM:VRT est nécessaire / Work by who died in 1977; copyright owner's permission needed via COM:OTRS/COM:VRT.

Habertix (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Œuvre de Ann Carrington, sans autorisation COM:OTRS/COM:VRT

Habertix (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Outlook NEW.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Northern Moonlight as Fair use (Fair use). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:GregFischer2019.jpg[edit]

https://www.fraziermuseum.org/weekly/12-12-2022 Credited to a different author Bremps... 22:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Lebreton[edit]

I guess this guy changed clothes, haircut and location within the same minute. Curious metadata that makes the ownership claim dubious for both files. --Gyrostat (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So apparently File:Patrick-Lebreton-2020.jpg would be a cropped version of this file. Why the metadata manipulation though? Gyrostat (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I've already nominated three files (check my contributions) for speedy deletion, but I found more files, so I'm using this opportunity to nominate them for deletion.

The uploader isn't the author of these files, there is no permission for them and etc. I'm in serious doubt that we will get permission, so this applies under COPYVIO.

Kizule (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/07&oldid=821946878"