Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08

August

August 2

File:ADS road sign M9 (J11).svg

Low quality SVG, other examples of road signs of this type exist EthanL13 (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@EthanL13: Would you be able to point to an example of such a sign? It would make it easier to close this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk This and this, for example; though the latter isn't the best quality it is at least a true SVG. The former I plan to replace with a SVG at some stage. EthanL13 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Osmanisches Fort von Mursuk.jpg

This stamp clearly isn't the uploaders own work and at least one of the artists, Charles Dufresne, hasn't been dead for more then 70 years yet. So this image is clearly copyrighted until at least 2027, if not longer depending on how long other artist Boutet has been dead for. Unfortunately I couldn't find any information about them to find out, but the stamp is still copyrighted until at least 2027 regardless. Possibly longer then that if the status was restored by the URAA. Although I'll leave that up to the closing administrator to decide. Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think {{PD-Libya}} applies: "It is a work created by a legal public or private entity and 30 years have passed since the year the work was created" and/or "It is another type of work and than 25 years have elapsed since the the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author) and fifty years have elapsed since the year of publication."  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There's zero evidence stamps of Libya are in the public domain and if we applied your standard to them without evidence then the same could go for essentially everything else since most works are "created by a legal public or private entity" and more then 30 years old. The template doesn't exist just to give us an out and/or excuse to host whatever we want as PD because "legal public or private entity and age." That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Files on Commons have to be in the public domain in the source country and in the United States. These stamps were published in what is now Libya, so Libya can be considered the source country. And according to Libyan copyright law, this stamp is in the public domain and was been so for a long time. This means it is in the public domain also in the US, {{PD-1996}}. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Indio Skay y la Negra.jpg

The photo was taken by Hilda Lizarazu (a known musician and photographer) during the 1980s (the band formed in the late 1970s and Lizarazu was born in 1963). This is currently in the public domain in Argentina, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Following COM:PCP we should delete this file. Günther Frager (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

August 3

File:Großstern-Ehrenzeichen-Rep-AUT-combined.jpg

Tagged as own work, but also uses the PD-AustrianGov template. On other files the source is "www.verwaltung.steiermark.at". Therefore it's not the uploaders own work. I also doubt that these images are really in the public domain
The image is neither part of a law nor ordinance or official decree issued by an Austrian federal or state authority. Just because the image is used on a state run website to display what the medal looks like does not make it "predominantly official use". Therefore this image can not be sorted in the public domain according to Austrian copyright law. The original source page also says "© 2023 Land Steiermark" --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This also applies to:
-File:AUT Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria combined BARS.jpg
-File:Großstern+Schärpe+CD+6+24-23.jpg
-File:Großstern+Bruststern+CD6+24-13.jpg

Files uploaded by Ydlp19 (talk · contribs)

Marked as PD-textlogo, but may be too complex for that license.

• File:J1 League (Horizontal).png
• File:J.League Division 1.png
• File:K League 1.svg
• File:K League.svg

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete See COM:TOO SK QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 05:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I was the one marking them as {{PD-textlogo}}. File:K League 1.svg was uploaded to enwiki as non-free but I thought it was below COM:TOO SK so I changed the license and imported the file to Commons. The three others were already here but were licensed with some bogus {{Self}} license or some other bogus CC license. My understanding of COM:TOO Japan (for the two J. league logos) and COM:TOO SK (for the two K league logos) says however that the logos are below the TOO in their respective countries. None of the four logos are particularly complex. w:File:Fox Racing logo.svg which COM:TOO SK explains was above TOO according to a decision by a South Korean court is clearly more complex than the K league logos. COM:TOO Japan says: Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general. so I think the J. League logos are safe. I vote  Keep on all four. Jonteemil (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

August 4

File:LINKIT-logo-black-2 (1).png

No author given, uploaded as if company uploaded it but this is an account with another name, copyvio Hoyanova (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of Palmyra Atoll (local).svg

• File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg
• File:Flag of Johnston Atoll (local).svg

All three of these were nominated for deletion back in 2008 on the grounds that they aren't "real" flags, and were kept because that's not much of an argument. I have a much stronger argument for deleting them: they're all tagged as being public domain, even though it's very unlikely that they are. According to this page, all three flags were designed by a Harry Wheeler and flown in 2001 at the 60th anniversary commemoration of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The designer of the flags thus presumably owns the copyright to them, yet the Navassa and Palmyra flags are tagged {{PD-trivial}}, and the Johnston flag is tagged {{PD-self}}. It seems much more likely that all three are copyright violations and should be deleted on those grounds. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. The Palmyra Atoll flag is potentially below the threshold of originality; regardless, consensus is generally that flags which are "proposed" or "unofficial", like these, are considered fantasy content and out of scope by default. Unofficial flags with substantial usage or notable proposals (like the submissions to the w:2020 Mississippi flag referendum) are in scope, but these appear to be neither; they're simply a set of made-up flags that were flown once. Omphalographer (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the Kingman Reef Flag and the Midway Atoll Flag legitimate “Unofficial flags”? I noticed you haven’t filed them for deletion here and I just want to be sure. Aimmella12 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg. No evidence it has been released to public domain, and it is out of scope as a fantasy design with no recognition. Reywas92 (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg; that's not even how Wikis work. We allow unofficial flags and even File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmNotABananaaa (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment With respect to scope, these flags are broadly COM:INUSE (It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope. ), so we can't delete them on a scope-alone basis. The only reason for deletion would need to be copyright related. As such:

 Keep File:Flag of Palmyra Atoll (local).svg, which is easily under COM:TOO USA; and

 Delete File:Flag of Navassa Island (local).svg and File:Flag of Johnston Atoll (local).svg, both of which may well be complex enough to warrant copyright protection.

I think this is the most reasonable thing in light of COM:PRP, which urges us to delete files when significant doubt may exist as to their freedom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Like [[1]], this has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons in 2013 because it is copyrighted. These two flags, as far as I can tell, will be deleted on Wikimedia Commons, but transferred to English Wikipedia like the file [[2]]. 2601:47:4081:50C0:B362:8078:6FB4:DAF8 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:L'histoire naturelle des estranges poissons marins, avec la vraie peincture and description du daulphin, and de plusieurs autres de son espece (1551) (14740729166).jpg

1. it' truncated, 2. not used , 3. there's an identical file of better quality (see the category) Ceciliawolf (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete several There's a whole bunch of these (see Category:L'histoire naturelle des estranges poissons marins) where the illustration on the page has been cropped to extract it, but done badly. They should all be either deleted, or reworked to do a competent job of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Andy Dingley: If so,  keep all of them and actually crop them competently, as you suggested. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 23:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• You can't "uncrop" a badly cropped file.

If you feel like doing them, then recreate a decent set from these. But in the absence of any immediate demand, I'd leave them for someone who wants one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Camila Queiroz Xama MIAW.jpg

The source states it has CC-BY license. However, it is unlikely the copyright holder is the company that produced the video (Dogs Can Fly Content Co.) and not the company that payed for it (MTV). The same channel has ads from Puma, Nike, Stella Artois, Toyota, etc also licensed under CC-BY. It is probably a misconfiguration on the Vimeo account. Günther Frager (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Xama MIAW.jpg

The source states it has CC-BY license. However, it is unlikely the copyright holder is the company that produced the video (Dogs Can Fly Content Co.) and not the company that payed for it (MTV). The same channel has ads from Puma, Nike, Stella Artois, Toyota, etc also licensed under CC-BY. It is probably a misconfiguration on the Vimeo account. Günther Frager (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

File:L'histoire naturelle des estranges poissons marins, avec la vraie peincture and description du daulphin, and de plusieurs autres de son espece (1551) (14761371974).jpg

1. not used, 2. there's another identical (better) image in the category, that is used. Ceciliawolf (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Tentative keep.

• "Not used" is a necessary criterion for all non-copyright-based deletions. It's very rare when any non-copyright-based DR is for an image that is used.
• Maybe there is a "better" image in "the category," but if you don't link that image (or even that category, and this is in several) no one else can know what image you are saying is better. Pinging @Ceciliawolf: Could you please link the image you say is "better"?
• Usually when we have two scans of an image we connect them both with {{Other version}}, or even with {{Superseded}}/{{Supersedes}} if one is clearly better, but usually this is not a reason to delete. - 00:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ministry of Corporate Affairs India.svg

Copyio. According to Indian copyright law, with a government work, the copyright lasts 60 years after publication QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 23:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

References

@QuickQuokka: Please see File:Emblem of India.svg, it is in public domain and also Template:PD-textlogo, as it only contains text.

August 5

File:Vinai Kumar Saxena, who is serving as the 22nd Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, photographed on June 24, 2022.jpg

Possibly an official portrait, not own work. Should be licensed under {{GODL}} instead of the default {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. However, we should verify that it is licensed under GODL before relicensing it as such, otherwise nuke this image per COM:PCP. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:SyroMalabar Seven Cross Flag.png

This file was initially tagged by Pbritti as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Re-upload of image deleted for copyvio. See deletion log here
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as uploader thinks it might be in the public domain. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per the uploader repeatedly indicating that they had no reason to believe that it was public domain beyond it appearing in multiple places. The speedy should have gone through, as this was an out-of-procedure recreation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• The question here is: whent the flag was established and used the first time? It may be old enough to be in public domain but we need some evidence. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Den lille Pige med Svovlstikkerne, Graasten.jpg

This statue is the work of da:Jytte Thompson (1925-2001) and there's no FoP for such things in Denmark Hjart (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This applies only, if the photo is the main motif (as in this case) AND(!) there is a commercial purpose (what is definitely not the case on Wikimedia). So a proper copyright notice should be added (resp. the license adjusted which currently includes only the photography by Krimidoedel itself). So the useful and interesting quality photo may remain on Wikimedia, there are not really much good art images of the 'The Little Match Girl' available. Thanks.

From the Danish Consolidated Act No. 1144 of 23 October 2014:

"Works of art may be reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public if they are permanently situated in a public place or road. The provision of the first sentence shall not apply if the work of art is the chief motif and its reproduction is used for commercial purposes." [1144/2014 Art.24(2)] ArtMike (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Locator map of Mempawah Regency in West Kalimantan.svg

That is not the locator map of Mempawah Regency. It is actually the locator map of Kubu Raya Regency. 2001:448A:11A1:1FD8:419C:6181:630B:263A 10:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep. Regardless as to whether or not this is titled correctly, the file's presently COM:INUSE on several wikis. We can't delete files for project scope-related reasons (such as being completely erroneous) when it's in-use by a local wiki. What we can do is rename the file; when this is kept, I would suggest that we try to verify if the IP's claims are correct and, if they are, then rename this file to correspond with reality. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Xutir Nagiya-18.jpg

Групове фото людей Мокрицький Павло (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Translation: "Group photo of people" —translated by QuickQuokka.

І що не так ????

Вони всі знаходяться у цьому парку Хутір Надія. Я групові фотографії нероблю, а знімаю все, що на мій погляд цікаве. 188.190.90.24 12:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Translation: "And what's wrong with that ????
They are all located in this park Khutir Nadiya. I don't take group photos, but shoot everything that I find interesting." —translated by QuickQuokka.

Files in Category:Otto Flechtner

While these illustrations are in the public domain in Germany now, they were published in the years 1935 to 1944 and are still protected in the USA because of the URAA. The files should therefore be deleted. They can be restored after their US copyright has expired after 95 (+ 1) years, so in 2031, 2034, and 2040.

• File:Die SA der NSDAP Geschichte der SA (Sturmabteilung S.A. illustrated propaganda Book 27 x 37 cm 128 pages published by Franz Eher Nachf., Munich, Nazi Germany 1938) Otto Flechtner Die Entwicklung der Uniform 1921-1933 Bildband Brochur H0.jpg
• File:Otto Flechtner (1881-1952) Melde Dich zum freiwilligen Wehrdienst beim Grenadierregiment Feldherrnhalle Plakat 1944 43x61 cm Nazi germany army Wehrmacht Recruitment poster Propaganda SA H002383.jpg
• File:Otto Flechtner (1881-1952) Wehrgabe der SA um 46. Geurtstage des Fuhrers 20. April 1935 Frontsoldat SA-Mann Plakat German Nazi propaganda poster RM contribution to support Sturmabteilung's manifesto of military order service warrelics.e.jpg
• File:Otto Flechtner (1881-1952) Wehrgabe der SA um 46. Geurtstage des Fuhrers 20. April 1935 Frontsoldat SA-Mann Plakat German Nazi propaganda poster RM gift contribution as fund support Sturmabteilung's manifesto of military order service M.jpg
• File:Otto Flechtner (1881-1952) Wehrgabe der SA zum 46. Geurtstage des Fuhrers 20. April 1935 Frontsoldat SA-Mann Plakat German Nazi propaganda poster RM gift contribution as fund support Sturmabteilung's manifesto of military order service.jpg
• File:Otto Flecthner (1881-1952) Geschichte der SA der NSDAP (1938) Entwicklung der Uniform 1921-33 Sturmabteilung brownshirts uniforms Nazi party propaganda drawing (edited low-quality copy) No known copyright restrictions.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 13:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:TR Nat ID Card Front.png

Official items are not legally exempt in Turkey. --ToprakM ^✉ 13:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The image subject to nomination of deletion is reflecting the current id card which is compulsory for every Turkish citizen to have. I believe it must be kept if there is no any legal issue (licence, copyright etc.) related to that file. 176.55.167.211 14:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Erich R. Döbrich

While these illustrations are in the public domain in Germany now, they were published in the years ca. 1932 to 1940 and are still protected in the USA because of the URAA. The files should therefore be deleted. They can be restored after their US copyright has expired after 95 (+ 1) years, so in 2028, 2030, 2035, and 2036.

• File:Der Grosse Brockhaus 1934 Band 19 Tau-Wam - UNIFORMEN II Freiheitskriege Preussen Frankreich Rheinbund Österreich Russland (German campaign uniforms c 1813) Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896-1945) No known copyright.jpg
• File:Der Grosse Brockhaus 1934 Band 19 Tau-Wam - UNIFORMEN III Österreich Deutsche Staaten Preussen Frankreich Deutsches Reich usw (Uniforms Germany etc 1860-1910) Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896-1945) No known copyright.jpg
• File:Der Grosse Brockhaus 1934 Band 19 Tau-Wam - UNIFORMEN VI Gegenwart (Present day 1930s European military uniforms Germany Austria Switzerland Italy Russia) Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896-1945) No known copyright.jpg
• File:Der Grosse Brockhaus 1934 Band 19 Tau-Wam - UNIFORMEN VII Polizei (Nazi Germany police Prussia Saxony Bavaria Austria Switzerland) Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896-1945) No known copyright.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Dem Neuen Deutschland Zeichning Aquarelle To The New Germany Nazi propaganda watercolour WW1I soldier German Empire flag Swastika Sturmabteilung SA No known copyright restrictions.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Dienst- und Arbeitskleidung der Technischen Nothilfe TeNo Technical Emergency Corps uniforms 1940 Nazi Germany No known copyright restrictions.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Felduniformen der britischen Armee. WWI British Army Field Uniforms - (MeisterDrucke-1087856) No known copyright.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Technische Nothilfe Nachrichtentrupp Postkarte Näder-Verlag Berlin Technical Emergency Relief Communications Unit Nazi Germany propaganda postcard 1930s No known copyright.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Türkischer Infanterist, Offizier, bulgarischer Infanterie-Offizier, Fußsoldat. WWI Turkey Infantryman, Officer. Bulgaria Infantry Officer, Foot Soldier. (MeisterDrucke-1083790) No k.jpg
• File:E. Döbrich (Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz 1896-1945) Wehrmacht Heer Panzeroffizier und Kavallerist. Tank officer and mounted soldier of the German Army (MeisterDrucke-1090829) No known copyright.jpg
• File:Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896–1945) Trutzig gelebt, wacker gestritten, lachend in den Tod. Künstler Ansichtskarte Postkarte. Nazi propaganda postcard Sturmabteilung SA, NSDAP, uniforms 1930s No known copyright restrictions.jpg
• File:Erich R. Döbrich-Steglitz (1896–1945) Trutzig gelebt, wacker gestritten, lachend in der Tod - Hinein in Hitlers Sturm-Abteilung Ansichtskarte Postkarte Nazi propaganda postcard SA uniforms pre-1933 No known copyright restrictions.jpg
• File:Image-1472472470 hires.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Oussama Ammar Artiste.jpg

Likely copyright violation: https://pachir-art.fr/les-artistes/oussama-ammar/ Antimuonium (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:V&D Broadcast Records, photo 2.JPG

Emiel Hullebroeck died 1965, his textes on this file are still under copyright Havang(nl) (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Patilludo millonario figurita.jpg

"Collectible card of Argentina" of copyrighted of Disney character. 80.62.116.107 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Peta WS Bengawan Solo (id-java).jpg

Is this image (and many other of the same category) indeed free from copyright? I see a copyright symbol on https://www.scribd.com/document/365695577/Peta-Ws-Bengawan-Solo# Erik Wannee (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The maps I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons originates from a government agency, and to the best of my understanding, its free to use. The presence of a copyright symbol on another website does not necessarily imply that the map is copyrighted. I have verified the source and believe that it is a public domain or freely-licensed image.

The map you mentioned (and several others of the same kind) is part of the content of the legislation page, namely, the Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Housing (Ministry of PUPR) of Indonesia Number 4 of 2015 regarding the Criteria and Determination of River Basins in Indonesia, which is made available to the public on the official website of the ministry for easy access by anyone.

In the image I uploaded, I stated that I am not the owner of the image, and I provided the source from the official website of the relevant ministry (https://jdih.pu.go.id/) along with the year of the regulation when the image was released.

For more clarity, please check the source page on the official website below: https://jdih.pu.go.id/detail-dokumen/277/1#div_cari_detail or you can download it directly at: https://jdih.pu.go.id/internal/assets/assets/produk/PermenPUPR/2015/03/PermenPUPR04-2015.zip

Regarding the appropriate Copyright and License for these images, you are knowledgeable than I am. Thank you. Dasnusantara (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I can confirm that your uploaded maps are in the indicated PDF collection, file Lamp5d[**].pdf, page 4/13. I cannot confirm the copyright policies of the Indonesian government, but scribd.com is not the original copyright holder, they are just another platform that grabbed the files. To me it would make sense that government-produced files like this one are public domain like Dasnusantara claims, so unless someone proves us wrong I'll vote  Keep here.

Dasnu, I think in future you should also include that download link into "sources" of the uploads. The portal website of the government agency alone (jdih.pu.go.id) doesn't directly lead to the image/map that you uploaded. That seems to have been the reason for this misunderstanding: I guess that Erik checked your source link, didn't find that map behind it, and then made a web search where he found the scribd.com-page with a copyright notice, and so he assumed the worst. Anyway, all the best to you all, --Enyavar (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the situation. I appreciate your support in acknowledging that the uploaded maps are part of the indicated PDF collection. Your understanding of the copyright policies regarding government-produced files like this is indeed valid, and I'm grateful for your vote to keep the maps on Wikimedia Commons. I will definitely take your suggestion into account and include the download link in the "sources" for future uploads to avoid any misunderstandings. Best regards to you as well. Dasnusantara (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It should fall under {{PD-IDGov}}. Bennylin (yes?) 06:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/"Wilhelm Sauter"

While these illustrations are in the public domain in Germany now, they were created/published in the years 1931 to 1944 and are still protected in the USA because of the URAA. The files should therefore be deleted. They can be restored after their US copyright has expired after 95 (+ 1) years, so in 2027, 2032, 2034, 2036, 2038, and 2040.

• File:Sauter-Selfportrait.jpg
• File:Wilhelm Sauter (1896-1948) Tag der Wehrmacht Infanterie Wehrmachtsoldat in Uniform Stahlhelm 1940 Postkarte Nazi militarist propaganda WWII postcard Portrait of German soldier.jpg
• File:Sauter, W. - Frontsoldat,1938.jpg
• File:Sauter, W. - Übergang am Oberrhein, 1940.jpg
• File:Wilhelm Sauter, Heldenschrein.png
• File:Wilhelm Sauter - Übergang am Oberrhein, 1940.jpg
• File:Sauter, W. - Westfront, 1940.jpg
• File:Sauter-Serre.jpg
• File:Sauter-Eastern.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wendy Red Star and daughter Beatrice.jpg

Non-free content, copyrighted photograph. Image was taken directly from the author's website, Wendy Red Star's website has clear copyright markings for all published images. 19h00s (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. When I uploaded this file in November 2015, it did not carry any copyright markings. The earliest archived image from 2017 also shows no copyright tag. Out of respect for the artist and copyright law, however, this image should be deleted ASAP.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Grand'mere Eugene. I'd just point out that the lack of a copyright tag proves nothing, and it is only the affirmative inclusion of Creative Commons or Public Domain notices that carries legal weight. So if you uploaded anything else merely based on the lack of a copyright tag, please request deletion unless it's old enough to be in the public domain or OK under a country's freedom of panorama laws and the like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BICYCLE DAY HOFFMAN 25 TABS.jpg

the artwork on the tab could still be under copyright. furthermore, the location is undetermined, so we do not know if there are freedom of panorama protections there. Bremps... 20:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Baidyanathsingh (talk · contribs)

Unused images of likely non-notable individuals; out of COM:SCOPE.

• File:Ranga Bodavala.jpg
• File:M-A-Murtoza.jpg
• File:Ma-murtoza.jpg
• File:Sheetal-Nair.jpg

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment M.A. Murtoza is said to be a Guinness world record holder, though in what I have yet to discover, and there are some Wikipedia articles about him (I found https://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Murtoza and https://hif.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_A_Murtoza in a quick search). But did the uploader really shoot the photo? Sheetal Nair seems to have some notability. See, for example, https://zeenews.india.com/people/i-kept-it-short-at-99-pages-says-author-dr-sheetal-nair-on-his-latest-the-midas-touch-2302422.html, https://indianexpress.com/article/books-and-literature/dr-sheetal-nair-self-help-book-monk-secret-new-literature-pandemic-experiences-7229343/ and https://www.brilliantread.com/interview-with-dr-sheetal-nair-author-storyteller-coach-co-founder-of-dssg-bespoke-solutions-pvt-ltd/?expand_article=1, and he's also apparently given at least one TEDx talk. But again, did the uploader take the photo? Ranga Bodavala also looks notable, but per the EXIF, the photo was a selfie, not own work by the uploader, so  Delete that photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

August 6

File:Jangoedwards.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am the author of this pic.

Can't understand why you say this! Adrianedmonson (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom and COM:PCP. Adrianedmonson, please see COM:VRT for instructions how to prove this is your work. ClydeFranklin (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Basquiat Untitled 1983.webp

This file was initially tagged by Ca as Copyvio (copyvio). This is a COM:FOP case. Where was the photo taken? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If the draft in which this image is placed is accurate, this artwork was intended for display in an American museum. Since America's FoP only liberates photos of buildings, I believe this file infringes copyright. Ca (talk) 12:59, 6 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.

File:Presidential Seal of Colombia.svg

Incorrect Presidential Seal of Colombia AlexExpensive (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose ¿Y cual es el correcto? ¿dónde están las fuentes de que es incorrecto? ¿aquí también va a forzar una mentira como lo hizo en la wikipedia en inglés con el artículo en:Flag of the president of Colombia? --Milenioscuro (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE. Argue about accuracy elsewhere, such as on the file's talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

---

 Kept. (non-admin closure) ClydeFranklin (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of lion and sun in Shahnameh of Rashida.png

Low quality and repetitive Mv1388 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Mv1388: , this is an image of the lion and sun flag in an old Shahname (Safavid era) which showed its painter used a contemporary flag as an old flag of Iranina mythological characters. If you are familiar with a better copy of such painting in wikimedia Commons, please introduce to me as I used this painting in the Persian article of Flag of Iran. Shfarshid (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Tiny! Who took the photo? I assume it wasn't you, but you should state on the page who it was. But if you did shoot the photo, please provide the full-sized version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• What do you mean by tiny? There is no shame in taking such image. I used this image appropriately in an article about the "Flag of Iran". I explained the signifance of this image and why it is needed to have it. You just focused on the low resolution of this image. It is not fair to delete an image just based on the resolution of it. Do you have any other reason? Can you reason why this image is not important and not needed in Wikimedia Commons? Shfarshid (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Shfarshid, who shot the photo? Please start by answering that question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi dear, your image is not from Shahnameh Rashida and it have the low quality and I found the right source and uploaded it in the Flag of Iran article. Mv1388 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. It looks to me like you did things the right way, but I still have one question about the image you uploaded: is the photo over 30 years old, or are you relying on law regarding faithful reproductions of works of flat art? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mv1388: Thank you for uploading the high quality version of this painting. My source is this Persian article. In this article, the source the "Rashida Shahnameh" was mentioned as the painting's source. May be the article authors made mistake or this painting was copied in the handwritten Shahnameh that you introduced. Shfarshid (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your welcome, Rashida Shahnameh is in Golestan Palace Museum and this artical made a mistake. Thank you for your attention. Mv1388 (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ICA Boston 2007.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EgorovaSvetlana as Fair use (Non-free) and the most recent rationale was: 2D art|image has rationale=.  Delete (but ineligible for speedy as FoP is involved). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 Hello, thank you for FoP notion, as ICA does allow "Noncommercial photography and video recording is permitted for most works on view; exceptions will be indicated with a no photography icon." For this particular work I can not recall if it had such indication, though on ICA site there is no any picture exists for this Chiho Aoshima's past exhibition and also The Sandra and Gerald Fineberg Art Wall displays murals commissioned annually only temporary, so that is also already more as historical photo. EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:AV25icon.png

This file was initially tagged by Ocelot as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|Non-free logo. Leaning  Keep, opinions on COM:TOO US and COM:TOO Andean Community? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates and family.jpg

• File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr. Amelia Levinson Gates.jpg, it is alleged that the photo was not published contemporaneously. The crop was deleted and restored per COM:UNDEL. I have no opinion on the matter, but both files must receive the same treatment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This image can be found here: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LDQT-B6S/amelia-levinson-1866-1947. The people in the picture and their birth/death dates are: Egbert James Gates 1869-1923, Adeline Melissa Rhodes 1832-1921, Howard Baker Gates 1867-1914, Amelia Levinson 1866-1947. Since Howard Baker Gates died in 1914, we can assume the picture was taken on or before 1914, which would make the image copyright free. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Publication is what would matter here. We do have US case law as paraphrased by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) that says that publication occurs when a photograph leaves the custody of the original photographer, and it is possible that this photograph was revealed to the public before 1928. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep True, images from photo studios are made public when they are transferred to the sitter. The sitter is a member of the public. As a counter example: We have whole sets of images where they are assumed to have never been seen by the public, until proven published, like the Bain Collection. The LOC received the negatives directly from the photographer, so we have a provenance for them. Most of the images were never found in circulation. Also to be eligible for a US copyright you had to display a copyright symbol up until 1989, and register for a copyright. Copyright prior to 1964 had to be renewed, or they expired. You can see examples of a copyright symbol on negatives here: Category:Bain copyright notice. --RAN (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ticket:2023081110008271 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Museum vanuit de lucht med-res.jpg

Copyright violation? I have doubts that the uploader really is the maker of his photo. It is also on https://www.toerismepoortklokenpeel.nl/ ("Copyright © 2023 Toerismepoort Klok & Peel. Alle rechten voorbehouden" = all rights reserved.) and on Tripadvisor, where it looks like a staffmember of the museum has put the photo there. JopkeB (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Same for:

• File:Museum met groen dak.jpg, which may be a cutout because it looks the same, with the same details, only closer

--JopkeB (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete 20 upper 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

See discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Klokken van de Wereld - India.jpg. --JopkeB (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Beste Ida 2A02:A440:D805:1:3CFA:4792:FF6B:48E8, ik zie dat voor de files die op de andere deletion request stonden de permissies zijn geaccepteerd, maar voor deze twee zijn nog niet eens permissies ontvangen. Klopt dat? JopkeB (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Sonnywynn (talk · contribs)

These are pictures of the uploader's deceased father. They are incorrectly licenced to appear here. They are advised to regularise the licencing by use of COM:VRT. In the interim they are nominated for deletion.

• File:Ukkg 1.jpg
• File:Moe Nyo U Ko Ko Gyi.jpg

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, if these where pictures taken by his deceased father, any of the category:License tags for transferred copyright could be used, but these are images of his deceased father, so without knowing who took them, we'll probably have to wait until 120 years have passed. PaterMcFly (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment they are unlikely to be taken by the subject. It is quite possible that they are taken by a family member, and one of the tags mentioned by PaterMcFly could apply. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 18:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ukkg 1.jpg is declared at w:en:Draft talk:Moe Nyo U Ko Ko Gyi to be the subject's passport photograph in possession of the uploader. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 07:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have special rules for these? Passport photograps by a machine would probably not be convered by copyright (and certainly not by the owner of said machine) PaterMcFly (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

PaterMcFly No-one has suggested it is from a machine. These often used to be taken by the local professional photographer in my youth in England. We have no idea what was done in Burma.COM:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Arthur Szyk 1894-1951. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Time cover 22 December 1941 illustration December 1941 WW2 propaganda drawing Library of congress No known copyright.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Asclepias as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Apparently bogus CC license. As specified at the source, this work is not free : [3].
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion about whether this work of a 1951-deceased artist isn't already in the PD. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Published in 1941 in the United States. In the United States, for published works of that era, copyright is based on the year of publication, not on the author's death. This work was published on 22 December 1941 in Time magazine. This issue of Time magazine has a copyright notice, had its copyright renewed and is not one of the issues in the public domain: TIME/PD issues. Its copyright would expire 95 years after publication, at the end of 2036. The source, the Library of Congress states explicitly that this image is in copyright and that its copyright is held by Time-Life [4]. The claim "No known copyright" in the Commons filename is not at the source and seems an invention of the uploader, as is the fake and contradictory CC license. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• I believe Time's renewal would cover the text and any art by staff artists. I don't think it would cover third party art, the artist would have to file for renewal. --RAN (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is usually accurate in its assessments of copyrights (except in some cases such as the Bain collection, where it's up to the reader to research the actual origin of each work). For this work by Szyk for Time, it's not a vague statement. The assessment by the LoC is very precise by stating that the copyright of this individual work is owned by Time-Life, meaning that LoC checked it specifically. As a work commissioned by Time, the copyright renewal is by Time. It is the same situation for other works of Szyk commissioned by various publishers. The renewal would usually be made by the publisher, although perhaps it could also be made by someone else. For example, for works of Szyk published in books, cf. Copyright Renewals, where most renewals are by the respective publishers and one by Szyk's daughter. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Aaraz.jpg

عكس اشتباه بارگذاري شده Naazaninefarmehr (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment In use at fa:آراز_دانش. --Rosenzweig τ 13:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hungarian Mud Wrestling.jpg

Dieses Foto ist zwar mein eigenes Werk, jedoch musste ich feststellen, dass es von der Bildqualität her kaum den modernen Ansprüchen von Wikipedia/Wikimedia genügt, was auch darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass es abfotografiert ist. Hans-Rudi der Letzte (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Während das obere tatsächlich relativ unscharf ist, ist dieses hier scharf und detailreich. Wovon ist es denn abfotografiert? PaterMcFly (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Freigabe des Fotografen Werner Sonntag fehlt (s. Dateiseite). XenonX3 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Araz Danesh.jpg

عكس تكراري است Naazaninefarmehr (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment In use at fa:آراز_دانش. --Rosenzweig τ 13:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mto crest.jpg

Inferior duplicate of File:Mto crest.png ProfAuthor (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:FC Bayern 5 Stars.png

This file was initially tagged by A.Savin as no permission (No permission since) Krd 13:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hat selbst nach Commons-Maßstäben keine SH. Das sind einfachste geometrische Formen (Rauten, Kreise und Sterne) sowie ein paar Buchstaben. Der LA ist unnötig.  Keep -- Chaddy (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep so ist es, keine Freigabe erforderlich. --Ralf Roletschek 14:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep Text + simple geometric, not copyrightable, IMO. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Ankry, how are the stars simple geometric when in fact they look both "3D-ish" and "shining"? IMO for such a design more creativity is needed rather than for a simple geometric shape. --A.Savin 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Each consists of 10 triangles of 2 colouring variants. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  A triangle is a simple geometric shape with {{PD-ineligible}}, that's for sure, but is an image sampled from "10 triangles of 2 colouring variants" really still PD-ineligible? --A.Savin 06:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion it is still PD-ineligible. Especially, if the set of triangles constitutes a regular form. But I wonder why my opinion here is considered so important that the whole DR needs to wait for it. Ankry (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  As @A.Savin already knows, the stars are public domain and have been modified. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:General_of_Armies_insignia.svg) Bildersindtoll (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per above. --A.Savin 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per what? What are you referring to? -- Chaddy (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Per this. --A.Savin 19:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I read through COM:TOO Germany, and I'm still unsure on this one and will look with interest on the decision by the closing admin. I will say that I find the pattern of blue and white rhombi more artistic than the pattern of stars, which it might be possible to argue is a utilitarian way to represent stars (I don't know how that would work under Germany jurisprudence). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  The en:Lozenge (heraldry) in white and blue are the ancient coat of arms of Bavaria, they are out of any copyright for a few centuries. --h-stt !? 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1 -- Chaddy (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Text + simple geometric + the Blue and White "rhombus pattern" is equivalent to these from the bavarian state flage and coat of arms. There are also public domain. --Bildersindtoll (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I see. So the pattern of stars is really the only question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I took the stars from a public domain graphic and modified them. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:General_of_Armies_insignia.svg) Bildersindtoll (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• If you designed the logo, that resolves any issue, but in that case, shouldn't you state that you are the author on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• In any case, this seems to be the source, which should be described on File:FC Bayern 5 Stars.png as well. Had Bildersindtoll done it from the beginning, there would have been no tagging from my part and no RfD. Sometimes it's really quite simple. --A.Savin 07:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since I basically just put the content together, I assumed that I couldn't be the author either. Bildersindtoll (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Correct assumption. --A.Savin 08:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• So is this really a logo that's being used by the team? That said, if all the conceivably copyrightable elements are in the public domain, what could be the basis for supporting deletion of a file that's COM:INUSE? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Insufficient source & copyright information on file description page, I guess. --A.Savin 09:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Anything that's missing should be added, and then that would seem to solve that problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. However, I'm no pro on licensing, so if someone could help that would be great. Bildersindtoll (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  So what do you all mean? Does anything else need to be changed or is "PD text logo" sufficient? Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  PD text logo is sufficient. There is nothing copyrightable depicted in this logo. -- Chaddy (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, can the comment on deletion / deletion discussion then be removed? Bildersindtoll (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• keep - Threshold of Originality is not met, the round emblem of the club combines the never copyrighted coat of arms of Bavaria with simple geometric elements, the stars are too simple on their own, the combination of previously known elements does not constitute a work under German and US copyright law. --h-stt !? 16:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Krd: Magst du deinen LA bitte zurückziehen? Das ist eine völlig unnötige ABM in diesem mehr als eindeutigen Fall. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Dasselbe gilt übrigens für die Markierung mit "no permission". Sowas ist halt absolut unnötig. Und gerade erst Recht, da Commons doch eh schon kaum die ganzen LAs abgearbeitet bekommt. -- Chaddy (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kein eindeutiger Fall fürs Schnellbehalten bzw. Rücknahme, übrigens hat Ankry auf meine Frage bis heute nicht geantwortet, obwohl ein Löschantrag keine Abstimmung ist. --A.Savin 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

? Viel eindeutiger als das hier geht gar nicht. Daran ändern auch die Sterne nichts, die ebenfalls nur simpelste Geometrie und vorbekannte Elemente sind.

Und ja, eine LD ist keine Abstimmung, das ist richtig. Hier zählen Argumente. Und die stehen klar für Behalten und es gibt nichts, was eine Löschung rechtfertigen würde.

Solche LAs wie dieser hier tragen zum schlechten Ansehen der Löschpraxis auf Commons bei. -- Chaddy (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Aus meiner Sicht sollte die Löschung doch erledigt sein, oder? Die Rauten entsprechen dem bayrischen Landeswappen bzw. sind einfache geometrischen Formen. Daher ist das "klassische" FCB-Logo ja auch vorhanden. Die Sterne sind wie bereits erläutert gemeinfrei. --Bildersindtoll (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Krd? Bildersindtoll (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

File:The Royal Society 1934 London-t.jpg

The file was initially tagged by Komarof as Dw no source since (dw no source since).

The photo was taken in 1934 in London, UK, by the London Panoramic Company (abbreviated as London Panoramic Coy.). Do we know anything about the actual photographer(s) of this company? Years of death? Can we (at some point) use {{PD-UK-unknown}} for the file, was the required research to use it done? Or should the file only be undeleted in 2055 with {{PD-old-assumed}}?

A 1934 UK photograph was still protected on the URAA date for the UK, so this file is still protected in the US until the end of 2029, and it should be deleted in any case. The question is if undeletion can happen in 2030 ({{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}}) or 2055 ({{PD-old-assumed-expired}}). Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Ornithological Congress Oxford".

Also affected by this deletion request:

• File:Ewald,Paul Peter 1934 London.jpg
• File:Minkowski,Rudolph 1934 London.jpg
• File:Rasetti,Franco 1934 London.jpg
• File:Keesom,Willem Hendrik 1934 London.jpg
• File:Frisch,Otto 1934 London.jpg
• File:Elsasser,Walther 1934 London.jpg
• File:Hylleraas,Egil 1934 London.jpg
• File:Hund,Friedrich 1934 London.jpg
• File:Bragg,Lawrence 1934 London.jpg
• File:The Royal Society 1934 London-2.jpg
• File:Scherrer,Paul 1934 London.jpg
• File:Szilard,Leo 1934 London.jpg
• File:The Royal Society 1934 London-1.jpg
• File:George Placzek 1934 London.jpg
• File:Fermi,Enrico 1934 London.jpg
• File:London,Fritz 1934 London.jpg
• File:Fokker,Adriaan Daniel 1934 London.jpg
• File:Flügge,Siegfried 1934 London.jpg
• File:Sitte,Kurt 1934 London.jpg
• File:Perrin,Francis 1934 London.jpg
• File:Hückel,Erich 1934 London.jpg
• File:Richardson,Owen Willans 1934 London.jpg
• File:Joliot-Curie,Frédéric 1934 London.jpg
• File:Brode,Robert 1934 London.jpg
• File:Casimir,Hendrik 1934 London.jpg
• File:Smekal,Adolf 1934 London.jpg
• File:Bernal,John Desmond 1934 London.jpg
• File:Lyman,Theodore 1934 London.jpg
• File:Orowan,Egon 1934 London.jpg
• File:Blackett,Patrick 1934 London.jpg
• File:Rozenthal,Stefan 1934 London.jpg
• File:Wick,Gian Carlo 1934 London.jpg
• File:The Royal Society 1934 London-3.jpg
• File:The Royal Society 1934 London-4.jpg
• File:Knudsen,Martin 1934 London.jpg
• File:Darwin,Charles Galton 1934 London.jpg
• File:Curie Joliot 1934 London.jpg
• File:J.D. Bernal (cropped).jpg
• File:Lennard-Jones,John 1934 London.jpg
• File:Holtsmark,Johan Peter 1934 London.jpg
• File:Wang Ganchang 1934 London.jpg
• File:Andrade,Edward 1934 London.jpg
• File:Fowler,Ralph Howard 1934 London.jpg
• File:Ernst Carl Gerlach Stückelberg (1934, London).jpg
• File:Joliot-Curie,Irène 1934 London.jpg
• File:John Cunningham McLennan 1934 London.jpg
• File:Schrödinger,Erwin 1934 London.jpg
• File:Manneback,Charles 1934 London.jpg
• File:Compton,Arthur Holly 1934 London.jpg
• File:Slater,John C. 1934 London.jpg
• File:Blas Cabrera Felipe 1934 London.jpg
• File:Strutt,Robert,4th Baron Rayleigh 1934 London.jpg
• File:Bjerknes,Vilhelm 1934 London.jpg

File:Hartree,Douglas 1934 London.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 17:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the summary at File:The Royal Society 1934 London-t.jpg, the photo was in the inheritance from en:Friedrich Hund to (his son,) de:Gerhard Hund, a.k.a. user GFHund, the uploader. Maybe he can answer the above questions. I'd guess that {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies since the photograph was made available to the public ... before 1 January 1953 (2nd item at Template:PD-UK-unknown), viz. in 1934. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Does it really apply though? The template PD-UK-unknown specifies that “This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was.” I don't see any evidence for this research. --Rosenzweig τ 17:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• PD-UK-unknown is the correct license. "I don't see any evidence for this research" Tineye and Google image search looked at over 10 billion images and did not find the name of a photographer, the search took a few nanoseconds, and anyone can do it. Acting like you need to document your trek through all the world's image archives on foot to prove a negative, is just silly. --RAN (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So you apparently think research that goes beyond a quick TinEye/Google Images search is "silly"? Well, I don't. The internet may have billions of images, but not every information about 1934 photographs is available on the Internet. Considering that the current UK copyright act is from 1988, from before the invention of the World Wide Web, it seems reasonable to assume that a quick Google search (or even less) is not what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote "reasonable inquiry" into the law. You would have needed to consult books, make telephone calls, write letters etc. to inquire about who an author would be. If you can find out the author these days by a quick internet search, fine. But if you cannot, shouldn't you try to exhaust some conventional resources too? Records? Literature? --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Clear-cut case. Mentioning of London Panoramic Company (down right) makes clear that copyright was owned by London Panoramic Coy (until 2005 or so). Photo published more than 70 years ago, so PD-UK-unknown. Vysotsky (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have more info on London Panoramic Company, please create a Wikidata entry for them. --RAN (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Copyright might have been owned by this company, but the duration of the actual copyright term in the UK is still determined by the year the author died, and the author is a human being, not a company. You also did not address the URAA issue, which says this image is still protected in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 04:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: I suggest to ask the conference organizer, The Royal Society, whether they have any information about the photographer. This may be the easiest way to settle the above discussion (luckily the conference organizer still exists after 89 years). I'm willing to do this, but I need some initial help with the appropriate Wikipedia procedures: Can I use OTRS for this purpose? If yes, could someone provide me a link to the tutorial page (I found Category:Open-source Ticket Request System which gives two -identical- redlinks, Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard where I don't dare to ask my bloody-beginner's question, and Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard/FAQ which doesn't address my question). If no, how should I proceed to prove my efforts without publishing my E-Mail address here? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Photographic (press) agencies employ photographers. Copyright is with the photo press agency, unless otherwise negotiated. The photographs are "commissioned works". Good example is Anefo, a Dutch photo press agency of which Commons holds 450,000 photographs dating from the years 1945-1990, partly made by still living photographers. The situation in the UK is roughly the same. "Under the Copyright Act 1956, "commissioning" is defined as "the payment or agreement to pay for a work with money or something of equivalent value." "This means, the copyright in a work made by an artist while employed remains with the employer (the commissioner)." Consequently, copyright ends 70 years after publication. URAA? I don't see the London Panoramic Company has registered a URAA request here. They are also not likely to do so in the future, as I don't believe the company still exists. (I checked 5 photo museums, societies and libraries, a.o. V&A, RPS & NSMM.) Vysotsky (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition: I would be surprised if The Royal Society would know the name of the photographer, but, as said, copyright in this commissioned work is not with the photographer, but with the London Panoramic Coy, mentioned in the photograph. Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: Section 9 ("Authorship of work.") of the current en:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says "In this Part “author”, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it." Section 12 ("Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.") says "Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.", followed by some more detailed rules for special types of works. Accd. to section 4 ("Artistic works."), photographs are artistic works. So it is clear: The author of a photograph in the UK is a human being, not some sort of corporate entity, company or such, and copyright expires 70 years after the death of that person. --Rosenzweig τ 11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And you're probably referring to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Commissioned works, where it says “The copyrights in the commissioned works made prior to 1 August 1989 are generally held by the commissioners.” Held by. That does not change the rules about the duration of the copyright term, which is tied to the author, a human being, as explained above.

As for the URAA: Nobody needed to apply for restoration of US copyright or request it. Restoration was automatic if the conditions were met. --Rosenzweig τ 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Of course copyright can be with a photo agency under UK Law. This point is strengthened by the fact that the name of the photographer isn't mentioned, whereas the name and address of the London Panoramic Company is. In my view copyright has expired, and as the London Panoramic Company has ceased to exist, this discussion about the copyright of photo with a 1934 publication date is rather hypothetical. Vysotsky (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. Even if the copyright is owned by a company (which is possible, I didn't say otherwise), the duration of the copyright term is still tied to the person of the author and when they died. --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I got that point. But this is a commissioned work of which the name of the photographer is unknown, so we have to go by the publication date plus 70, making the photo PD as of 2005. ("If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that.") Vysotsky (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it, because the thing you're writing about now is not the same thing you were writing about before.

Before, you were arguing that copyright ends after 70 years because copyright remains / rests with the commissioner. That would include commissioned works where the author (photographer) is known, even if they did not die the same the year the photograph was commissioned, but at a later point—which would most likely be the majority of all cases. I have explained in detail, several times, that this is not what is in the law.

Now, you are arguing that copyrights ends after 70 years because the author is unknown. That is precisely what was already discussed above regarding the template {{PD-UK-unknown}}, and it has nothing to do with commissioned works or who owns the copyright. The question is if that template is applicable because it demands "reasonable inquiry" before you can declare that the author is unknown, and the uploader has demonstrated no inquiry at all.

But either way, it's pretty clear that the photograph was protected in the UK on the URAA date January 1, 1996 and is therefore still protected in the USA until the end of 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

All hypothetical. No photographer known, and a company that doesn't exist anymore can't claim copyright -not even on the basis of URAA. You gave your arguments, I gave mine. Vysotsky (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if the company does not exist anymore, somebody always owns existing copyrights, even if we do not know who it is. And you do know Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, right? “Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: [...] "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."” --Rosenzweig τ 05:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't like being accused of saying things that I haven't said or suggested. I spent a few hours trying to figure out the whereabouts of the London Panoramic Company (at the websites of the Victoria & Albert Museum, of The Royal Photographic Society, of the National Science and Media Museum and other organisations, as stated above,) and couldn't find anything. I like due diligence, and act accordingly. Vysotsky (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep per Vysotsky. Most copyrights have been abandoned, "Analysis from the New York Public Library revealed that approximately 75% of copyrights for books were not renewed between 1923-1964, meaning roughly 480,000 books from this period are most likely in the public domain." That is just for USA books from 1923-1964. --RAN (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There was no need to renew copyrights in the UK, nor was there a need to renew US copyrights that were restored by the URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 07:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/"Ornithological Congress Oxford"

Same problem as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "The Royal Society 1934 London": The photo was taken in 1934 in Oxford, UK, by the London Panoramic Company (abbreviated as London Panoramic Coy.). Do we know anything about the actual photographer(s) of this company? Years of death? Can we (at some point) use {{PD-UK-unknown}} for the file, was the required research to use it done? Or should the file only be undeleted in 2055 with {{PD-old-assumed}}?

A 1934 UK photograph was still protected on the URAA date for the UK, so these files are still protected in the US until the end of 2029, and they should be deleted in any case. The question is if undeletion can happen in 2030 ({{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}}) or 2055 ({{PD-old-assumed-expired}}).

• File:Ornithological Congress Oxford.jpg
• File:Erwin Stresemann 1934.jpg
• File:Ornithological Congress Oxford.tif
• File:Percy Lowe 1934.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 17:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Фото из семейного архива (автор - дочь Алексея Ярмольского Элеонора Павленко)

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:Алексей Иванович Ярмольский на съёмочной площадке.jpg

wrong date, probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Bijan mortazavi 2009.jpg

Copyright violation MJXVI (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Çanakkale Bozcaada Kalesi.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Kadı as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: CopyVio "Copyright 2021. All rights reserved." in metadata
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as such an entry might just be default of the camera/phone. This needs to be supported by external hits, which seem not to be available. (Only external hit I found is a cropped version at https://www.istanbuldoga.net/Etkinlik_2496.py). -- Túrelio (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Singapore - Woodlands Waterfront Park - former Malaysian Base Jetty - 2022-12-14.jpg

Realise this image shows too much detail with various logos, and may therefore not be in line with copyright policy. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tervuren - uitlegbord Arboretum Tervuren in het Zoniënwoud - 2023-04-21.jpg

Realise this image shows too much detail with various logos, and may therefore not be in line with copyright policy. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Singapore - Napier MRT station - Botanic Gardens image - 2022-12-17.jpg

Realise this image is a promotional image, and may clash with copyright policy. My apologies. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Singapore Botanic Gardens - leaf litter sign - 2022-12-12.jpg

Contains a logo.In hindsight unsure about this upload. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre - entrance sign - 2022-12-15.jpg

Contains a logo.In hindsight unsure about this upload. My apologies. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Singapore Botanic Gardens - Woollerton Gate entrance sign on Woollerton Drive -2022-12-14.jpg

Contains a logo.In hindsight unsure about this upload. My apologies to the Commons admins (again). LightPhoenix (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• This one seems de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Art by Travis Simpkins.png

Source: "Artwork and Writings © Travis Simpkins 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved." HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Maud Tindal Atkinson

The British artist Maud Tindal Atkinson died in 1954, so these works of art are not in the public domain in the UK yet, and the files should be deleted. The files can be restored in 2025 (no URAA problem as far as I can determine).

• File:Ariel Atkinson.jpg
• File:Atkinson Sir Galahad.jpg
• File:Children reading - Hollow Tree (cropped).jpg
• File:Hollow Tree.jpg
• File:Portrait Tommy.jpg
• File:Rose still life.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 20:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep, these two - File:Hollow Tree.jpg and its cropped (extracted) version File:Children reading - Hollow Tree (cropped).jpg The simple, lack of detail and few colors of the book's cover art is not a work by the talented Maud Tindal Atkinson. This 1907 book cover is not signed by the artist, while one artwork is signed and two more have the artist's mark on the lower right corners. So, keep these two and undeleted the rest in 2025 per @Rosenzweig. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Then which artist created that cover? If there was no research done on this, these files showing a 1907 book cover should be deleted per the precautionary principle and can be restored in 2028 with {{PD-old-assumed}}. --Rosenzweig τ 08:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Per COM:AW, "

United Kingdom

If the author is unknown then the basic time period to bear in mind is 70 years. (...) If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after first publication." --Ooligan (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You're the one claiming that the author is "unknown", while we actually have a credit to Maud Tindal Atkinson. Also, {{PD-UK-unknown}} requires "reasonable enquiry". Which research have you carried out to find who the author was? --Rosenzweig τ 00:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Bryarey (talk · contribs)

Paintings from VIctoria Trunova who recently passed away. All her works are naturally still protected by Copyright.

• File:V. Trunova "Momus".jpg
• File:V. Trunova "Nail".jpg
• File:V. Trunova "Pilgrimage".jpg
• File:V. Trunova "Radio is the best".jpg
• File:V. Trunova "The Falling Petals".jpg

Günther Frager (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am her son and literally have full rights for her artworks Bryarey (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case you need to send the authorization to COM:VRTS. Notice that Commons requires a license that allows redistribution, derivatives and commercial usage, so please read carefully COM:Licensing. Günther Frager (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo 24 Tschasa.svg

No information about TOO in Bulgaria QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

August 7

File:National anthem aerika.ogg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 04:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Losthortos (talk · contribs)

All members of the same band - one which has camera info is credited to the band page. I think we need permission for all

• File:Nino Helfrich.jpg
• File:Denis Filimonov.jpg
• File:Jörn Schubert.jpg
• File:Neopera band members 2020.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Fort William Presidency Map.png

The map is anachronistic per discussion conducted at the talk page of Bengal Presidency. A better version has been uploaded by User:TheGreaterAdenz at File:Bengal Presidency (1849-1853) with modern borders.png. PadFoot2008 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Kcisanders (talk · contribs)

Promo shot. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure.

• File:Photo of DISTRXCT.jpg
• File:DISTRXCT.jpg

Yann (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mykola Kulytskyi.jpg

Not in PD. Foto was published only in 2011 (not before 1928) and 70 years are not expired. There is no confirmation that the photo was published anywhere earlier and that it was published anonymously. Kursant504 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It photo is in personal government document in 1942 year. Arxivist (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A photo being in a personal document does not constitute publication because personal documents are personal not public (not in PD), so you still has to demonstrate a legitimate publication from at least 70 years ago. Kursant504 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's also a bit of a manipulative nomination. Proof is possible - but is it necessary with your pro-russian views and suspicion of paid edits? Arxivist (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that Ukrainian authors and works published in the Ukrainian SSR do not deserve for Commons to respect the copyright protections enshrined by their civil codex? It is very anti-Ukrainian to suggest that being Ukrainian somehow strips an author of the copyright protection of their work that is afforded by Ukrainian law. Do you think that only Russian authors and creators deserve to have copyright respected? You say you support Ukraine but don't want to respect Ukraine's own copyright laws. I suggest that you try to find works that are verifiably public domain in accordance with Ukrainian law, or the law of whatever respective country is the country of first publication. If you had specifically cited a publication from before 1953 I absolutely would have not nominated this for deletion. And I do not discrimination against Ukrainians in my deletion nominations, I have also nominated many Russian copyright violations for deletion, because both Russia and Ukraine have copyright laws that us editors on Commons are obligated to respect and avoid misleading people about the copyright status of photos. I have nominated photos of Russians, Tatars, Kazakhs, Azerbaijanis, and yes, Ukrainians for deletion because they did not comply with the copyright rules set by Commons. If you think that Commons should make a special exception for Ukrainian works to the policy against fair use on Commons go ask Wikimedia leadership for an exception, but do not sit here and pretend that these works are public domain without evidence of a publication before 1953. If you do find a publication of the photo from before 1953 I will happily withdraw this DR. Kursant504 (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Question. The book clearly states the year 1940. The person did not live in the Soviet Union in 1940. What other questions are there? What kind of manipulation? The document was not issued to him by the Soviet Union. And he did not take the photo for the documents of the Soviet Union. Arxivist (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@NickK there's a bit of a misunderstanding of the situation here. Perhaps you should clarify your opinion? I can transfer the photo to a local server without any problems. But the situation doesn't look clear to me Arxivist (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And another question: what were the copyright laws for photographs in the Soviet Union in 1940? Arxivist (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I applying that in this case we should use PD-Ukraine rules because the source indicates a 2011 Ukrainian book as the source. Current retroactive Ukrainian copyright law is the issue here because they source information states the original source of the photo is publication in 2011 Ukrainian book which is not an earlier enough publication because 2011 is much less than 70 years ago. If there is proof that it was published anonymously in 1940 (which has not been provided) or any year before 1953 then it would be PD under Ukrainian law, but there is no evidence that the photo was published at least 70 years ago as required by Ukrainian copyright law. You should understand that Soviet photos are subject to retroactive copyright laws, because all former countries of the Soviet Union (including but in no way limited to Ukraine) have retroactive copyright laws. If there is evidence that the photo was first published in a different country before the 2011 Ukrainian book then whatever that country's current copyright laws are would apply. Kursant504 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So look at the archive file on the person and make sure that this photo is in the personal documents. I am sure that the copyright of Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Answer the question above: what copyright law was there in 1940? You don't need to talk about retroactivity here. This issue has already been dealt with by Wikimedia lawyers, not Commons lawyers. Arxivist (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I can speak about retroactivity here. Your position is simply a denial of the existence of copyright in "old" works. If you are ready to show precedents (judicial for example) when your opinion regarding copyright was really confirmed - I am ready to consider them seriously. At this moment, this just looks like a "comfortable" position for upload non-free photos on Commons. Kursant504 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Asked a third time: what was copyright in 1940? Either answer or don't write nonsense. You've already tacked Ukraine onto the territory where the man lived - definitely wasn't Ukraine (the city of Krakow). First understand what you are writing about. Thank you and don't distract me. Arxivist (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

But for some reason you indicated the Ukrainian source of the photo, and not the Polish one. Kursant504 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pilotos del 588.º Regimiento de Bombardeo Nocturno.jpg

"Flickrwashing" - the uploader on Flickr is not the actual photographer and has no rights to release the photos under any kind of CC license. Kursant504 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Brujas de la Noche.jpg

"Flickrwashing" - the uploader on Flickr is not the actual photographer and has no rights to release the photos under any kind of CC license. Kursant504 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Rufina Gaseva.jpg

Not in PD. Source didn't say where it was published. Also is known that author of foto is Emmanuil Yevzerikhin who died only in 1984. Kursant504 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot find the proof of Yevzerikhin authorship. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Name of the author is states below the foto at source (warheroes.ru). Also this foto was published in newspaper «Вечерняя Москва» № 7 (6372), 09/01/1945 with author's name. Kursant504 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DieBand (talk · contribs)

User is probably P. Baumbach back on Commons after a long hiatus. I found these files at https://www.deutsche-mugge.de/live-berichte/9090-karat-in-stendal.html where they are (C) - I think DieBand needs to confirm that they are Baumbach via VTRS

• File:Heikojunglive2023.jpg
• File:Daniel Baetge in April 2023.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am Patrick Baumbach, you need passport for identification? I also work for deutsche-mugge.de, because I write reviews abpout concerts. I really hate this actionism here.! DieBand (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

DieBand, please contact COM:VRT. (What is VTRS?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Aviatrici sovietiche.jpg

Not in PD. Web-source states a copyright and didn't say where this foto was anonymously published before. Kursant504 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Rakhimzhan Qoshqarbaev.jpg

This photo is a copyright violation and not in PD. It was taken by Vladimir Grebnev who died in 1976 and was published in Газета «Фронтовик» № 120 от 17 мая 1945 года with a note saying that Grebnev was the photographer so it is absolutely not public domain in Russian law yet. Kursant504 (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ziba Ganiyeva Colorized.jpg

The original photo is in public domain, the colorization is a derivative work and property of Klimblim, who says that they do not allow commercial reuse of their works. NC works are not acceptable for Commons. Kursant504 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also: here is blog of author: https://klimbim2014.wordpress.com Where he states that: "All images colored by me can be used for free for any purposes but commercial." Kursant504 (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete Duh! Stolen from Klimblim. Amazingly, they didn't even try to hide the watermark. Rookie mistake. --KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Герб Рязани (1858).gif

Fake CoA with bad edition. The real is: Dmsav (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC) UPD Dmsav (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 OpposeВы не можете отличить герб Рязани от герба Рязанской губернии? Барабас (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ГЕРБ РЯЗАНСКОЙ ГУБЕРНИИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ИМПЕРИИ https://geraldika.ru/s/671 Барабас (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

В 1858 году в ходе геральдической реформы Б. кене был составлен проект герба Рязани:

"В золотом щите князь в зеленом одеянии и опушенной соболем шапке, с накинутой на плечах червленой епанчей и в червленых сапогах, держащий в правой руке серебряный меч, в левой - черные ножны. Щит увенчан золотой стенчатой короной и окружён золотыми колосьями, соединенными Александровской лентой".

Проект не был утвержден. https://geraldika.ru/s/677 Барабас (talk) 15:06, 7 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.

File:ING_Group_global_locations.JPG

Replaced by vector version of the same name. (See File:ING Group global locations.svg.) Riddled with compression artefacts. All project links have been changed. All required licensing information can be found in the information box of the new image. Cflm001 (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Kept. Existence of a SVG version is no reason to delete, {{Vector version available}} does its job already. Eusebius (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ING Group global locations.JPG

It is outdated JPG version of file:ING Group global locations.svg which is impossible to use or edit properly. 147.161.249.91 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Πεντάβρυσος Κοζάνης.jpg

Down right watermark mention of the author's name doesn't seem to match the username of the original uploader. At the same time, I was able to find this specific image here even in links dating back from 2019. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 12:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Radixact System.jpg

Incorrect licence/non-free - uploaded to Unsplash by corporate account in 2022 https://unsplash.com/photos/36i9vuZrVjc Beevil (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Radio AIWA.jpg

Also:

• File:AIWA CD／MD MICRO COMPONENT XR-H330MD YEAR1999.JPG
• File:AIWA TPR-950 - 4 Band Radio Cassette Recorder.jpg

Per COM:DMCA request at: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/35213342?access_token=HAd8l-M7tMUz8fAh7pLWlg Lord Gingham (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Question. Aiwa is a Japanese manufacturer and now it is a subsidiary of Sony in Japan. This DMCA Complaint to Google, said "Sent on July 29, 2023 COUNTRY: AT 🇦🇹" (from Austria). Is this DMCA Complaint valid ? I don't understand what it means. --Clusternote (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Clusternote: It means that is linked to OnlyFans website followed on Google search and delisted from results with a DMCA takedown notice via Lumen Database. Lord Gingham (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems a strange explanation. Although the top of this DMCA Complaint page is a site "[https://]​onlyfans.com/aiwaonly" , however it seems merely a subscription service similar to a porno site, and they may have no rights for AIWA products at all. This deletion request seems meaningless for my eyes. --Clusternote (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we relisted on Google Search instead via counternotice on Lumen? Lord Gingham (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Anatoly Papanov. Postal card, Russia, 2012.jpg

2012 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per COM:PCP unless we gat clear evidence of its PD status from the publisher. Ankry (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.

Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".

Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope) as the postage signs.

(All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)

It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.

See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.

Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

@Dmitry Ivanov: That stamped envelope doesn't have a copyright symbol. So how do you explain that there is a copyright claim here? Yann (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: A copyright notice claims not only economic rights, i. e. the right of reproduction (it is prohibited without a permission of an author), the right of distribution (it is prohibited without a permission) etc.

Also a copyright notice claims moral rights. First of all it claims the right of attribution or, in other words, the right to declare authorship of a work: in the discussed case the postal card was created by Издатцентр «Mарка» (Marka Publishers), not by someone else.

And also it claims the right of integrity: an alteration of a work is prohibited. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Boris Andreyev Postal card Russia 2015.jpg

2015 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.

Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".

Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.

(All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)

It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.

See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.

Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

File:Boris Laskorin Postal card Russia 2015.jpg

2015 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.

Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".

Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.

(All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)

It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.

See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.

Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour Postal card Russia 2008.jpg

2008 postal cover with a copyright notice, so most probably not in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep See here, please: Stamps in public domain: Russia.

Pursuant to Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".

Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards (the discussed item is a postal stationery card, not an envelope / cover) as the postage signs.

(All "bolds" are mine - D. I.)

It means: postal stationery cards of Russia are not copyrighted. If you use a postal stationery card as a whole (i.e. the exact reperoduction of a card, with an imprinted stamp, the address form, and, yes, with an illustration) you can publish the postal stationery card in Commons.

See also: a similar case of a Russian stamped envelope.

Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC).

File:Rhqlogo.png

• File:Luvlogo.png
• File:Rodwavelogo.png
• File:Ynwmellylogo.png
• File:E40logo.png
• File:Gherbologo.png
• File:Drdrelogo.png
• File:E40logo2.png
• File:Icecubelogo.png
• File:Ice-spice-logo.png
• File:Kehlanilogo.png
• File:Donaldgloverlogo.png
• File:ASAPFerglogo.png
• File:Thedreamlogo.png
• File:Fabolouslogo.png
• File:Frenchmontanalogo.png
• File:Yfnluccilogo.png
• File:Daveeastlogo.png
• File:Yogottilogo.png
• File:2chainzlogo.png
• File:Kidinklogo.png
• File:Diddylogo.png

Non-free images with false claims about the "threshold of originality". All of these were uploaded by User:StreetKnockerzEnt. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep all. Most of these were recently nominated for deletion individually and found to be below COM:TOO US and useful. (Edited to add that some are COM:INUSE.) If you really think any are above COM:TOO US, nominate a few individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep, please nominate them individually. Some are clearly below COM:TOO. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Dirndl-2011.JPG

Duplicate of File:Dirndl.jpg NMW03 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really... It looks like the user simply mass replaced the image in about 30 Wikipedia entries by writing over / uploading a different version. I'm for restoring the original image and replacing it the popper way in the individual Wikipedia entries.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep: This is not exactly the same picture, and in addition, the context from which the request for deletion arises indicates that it should be rejected for possibilty of unrelated motives. · ^מקף Hyphen _෴ · 12:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Seals of the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

Symbols of Taiwan governments are not always free of copyright protection, according to the court's decision and an explanation from Taiwan Intellectual Property Office. Moreover, they're not within the scope of {{GWOIA}} either. See relevant DRs:
COM:Deletion requests/File:ROC Tourism Bureau Logo.svg
COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Taiwan

• File:AlishanForestRailwayLogo.png
• File:ROC Agriculture and Food Agency Seal.svg
• File:ROC Animal Health Research Institute Seal.svg
• File:ROC Bureau of Agricultural Finance Seal.svg
• File:ROC Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine Seal.svg
• File:ROC Council of Agriculture Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Council of Agriculture Logo.svg
• File:ROC Endemic Species Research Institute Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Fisheries Agency Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Fisheries Research Institute Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Forestry Bureau Seal.svg
• File:ROC Hualien District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Irrigation Agency Emblem with text.svg
• File:ROC Irrigation Agency Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Kaohsiung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Livestock Research Institute Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Miaoli District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Seal.svg
• File:ROC Soil and Water Conservation Bureau Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem 2023.svg
• File:ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Taitung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Taoyuan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:ROC Tea Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg
• File:Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute Emblem.svg
• File:Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem 2023.svg
• File:Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem.svg
• File:Taiwan Seed Improvement and Propagation Station Emblem.svg
• File:農業部農村發展及水土保持署署徽.jpg

Larryasou (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

AlishanForestRailwayLogo.png, ROC Agriculture and Food Agency Seal.svg, ROC Animal Health Research Institute Seal.svg, ROC Bureau of Agricultural Finance Seal.svg, ROC Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine Seal.svg, ROC Council of Agriculture Logo.svg, ROC Fisheries Research Institute Emblem.svg, ROC Forestry Bureau Seal.svg, ROC Miaoli District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Seal.svg, ROC Soil and Water Conservation Bureau Emblem.svg, ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem 2023.svg, ROC Taichung District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg, ROC Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station Emblem.svg, Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute Emblem.svg, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem 2023.svg, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute Emblem.svg, and 農業部農村發展及水土保持署署徽.jpg could be simple enough to be covered under {{PD-textlogo}} (but not quite sure about some of them though). All of which don't have calligraphy included either. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 02:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you noticed the "SUNSHOW" case and the "Louis Vuitton" case on COM:TOO Taiwan? In fact, Taiwan has very low threshold of originality. Most of these logos have more obvious complexity than the graphic "SUNSHOW" logo. Larryasou (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination for the files that were crossed out. Larryasou (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

File:EuroGames 2023 Bern - swimming pool 16 13 52 356000.jpeg

blurry image Zblace (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Usable for online articles. Are there any alternatives? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:DC Douglas and Russell Hodgkinson in Z Nation.png

The file was uploaded by the actor D.C. Douglas. Although he appears in the screenshot, he does not own the rights to the TV show, and cannot legally give permission for a screenshot to be used. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Announcement for Uber car parking outside Kempegowda International Airport Bengaluru, India.wav

The uploader has acknowledged in the description that it is a audio recorded from an announcement. However, there's a concern of infringing the copyright of the original announcement. Therefore, we should delete this audio per COM:PCP. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: What copyright infringement possibly would happen with a public announcement is by an airport traffic worker who was managing the temporary traffic caused by the influx of more taxis? --Psubhashish (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep A single sentence (of maybe 4 words, hard to understand) is certainly not eligible for copyright. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Esboço de uma mulher, de Guignard.webp

Author is Alberto da Veiga Guignard (1896-1962). In Brazil copyright protection ls 70 years pma. Thus, this is still protected. Günther Frager (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Boa noite! Concordo com o que for decidido aqui. Mas, fato é que o autor já faleceu a 60 anos e essa é uma obra que faz parte da exposição do Museu Casa Guignard. Não se trata da obra em si, mas de uma fotografia da própria. A exposição permite que fotos sejam tiradas e permite a divulgação das mesmas. Além do que o seu uso aqui está na ordem educativa e democrática, visando demonstrar a arte do biografado (como é possivel um verbete de um artista, sem a exposição de uma obra?).

Abraços!

22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Luiz Ricardo Resende Silva (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing.jpg

This photo was taken in 1930, making it impossible to be in the public domain in the United States via the pre-1928 route. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing (cropped).jpg. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep "PD-US-not renewed" No registration or renewal for this image can be found in either database. --RAN (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing (cropped).jpg

This photo was taken in 1930, making it impossible to be in the public domain in the United States via the pre-1928 route. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nan Britton and Elizabeth Ann Blaesing.jpg. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep "PD-US-not renewed" no registration or renewal. --RAN (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Where was this published between 1928 and 1963? What proof is there that this photo's copyright was not registered or renewed? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• To be eligible for a US copyright, you had to register for it. I can't show you a negative, you can confirm by looking through the registration database yourself, and the copyright renewal database yourself. If I missed it, and you link to the entry, I will vote for deletion. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2021

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps Romanian stamps are in the public domain because "means of payment" are. It doesn't seem to be sourced to anything that explicitly mentions stamps though and most countries do not consider them to be "means of payment." So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence that Romania actually includes stamps in the law and considers them to be "means of payment."

• File:Alex Bologa 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Alice Voinescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Ana Maria Brânză 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Anastase Simu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Carol-Eduard Novak 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Coxless four Olympics 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Marius Cozmiuc and Ciprian Tudosă 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Nadia Comăneci 2021 stampsheet of Romania cr.jpg
• File:Nadia Comăneci 2021 stampsheet of Romania.jpg
• File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stamp of Romania 2.jpg
• File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Nicoleta-Ancuța Bodnar and Simona Radiș 2021 stampsheet of Romania.jpg
• File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania bw.jpg
• File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Smaranda Brăescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Still Life With A Mask 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg
• File:Still-Life-with-Fruit 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep The Romanian postal law [5], under item No. 30, defines postal stamp as "paper of value issued and put into circulation exclusively under the authority of the state, as an attribute of its sovereignty, constituting proof of postage corresponding to its intrinsic value". It doesn't explicitly say whether "paper of value" (hârtie de valoare) is "means of payment" (mijloacele de plată), and this is an open question to someone more familiar with Romanian laws. However, I see the phrase "an attribute of its sovereignty" as equal to "official symbols of the State" in {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your stretching it there with the last bit. According to a law journal, "following are the characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty: (1) Exclusiveness, (2) Permanence, (3) All-Comprehensiveness, (4) Inalienability. (5) Imprescriptibility, (6) Unity, (7) Indivisibility, (8) Originality, (9) Absoluteness or illimitability." I don't think any of those things make stamps "official symbols of the State." If you disagree that there's also "(a) a permanent population (people); (b) a defined territory; (c) government (political authority); and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states (diplomat recognition or sovereignty)." I don't think any of those things make stamps official symbols of the state either. Maybe "capacity to enter into relations with the other states"? But then if we went with that (or really any of the other definitions) then essentially everything would be state symbol and therefore public domain. That said, I'm more then willing to leave it up to the closing to decide exactly how to define the term "characteristics or attributes of Sovereignty" and if it actually applies to stamps or not. I'm certainly not claiming to know. Just that I think we should go with the precautionary principle since it obviously isn't clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1) You have listed properties of sovereignty rather than objects that can symbolize it. 2) Each country is free to define what objects define its sovereignty. Romania (and neighboring Moldova) explicitly listed postal stamps as such objects. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that you found the clause saying so and put it in the guideline, sure. But I didn't know that at the time when I made the comment. Although I think what I said still holds for other countries where they don't explicitly mentions stamps. Otherwise there would have been no reason Romania would have had define or clarify them as being "means of payment." I'm not going to assume every single thinks stamps are means of payment regardless if the law of the particular country says they are either. Most countries don't anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps is wrong then you should start a discussion, for example at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. It is not a good idea to request deletion of files on a one by one basis instead of clarifying the basics. Until then:  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• File:Alice Voinescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg, File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania bw.jpg, File:Sarmiza Bilcescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg and File:Smaranda Brăescu 2021 stamp of Romania.jpg: The photographs in these stamps are in the public domain ({{PD-RO-photo}}), the rest is {{PD-text}}.  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've asked you already, but can you please only vote once? As to the rest of your comment, one way to have something clarified is through DRs and I don't think the fact that I didn't start a discussion about this at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania first is a valid reason to keep the images. No one is obligated to discuss something on a random talk before nominating an image for deletion. Not that I have an issue with doing so, but it's not like you or anyone else can't just provide whatever evidence you have that Romanian stamps are in the public domain in this discussion. The fact that no one has leads me to believe there isn't any though and I don't feel the need to reconfirm the lack of evidence by discussing this at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. I'm sure the closing administrator will be able to tell that the claim Romanian stamps are PD is totally baseless either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2020

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps Romanian stamps are in the public domain because "means of payment" are. It doesn't seem to be sourced to anything that explicitly mentions stamps though and most countries do not consider them to be "means of payment." So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence that Romania actually includes stamps in the law and considers them to be "means of payment."

• File:Arctic-Fox-Vulpes-lagopus.jpg
• File:Arctic-Hare-Lepus-arcticus.jpg
• File:Arctic-Wolf-Canis-lupus-arctos.jpg
• File:John Paul II centennial stamp (2020) 2.png
• File:John Paul II centennial stamp (2020).jpg
• File:Snowy-Owl-Bubo-scandiacus.jpg
• File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020 (1).jpg
• File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020 (2).jpg
• File:Year-of-the-Rat-2020.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Romania#Stamps is wrong then you should start a discussion, for example at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Romania. It is not a good idea to request deletion of files on a one by one basis (here and in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of Romania, 2021) instead of clarifying the basics. Until then:  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but the part about stamps qualifying as PD-RO-exempt due to being "means of payment" was put there by Aymatth2 when the article was created as a boiler plate template that was added to multiple articles in mass at the time based on zero evidence. It's also been found to be faulty in multiple instances since then. The fact is that most countries don't consider stamps to "means of payment" and there's zero evidence the Romania government does. I don't have a problem starting a discussion about it on the talk page, but I've done that several times already and no one ever responds. Plus guidelines are supposed to be based on evidence to begin with and there's zero evidence that Romania considers stamps to be means of payment, but there is plenty of evidence that Aymatth2 wrongly added that justification for stamps being PD to articles in mass when he created them. It's not like these things aren't clarified in DRs on a daily basis to begin with either. That's literally in DRs. To provide evidence that something is in the public domain if said evidence is lacking, which it clearly is. So...Your really just nitpicking over procedural non-issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep The Romanian postal law [6], under item No. 30, defines postal stamp as "paper of value issued and put into circulation exclusively under the authority of the state, as an attribute of its sovereignty, constituting proof of postage corresponding to its intrinsic value". It doesn't explicitly say whether "paper of value" (hârtie de valoare) is "means of payment" (mijloacele de plată), and this is an open question to someone more familiar with Romanian laws. However, I see the phrase "an attribute of its sovereignty" as equal to "official symbols of the State" in {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for adding it to the guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 22 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.

File:3D Human Penis Erected.png

Out of project scope: Replaceable and low quality pornographic content Econt (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Delete Unused file. Cathfolant (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Kept: 3D-Illustration, not low quality, not necessarily replaceble Krd 15:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

File:3D Human Penis Erected.png

pornographic content with no educational benefit OlafTheScientist (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Kept in 2014, but not very good quality for 2023. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  What type is fashionable these days? Delete. 186.174.67.81 23:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Question Is that a serious question? I doubt it. The point is that a lot of better-quality photos have been uploaded in the last 9 years, let alone 15 years, as this is a 2008 upload. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Question Are there other similar 3D models that are of higher quality? I could see some areas in which you wouldn't want to use a real picture. However, if the image is redundant to another better picture, it could be deleted. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion, and I do not see other rendered images of higher quality. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  What in the world is happening here?! This file - as well as any other similar content - is just trash! Don't you see that??? The one who uploaded that is making a hoax! If wikipedia/wikimedia wants to be a seroius organisation, than there is only ONE option: DELETE all pornographic content! We are an encyclopedia, but not a sex page! This is just ridiculous! -- OlafTheScientist (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:ACTC logo.png

por que tiene errores de ortografía Ferpa1905 (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Las faltas de ortografía han sido corregidas, así como también su licencia y autor. Maxi-Napo-99 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Por que tiene errores de ortografía Ferpa1905 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

File:MIM (musée) Musée des minéraux, fossiles - Beyrouth 02.jpg

Unfortunately this is a model in a private museum in Lebanon, which does not have freedom of panorama. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

August 8

File:Ricardo Gallén.jpg

I know this photo has been on commons since 2014 but its probably from https://ricardogallen.com/photos/ where it is credited to Paco Montañés. Do we AGF of a user who uploaded 2 photos of Gallen then never contributed again? Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:A. Craig Copetas

Photo for billboard credited to TERRY O'NEILL/GETTY IMAGES - I don't see a CC license

• File:A. Craig Copetas 1974 - photo from job for Rolling Stone Magazine.jpg
• File:Bowie Burroghs Copetas Rolling Stone Magazine.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not CC, however as a pre-1978 image, could be {{PD-US-no-notice}} if it really was published in an issue of Billboard and has no copyright notice there. Otherwise delete. PascalHD (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Factelf4 (talk · contribs)

All of these need permission. Author is stated in most but no evidence of permission

• File:John Mariani cocktail.jpg
• File:Francois Picard Jerusalem.jpg
• File:2015 launch of France 24 Debate.jpg
• File:Picard interviews Mandela.png
• File:Picard Julius Maada Bio interview.jpg
• File:François Picard Biden inauguration.jpg
• File:Brian Cox and A.Craig Copetas in Moscow.jpg
• File:Copetas' story on Regardie's cover August 1987.jpg
• File:Copetas and Dickey.jpg
• File:Esquire Magazine Men Peter Kaplan, Christopher Whittle, A. Craig Copetas and Phillip Moffit.jpg
• File:A. Craig Copetas High Times.jpg
• File:A. Craig Copetas and Daniel Pearl Macedonian-Albanian border.jpg
• File:Langans Brasserie London A. Craig Copetas and Richard Young.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gbawden: Why do you nominate the files for deletion when you already tagged them with {{No permission since}}, which already is a deletion template? Jonteemil (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Manuel araujo.jpg

improper license, not an own work PizzaKing13 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep 1913 image is PD in El Salvador and the USA.

File:Bike Babes Sweden på fotografering. Foto- Lotta Kronåker.jpg

Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work. Skivsamlare (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Det är Lotta Kronåker som har tagit bilden och hon har också godkänt publiceringen, därav fotobylinen. Kakanz (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Det är en av Bike Babes pressbilder. Kakanz (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kakanz: To keep this file, we would need a COM:VRT permission (per e-mail) from the photographer. --Rosenzweig τ 10:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hej, det är inga problem att fixa. Vilken mejladress? 31.208.186.243 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Volunteer Response Team/sv, the address is given there. --Rosenzweig τ 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wlady - Senza filtro.jpg

Movie screenshot Mannivu · ✉ 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:AMBER alert blanco.png

Na mijn weten komt dit logo van Burgernet af, https://www.burgernet.nl/amberalert en wordt dit niet als officiële logo in Nederland gebruikt, en kloppen de ingevulde informatie ook niet. Antonius6317 (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Familiefoto gezin Meijering.png

Given that the uploader appeara to be the same age as the boy on the right, I believe it is unlikely that the uploader has made the photograph Dajasj (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• We allow heirs to family photographs to release images as "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs" rathe than the current "Cc-by-sa-4.0", I corrected the license. --RAN (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  But is there any reason to believe it was a family member of the uploader (Im not sure the uploader is related to the family)? Dajasj (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am the current partner of the most right subject on this photo - and he has given me permission to publish. Johan is also heir to the family picture. I hope this explains enough why I uploaded it, I'm not too knowledgable about the process. CarlaDurville (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

File:1950-10-23 Kampen-Johan-met-kader.jpg

Unlikely that the image was made by the uploader Dajasj (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Correct license is PD-EU-no author disclosure and author=anonymous, Tineye found no author attributed. --RAN (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is outside my field of expertise, but does the 1950 date counts as publication? Right now we have given the heirs a mere day to claim their copyright, while the uploader might have some more information... Dajasj (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Im not too knowledgable about this process either, this was in my partners heritage which he inherited when his parents died - how do I claim the license to be his by heritage? It's him in the picture. CarlaDurville (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Liniennetz Berlin FNP 2019.png

This deletion request alo applies to:

• File:Liniennetz U-Bahn Berlin 2020 Alternativ.png
• File:S-Bahn-Linien Berlin.svg
• File:U-Bahn-Linien Berlin.svg
• File:U-Bahn Liniennetz Berlin Architekt Rümmler.png

The source is "own work" and it is licenced under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, yet the inside image it shows the symbols of a CC-BY-*NC-ND* licence. Furthermore there is no indication that the uploader really is the author of this file. The other files of this user should be checked as well. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hallo. It is my own work made with Illustrator. What is wrong with the licence? 2A02:8109:9CC0:6DB0:F913:519E:46DA:A527 11:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Any CC licence that include a non-commercial (NC) or no-derevatives (ND) restriction is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Don't get me wrong, the images are good, the licence displayed in in the image is however not allowed on Commons. --D-Kuru (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Salimata Sawadogo.jpg

grainy, tight crop, this looks a lot like a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in ensuring that quality images are uploaded and free from copyright violations, The image in question is not a screen shot, just that it was taken with a very low quality mobile device. Cdilalo47 (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you upload the original image with camera exif? Gbawden (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nasyonal Aktivitede Zinde İnkişaf.jpg

uludağ sözlükten alınma gerçekliği şüpheli resim Hellbat31 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I may be wrong, but I think the only real issue is COM:TOO Turkey. I'd presume that this logo is original enough to be copyrightable in Turkey, but someone else might know whether that's true or not. If it is, correct me if I'm wrong, but 1969 would be way too recent for the logo to be out of copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Main problem that its source is extremely dubious (online forum). I was able to source the logo to an actual historical image, however the picture seems to not be related to the party in question. Hellbat31 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Екатерина Яновская (talk · contribs)

Spam. Fake ('own') license for logos of that business

• File:Ресторан Блинбери на Гагарина.jpg
• File:Логотип БлинБери 2023.jpg
• File:Логотип БлинБери.jpg
• File:Обед в ресторане БлинБери.jpg
• File:БлинБери, Тверская.jpg
• File:БлинБери, ресторан на Тверской.jpg

Bilderling (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The content of File:Ресторан Блинбери на Гагарина.jpg seems OK - the facade of a building, concentrating on the restaurant on the ground floor - but the 2GIS watermark is problematic. File:Обед в ресторане БлинБери.jpg is probably OK, as I think any individual labels are probably de minimis. The logos by themselves are no go, and the interiors that show architectural details or prominently feature the restaurant's logo presumably violate copyrights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:African Hall Addis Abeba.jpg

The building dates to 1961 and authored by w:en:Arturo Mezzedimi (died in 2010); the extension dates to 1975. As there is no freedom of panorama in Ethiopia, a free license clearance from the building designer/s or whoever currently holds the copyright over the building is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ALLTV Logo 2023.svg

Above TOO Philippines QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm pretty uncertain about that. Do you think there was "a substantial amount of labor, effort, or investment involved" in creating this simple a logo? We could analogize this to the Geomax logo that was afforded a copyright by the Filipino government, but I think this logo is simpler than that one. Any experts on Filipino copyright law out there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep! This is very simple logo. 185.172.241.184 09:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Pacific Community.svg

Possible derivative of non-free content, no proof that the original flag is under a free license SVG-image-maker (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

According to CRW Flags [7], the flag was adopted in 1999. So it would still be copyrighted by now. SVG-image-maker (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Consider transfer to English Wikipedia. SVG-image-maker (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Uh...How can an admin delete this file and only uploaded on English Wikipedia? IAmNotABananaaa (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

File:KKS Lech Poznań herb 2022.svg

copyrighted work. Not on free licence Masti (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:DKA logo.png

Copyrighted work. Based on deleted file File:Koleje Dolnośląskie logo PNG.png Masti (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:John Early seated.png

Redundant. File:John Early seated.jpg is higher resolution. Ergo Sum 14:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment File:John Early seated.jpg is higher quality but lower resolution. I'd mildly support your deletion request, because the difference in quality is so great, but let's be accurate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:First Tensile Tester invented by Tinius Olsen 1880.jpg

Most likely copied from here without permission. bdijkstra (overleg) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep An 1870s illustration is PD. Republishing does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  How do we know its an 1870s illustration? bdijkstra (overleg) 16:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Skyline de Uberaba.png

Essa imagem não pertence a mim, todos os direitos pertencem a seus respectivos proprietários. Patriciapereirap1983 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Uberaba.Dia.2.jpg

Não sou o autor dessa imagem. Tenho conhecimento de quem ela pertence, e solicito a exclusão da mesma. Patriciapereirap1983 (talk) 17:37, 8 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.

File:Uberaba.Univerdecidade.jpg

There is an identical file in Commons: File:Skyline_de_Uberaba.png Anajuok99 (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Keep In use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: because different file, in use, and not a duplicate. File:Skyline de Uberaba.png may be similar, but is blurred. --Wdwd (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Uberaba.Univerdecidade.jpg

Eu não sou a autora dessa imagem , e para evitar problemas relacionados, solicito a remoção da mesma aqui do site. Em uma breve pesquisa no campo de procura, descobrí que uma imagem idêntica já existia. Patriciapereirap1983 (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Não permití uso da minha foto, a ilustração já é usada em registros privados. Por via de regra fiz eu mesmo o envio aqui na plataforma. Att Pedroepaulo (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Exclusão Concedida! Patricia Pereira Berger (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:LOGO EYO2024 - Couleur.png

Very possibly above TOO France, almost definitely not CC or own work (as said in the file description) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Vli em Uberaba.jpg

Autoria dessa foto não é minha, e sim da VLI. Persmissão para uso não me foi dada. Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sao Domingo's Church.jpg

Imagem não é de minha autoria. Solicito a exclusão da mesma. Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Santuario medalha milagrosa.jpg

Imagem não é da minha autoria. Novamente, solicito a exclusão da mesma. Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cidadechuvauberaba.jpg

Essa foto não é da minha autoria. Solicito também a exclusão da mesma. Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As I'm not the author of this photo, I'm requesting its deletion to prevent any possible complications. Pedroepaulo (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tempestade areia uberaba.jpg

Imagem não é da minha autoria, não me foi concedida permissão total para uso dela aqui. Além disso, o local da imagem é na cidade de Uberlândia, e não Uberaba como diz a descriçao. Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As I'm not the author of this photo, I'm requesting its deletion to prevent any possible complications. Pedroepaulo (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Outdoor-caps-proma.jpg

These appear to be modern buildings in Mashhad, Iran, and since Iran lacks freedom of panorama, unless the architects have been dead for at least 50 years, they or their heirs need to give permission via COM:VRT for Commons to host this photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hospital mario palmerio.jpg

Imagem não é da minha autoria, nada foi me concedido. Peço a exclusão da imagem. Pedroepaulo (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Vista do centro da cidade.jpg

Foto não é da minha autoria. solicito sua exclusão. Pedroepaulo (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As I'm not the author of this photo, I'm requesting its deletion to prevent any possible complications. Pedroepaulo (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sri Naga Kanni Amman Temple Thalaivankottai 13.jpg

Doesn't really depict the temple. Out of COM:SCOPE. Jonteemil (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment It looks like there are lots of photos that have the name of this temple in their titles, and it's problematic that they don't have their own category. I don't know if these search results will link properly, but I'm giving it a try. Taken in isolation, each photo is probably defensible, but there are way too many photos of similar motifs that have to be worked through, and the descriptions are often quite insufficient. The woman who appears in so many photos is not a 20-year-old (now, presumably, 22-year-old) temple, and the viewer is not informed what her significance is. There are definitely some photos in this series that could be useful, but it's going to be a pain to figure out which ones should be kept and which ones should be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sri Naga Kanni Amman Temple. Jonteemil (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know why I didn't find the category for the temple in my search. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:SK.Sajeesh.jpg

Sorry to do this, but the source and author information is insufficient. Who is the copyright holder? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The rest of User:Amalson George's uploads appear to be clean, and on the File:Sk Sajeesh DYFI.jpg file page, the word "comrade" redirects to his user page, so I think he misspelled the word and that he was confused about the "source," but there is enough ambiguity that it is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tongabhkori sasani nama kenar.jpg

Results found as early as 2008 on TinEye, so permission is needed from whomever photographed it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Alborzagros, who originally uploaded the photo to fa.wikipedia in 2011. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Shekil1.jpg

Appears to be a violation of the copyright for the photographed artwork. I don't read Azeri, but that's probably publicity. In any case, permission would be needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

August 9

File:Emperor-penguins-ge351f4d60 1920.jpg

Copyright violation. This is a poster (see for instance https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/poster-pinguins-met-baby-pinguins-40x30cm-foto-op-posterpapier/9300000021935181/). I do not see a VRT ticket. JopkeB (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This image was first published on Pixabay in 2014 with an acceptable licence. i have edited Source, Date, Licence and Author.--Headlock0225 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

On https://displate.com/displate/4086456?ref=1617 is written that this poster was "Ceated by Horst Horstmann". So either MemoryCatcher is the same as Horst Horstmann or MemoryCatcher just uploaded the photo on Pixabay not aware of violating copyrights. So I think we still need a VRT ticket of Horst Horstmann that he agrees on publishing this photo on Commons (I doubt he will, because Displate.com is a commercial site, where you have to pay for this photo). JopkeB (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ottoman destroyer Basra.jpg

No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep All Ottoman Empire copyrights have expired. --RAN (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Samsun class destroyer alongside Yavuz.jpg

No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Samsun class destroyers at Izmir, Turkey - 1926.jpg

No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Turkish destroyer Samsun.jpg

No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: The book says exactly this: "Samsun during manoeuvres in the Sea of Marmara in the 1920s. Guleryuz" Page 110. The image is from 1920s so it's post-Ottoman era, but pre-Turkish copyright law. This image should be from Historical Branch of the Turkish General Staff, and since it's a state publication from over 70 years ago it should be public domain. I don't have any additional info. --Khutuck (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The Turkish Republic was proclaimed 100 years ago so odds are that the image was taken after that because the ship was laid up until 1924. Judging by the Turkish copyright tag, everything seems to depend on publication and we don't know if the image was published anywhere before Güleryüz and Langensiepen published it in their book in 1995. Furthermore I don't know what the copyright status is for Turkish government photos, published or unpublished. If the photo was even taken by an official photographer because it's not attributed to the Turkish Navy in the book like some of the other photos. I can easily see the photo being taken by an officer for his own use.
  • And what about the status in the US because it needs a US PD tag? Without confirming publication before 1928, it doesn't fall under the usual US PD tag. And the URAA tag depends on if it was out of copyright before 1996 in Turkey.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• • • @Sturmvogel 66: This image is very likely in public domain as Turkish government photos have 70 years of copyright after publishing, but I don't have a way to prove that. Since we can't build Wiki based on my feelings, I'm OK with the deletion. I'll look for an image from Ottoman period, all images I currently have are post-1923. --Khutuck (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Yarhisar.png

No publication information provided which makes determining copyright status impossible Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Villa Clara2.jpg

Copyrighted by the Cuban government, seen here https://web.archive.org/web/20110420195044/http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/provincias_masinf/villa%20clara.htm CubanoBoi (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kolahkhood parandeh va se peykar.jpg

Only slightly different image (just a matter of easily editable color variation) found from 2009 on TinEye. User:Alborzagros needs to go through COM:VRT. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Metropolitana di Milano - stazione Turati 01.jpg

The station was built in 1981. It's therefore protected by copyrigth for at leat another 27 years until 2052. Unfortunaly there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Image does not represent enough artistic/original objects, it's like many other stations of this kind. --Marcok (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:President Juho Kusti Paasiviki's speech on the end of World War 2.ogg

No proof of Creative Commons licence Ur Nan123 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:JuanpaQuijanoConductor.jpg

Is this really a selfie? If it is, we could choose to keep it as a photo of a tattoo and eyebrow piercings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Chichi to Ran Umschlag.jpg

this is a recent book cover , not copyright free, not public domain Toyotsu (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep should be below TOO. GPSLeo (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

COM:TOO Japan "Article 2 of Japanese copyright law defines that a work is eligible for copyright when it is a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain" ; it seems to be the case here --Toyotsu (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

File:V2H2 Thailand Logo 2021.png

Possible copyrighted trademark of TV station, but no clear source found on reverse image search Wutkh (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Maximilien Roberti.jpg

wrong date, probably wrong source and author - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Fixed errors, "PD-EU-no author disclosure". Tineye has not found an attribution for a creator. --RAN (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  RAN argued here above for keeping this file of a drawing or painting or so with reference to the "PD-EU-no author disclosure" template. Here he changed the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} template into the {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. According to COM:EVIDENCE, which is is considered to be an official policy on Wikimedia Commons, (background color for highlighting added):

“

In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and • that any required consent has been obtained.

”

The PD-EU-no author disclosure can only be used if the image was published before 1953 and at that time it was anonymously published. The burden of proof for that template lies on the person who added that template while arguing for the file to be retained.

Take the discussion here were RAN wrote "A 1939 image is PD-EU, Tineye could not find anyone making an active copyright claim." So he starts with a false claim. RAN seems to be convinced that every drawing, photo, painting, sketch or so that was made in the 1930's or 1940's in a country that is now part of EU were published before 1953 unless it shows up in TinEye. And not only that, all of these images that don't show up in TinEye were anonymously published before 1953. If I look through some of our old family albums of that time, I'm pretty sure (almost) none of them were published before 1953 and also (almost) none of them would show up in TinEye. For an image that looks to be older than 70 years, not showing up in TinEye doesn't automatically mean published before 1953! RAN, based on what source do you claim this pre 1953 publication? - Robotje (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• It is your same yellow highlighted argument rejected here and here and here. If you want a valid argument for deletion, use resources to show that you found a named creator, not the theoretical possibility, that a named creator may exist. --RAN (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Censored according to public broadcasting regulations Info Card Boomerang Thailand Version.png

Posible copyright violation or COM:SD#F10 Wutkh (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Not real reason given. Copyvio and F10 contradict each other. Günther Frager (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Censored according to public broadcasting regulations Info Card.png

This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as this image, if authentic, seems to be well in COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I don't see how the F10 rationale could be argued in an image that is just text. Günther Frager (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Rza Talibov

Welcome, Wikipedians! This deletion discussion is generating interest on Wikipedia. If you are a Wikipedian without much experience of Commons, your input here is welcome, but please be aware of Commons' policies, particularly deletion policy and project scope (criteria for inclusion). Note also that, like Wikipedia deletion discussions, Commons deletion discussions are not decided by voting. You may find Commons:For Wikipedians helpful as an introduction to Commons.

All of the images lack exif data. There not used anywhere, and the article concerning the topic has been deleted following the author and subject's request.

• File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor (A).jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor (AA).jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 1.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 2.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 3.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 4.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 5.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 6.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 7.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 8.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 9.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 10.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 11.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 12.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 13.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 14.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 15.jpg
• File:Rza Talibov - Chief of the Citizenship Issues Head Department of the State Migration Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan, III rank State Migration Service Counselor 999.jpg
• File:Signature of Rza Talibov.jpg

All of the files, also Category:Rza Talıbov needs to be deleted. --Solavirum (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delete as the user was blocked on Azerbaijani, Turkish and English Wikipedia, it's difficult to assume that he's the original author. Toghrul R (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete The user has been blocked many times before. Currently on the block indefinitely. He is not the author of the photo. The user provided false information. He is not the original author. Atakhanli (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete The user has provided false information. He is not the original author. All photos must be deleted. --Surə ^🗯 06:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.--NMW03 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete VRT is incorrect. Creator is another.--Qraf061 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Qraf061 could you provide any evidence of your claims? Günther Frager (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't see the decision of the commons admins? You all look like {{subst:Canvassed}}. Best regards : ANONİM —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.191.116.190 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Info: ticket:2022052110004218. --Achim55 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep If all these files have approved VRT tickets, that's conclusive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep (1) some photos where on previous DR and kept (2) they have a valid VRT, meaning author and licensed were checked (3) the request from the own uploader to delete the content was rejected. Günther Frager (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment 4 out of 5 participants in this discussion that are also active in the Azerbaijani wiki are sysops there. Also, the DR was opened on 19 July, but only added to the daily DRs on 9 August. Günther Frager (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Question @Solavirum: you state files lack exif data. Did you check it?, because all of them have exif data. You also claim they are no in use. Did you check it? because at least the first image in your list is in use. Also, why didn't you add the {{Delete}} template to the files you nominated? and why didn't you notify the uploader? Günther Frager (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Achim55, Candidate and artificially participating in the discussion should be blocked. This is vandalism. This is a clear collusion among themselves, by order, Azerbaijani users have gathered and entered into a collusion. BLOCK the gathered users for under Canvassing 5.191.107.204 06:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Günther Frager: , date and copyright holder does not suffice. This, for example, has more information to prove its authenticity. Given that the said uploader have a past of forgery and scamming people for articles (see this and this), this does not shock me. Solavirum (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I asked you four questions, you answered none and moreover changed arguments. I ask you kindly to reply to them. On your example what is the "more information" you are talking about? Did you also miss the VRT ticket? If you opened the DR because he was blocked for paid contribution in another wiki (not reason to delete his images), why didn't you put that argument on your initial request? and after all why didn't you nominated all his images? Günther Frager (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Solavirum have you received an order to remove these images? and have you invited other Azerbaijani users to write to be deleted? you deserve to be blocked for your actions. 89.219.190.173 20:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Solavirum: Can you explain a bit more about why you think the first photograph should be deleted? It was kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg. Is there some background on AzWiki that explains why this should be deleted and/or the claims of own work are false? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, these images are in-scope; he still has a Wikidata item, and he easily passes Wikidata's notability criteria. That a Wikipedia deleted an article about him doesn't make him non-notable on Wikidata. The only question for me is with respect to copyrights. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The presence of copyright is obvious, because there is an VRT ticket about it.

  I am currently interested in another question, if the person depicted in the picture directly addressed the author himself and submitted a letter with a request to remove his album and photographs, in this case is it considered correct to resolve the issue? I don't think anyone has the right to remove this other than the author. This is true?

  5.191.138.68 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming that the subject consented to the photo being taken and shared at one point, we generally don't delete those. There are going to be some circumstances (such as when intimate photos taken in a private place are posted) that we'll delete them even if the uploader was the photographer/copyright holder. Photographs taken in a public place are a bit more complicated; Commons:Photographs of identifiable people goes into more detail on it, but it does not address Azerbaijan. And even then, there are public interest exceptions (for example, "what does a government official look like?") that may come into play; the U.S. is extremely permissive when it comes to using and re-using photos taken in public places, and that's ultimately the law that binds Commons.

  I have access to the VRT and can see the ticket. I'll drop a note on the VRT noticeboard to alert the VRT Team to this DR, to see if the agents who handled the ticket have any input

  . — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• The uploader has been involved in several issues which have been suspicious; some or many or most of them were pointless for lack of evidence. Technically I see the ticket still valid. If there is evidence for wrong claims or forgery, please let me know. If there is no evidence, I suggest to keep the files. --Krd 06:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Krd, File would not have received a VRT ticket if it was a fraud, it should be kept. An interesting question is, what form should the author (uploader) himself apply so that the uploader (author) itself can delete the images?

  For example, if the copyright holder and the uploader of the picture later asked to delete the uploaded pictures, what do they usually do in such a case? 85.132.29.163 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Please note that the IP (85.132.29.163) currently participating in this discussion is the person who uploaded these photos. And in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, this IP is blocked because it belongs to a blocked user. At the moment, this person is purposefully taking this discussion in different directions. He blames us for something. Photos contain copyright violations. The person made a fake VRT. --Surə ^🗯 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Sura Shukurlu By giving information like this, you seem suspicious of yourself. Your performance should be measured. Maybe you came to this discussion with someone's invitation? 5.191.134.13 17:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep all there has been an ongoing campaign, including socking and canvassing, and off-wiki lobbying, to try to get these images deleted. The reasons for which appear spurious at best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Yann: Given the socking involved in a previous attempt to delete these images, please could you take another look? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, 5.191.116.190 is probably right. This looks like a massive canvassing issue, but more investigation and a CU is needed to see the reality. I am in the middle of moving home, so I can't do much more now. Yann (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK, thanks, and good luck with the move. @Krd: Can you assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Первая книга Анастасии Сизовой.png

Uploader is not author of pic Lesless (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs)

Invalid permission. The video clips were actually extracted from a "FASHION ROCKS 2016 show" at 1:09:38. The description from the original video indicates the show was hold in Shanghai, China and Tencent Video has exclusive rights to stream it online. Therefore, Sanlih E-Television, as a news television in Taiwan, was unlikely to be authorized to relicence the clips on Youtube.

• File:Coco Lee Dancing 01.gif
• File:Coco Lee Dancing on stage 02.gif

Larryasou (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is very serious about copyright. I just want to make a few points.

It seems to me that Sanlih E-Television is a large company and when I uploaded those files, I thought that the footages were created by them. In fact they do create their own content, eg, [8], [9], [10]. And when it’s needed they will get permission from AP too, eg, [11] (see upper left corner).

While I think you’re probably right that the two clips which my uploaded works originated from may contain footages that were not created by them, we can never be sure if they have got the permission to use them, or to redistribute them.

And even if they didn’t get any permission, IMHO it’s still ok for them to use the short footage in a news clip according to the local laws, though it’s probably not ok to relicense the footage.

I’m fine if the administrators decided that my derivative works should be deleted. I’m writing this just because it seems to me that Sanlih E-Television is a company that respect copyright and it’s not the same as the many other Youtube channels. Being a generous company that supports open access and releases some of their content under the Creative Commons License, I don’t want their reputation be affected just because an ignorant user like me had uploaded works derived from their clips. As you may know, it’s really difficult to find videos or images about famous people that are under the Creative Commons License. So I really appreciate their generosity. Thanks and regards, Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Dustfreeworld (talk · contribs)

These files are taken from a video uploded by a Youtube channel named Sanlih E-Television who just take and compile footage from other places. These youtube licenses are invalid. The footage is copyrighted by AP Entertainment. See [12]

• File:Coco and Bruce 01.jpg
• File:Coco Lee and Bruce Rockowitz 01.png
• File:Coco Lee and Bruce Rockowitz 02.jpg

Larryasou (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is very serious about copyright. I just want to make a few points.

It seems to me that Sanlih E-Television is a large company and when I uploaded those files, I thought that the footages were created by them. In fact they do create their own content, eg, [13], [14], [15]. And when it’s needed they will get permission from AP too, eg, [16] (see upper left corner).

While I think you’re probably right that the two clips which my uploaded works originated from may contain footages that were not created by them, we can never be sure if they have got the permission to use them, or to redistribute them.

And even if they didn’t get any permission, IMHO it’s still ok for them to use the short footage in a news clip according to the local laws, though it’s probably not ok to relicense the footage.

I’m fine if the administrators decided that my derivative works should be deleted. I’m writing this just because it seems to me that Sanlih E-Television is a company that respect copyright and it’s not the same as the many other Youtube channels. Being a generous company that supports open access and releases some of their content under the Creative Commons License, I don’t want their reputation be affected just because an ignorant user like me had uploaded works derived from their clips. As you may know, it’s really difficult to find videos or images about famous people that are under the Creative Commons License. So I really appreciate their generosity. Thanks and regards, Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is probable that they use CC-BY by default and that is fine for 90% of their videos. You also have to think that they upload whole videos, small copyright infringements can fall under fair use or de minimis. I have to point out that the video with the AP footage was also licensed with CC-BY, so it enforces my first hypothesis. If they were reusing CC-BY content, they are obliged by the license to give the respective credit. In that case, we would know it is fine to also reuse it. Günther Frager (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Update: The message I received from AP Customer Support is that "Sanlih E-Television Co. Ltd is our customer and they are using AP videos from our platform...Using Associated Press content, without obtaining permission from Associated Press, is in violation of the AP Copyright policy." Larryasou (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Enghlab Iran.jpg

This photograph was taken by w:Abbas (photographer) in 1979 in Iran, and is now in possession of The British Museum (after purchase from Magnum Photos in 2010). [17] I found no proof that it was published in Iran, in that case it can be in PD. But if it was not published in Iran (for example, it remained on an archive) then Iranian law is unliekly to be applicable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Comte de Grasse, Grasse.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). There is now a license for the photograph. However, there is no commercial freedom of panorama in France, so we need evidence that the statue itself is in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed if we're going to comply with COM:DW and COM:L. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks like it could be old enough, but I have had a rough time trying to find out when it was made. I hope someone else knows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Da es noch weitere Abbildungen derselben Statue gibt ([18]), auf die kein Löschantrag gestellt wurde , scheint mir dieser etwas willkürlich. MfG --Phi (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Translation into English: "Since there are other images of the same statue ([1]) for which no deletion request was made, this one seems somewhat arbitrary to me." That's not an argument against deletion. Phi, if your objection is that policy should be applied consistently, nominate the other photos in the category for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Or better yet, tell us what year the statue was completed and, most importantly, when the sculptor died. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Arnocito.jpg

la personne n'a pas les droits d'images 2A01:CB1C:8290:5000:A5B5:CC61:B32B:3BAF 13:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Malakeh napirasou.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Darafsh as Speedy (db-ll). Speedy tag claims "license laundering", but I'm not exactly understanding the basis for that claim. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Tineye found it back in 2009 at a blog, it did not find it at a museum inventory. My best guess is that it is an amateur image. If we found evidence at a museum inventory, I would say delete. Tineye is so good it found other images of the same statue, but taken by a different photographer, that vary just slightly. --RAN (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC30046 Wreckage.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without permission.". Photograph was taken in the United States in 1947. If published contemporaneously, it would need to have its copyright registered and renewed for it to be subject to copyright protection today. Has anybody checked for the renewal record? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Japanese engineers making Haste with the restoration work of the Oilfields in Balikpapan.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source udner incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, it would be in the public domain in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Balikpapan Coast Obstacles, 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source under incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Japanese ships bombed, Balikpapan 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: on source under a incompatibe NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Destroyed Oil Refinery in Balikpapan, 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: at source uder incompatible NC-license. Photograph was taken in Indonesia. If first published there, this file could satisfy COM:L, as it would be in the public domain both in Indonesia (publish+50) and in the United States (Indonesial law was publish+25 at the time of the URAA). Sending to DR for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC999E Transcontinental & Western Air.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: (C) G Haven Bishop / The Huntington Library. 1930 photograph from the United States, per source. If first published anywhere near that time, this would have needed to have had its copyright both registered and renewed. Has anyone looked for renewal records on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

the source has listed the photographer and exact date the photo was taken, and where the photo is held. Was it copyrighted to begin with? or was it promotional material for the soon to be defunct airlines. The sources are noted and easily followed back to the Huntington Library. I do not think it warrents Deletion almost 100yrs later. 107.77.215.117 23:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

File:NC28394 Eastern Airlines Wreck.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. United States photograph first published in the 1940s; it would need to have had its copyright both registered and renewed for this file to be subject to copyright protection today. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC1946 Trans World Airlines Wreck.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. U.S. photograph taken in 1942, quite possibly by an employee of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Even if not a government work (which would be {{PD-USGov}}), this would need to have a copyright registered and renewed if published anywhere around the time it was taken. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC14715 Pan American World Airways.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright © 2018-2023 AirHistory.net. U.S. photograph taken no later than 1943. If published anywhere around that time, it would need its copyright registered and renewed for the photograph to still be subject to copyright protection in the United States. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC16014 American Airlines.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. Photograph taken at Chicago Municipal Airport (in the United States) c. 1943. If first published anywhere near then, this would need to have had its copyright registered and renewed for the photograph to be subject to continuing copyright protections in the United States. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy so that discussion can be had. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC86513 Transcontinental & Western Air Wreck.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. Photograph of a 1946 plane crash in the United States. If published within 15 years of that date, it would have required copyright registrration and renewal for it to be subject to copyright protection through the present day. Have renewal records been checked? Sending to DR for broader discussion rather than actioning the speedy — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:N90904 American Overseas Airlines Wreck.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. {{PD-Canada}}? Photograph was created in 1946, so it's in the public domain if not subject to crown copyright. If subject to crown copyright, it's also PD in Canada, since that was over 50 years ago. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC21786 Wreckage (Pennsylvania Central Airline Flight 105).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. 1946 photograph from the United States. If not taken by federal investigators (which would render this PD), it would still need its copyright registered and renewed for it to be subject to copyright protection today, provided that it was published within 15 years of it being taken. Sending to DR for further discussion rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:NC88842 Wreckage.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: no evidence of a permission. 1942 photoghraph from the United States. If not taken by federal investigators (which would render this {{PD-USGov}}, it would be in the public domain unless its copyright were both registered and renewed, provided that this was first published within ~20 years of its creation. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, so as to open discussion on this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Кувшинка 2.jpg

дублікат Лілія Мірошниченко (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Fisher's wife Eileen and their daughters.png

This file was initially tagged by Psychologist Guy as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is copyrighted material from the University of Adelaide https://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals/copyright. Uploader contends that this is an old photograph published in Europe more than 70 years ago, which renders it into the public domain. It's not a trivial case, so I'm sending this to DR rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The description in the source says that they got their first child in 1919, in the image there are 6 (plus presumably the mother), so the image is likely made before 1930 and should be PD. However it could still be protected by URAA, I guess. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The original photograph appears in R A Fisher: The Life of a Scientist, by Joan Fisher Box was taken in 1938. The cropped version is being used in the collection at the University of Adelaide which according to their website is copyrighted. There are not enough details about the photograph. It looks like possible copyvio from the University of Adelaide . Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep "Template:PD-UK-unknown" Republishing an historic image does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. The boilerplate on their website covers any new text, and any new images. --RAN (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have written to the University of Adelaide to ask about the author and copyright. Should hopefully get an answer in the next week. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I already did this on August 8th, and received a response later that day. Here is the response:

The photographs linked below were taken before 1955 and are now in the public domain under Australian copyright law. However, we would appreciate it if you could include the following acknowledgement:

Courtesy of University of Adelaide Library, Rare Books and Manuscripts.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/special/exhibitions/significant-life-fisher/early-life/

Regards,

Will Rossiter Copyright & Licensing Coordinator

THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE North Terrace | Adelaide SA 5005

Chamaemelum (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy  Keep. There was never an issue here, and now the University has confirmed this image is public domain. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If the image is in public domain in Australia then this tag must be used [19]. The photograph was taken in 1938. A United States public domain tag also must be be provided. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a simple and shut case for what you have been uploading from this university. The correct copyright tag must be provided. You are now uploading photographs from the Australian Adelaide Library [20] who you have said told you the images are "in the public domain under Australian copyright law" but you are adding a PD-UK-unknown tag on Fisher_in_his_Garden,_1955.jpg but the very image says "taken by Bruce Griffing" from the USA. The image is not anonymous. Copyright is a lot more complicated than you think, you are making a lot of mistakes. If you have difficulty, it's easier just to upload photographs from the USA published before 1928. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. (I've added Bruce Griffing as an author to the Scotland garden photo, and will continue to improve other aspects of the works in progress.) Speedy keep only refers to the image under discussion here. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mr Jack Pauw, first permanent Headmaster.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Salavat as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from https://lenniegouws.co.za/street-names-reflect-history-6-i-j/. Yes, but the source indicates he was headmaster from 1922-1934, and COM:ZA says that photographs are only granted copyright protection for 50 years after publication. This looks to me like it's likely {{PD-ZA}} rather than a copyright violation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep {{PD-ZA}}, republishing an historic image does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Eenadu front page logo new.png

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not own: https://lens.google.com/search?p=AUM6UZDCtMPGcvNv9x_LoO9npTYxncG2JSGpD4nIqH8DTNW2HneoME6fhXt_lOtc8pggKlDVGnXxKlGBufOneq9WpkzP2neK7CHoTZc7cNbBVQAgQOvzWg19Ed4f6mlSot9RGPPtb8NFgFG_Wq5xadgBJDk69-2MZXtenPXvojeOIaWo2DD2mjwd4kKGg8JE_4HoBTeLLXc89KwhaAAIemEFS2Hq1wz41-q3DEXYW0Y-4QDIDf3bxMjeRPQsn44%3D&plm=Cg8IDxILCNmGzaYGEICu9UMKDwgXEgsI2YbNpgYQ8Nb3QwoQCBgSDAjZhs2mBhDItqvjAQoQCC0SDAjZhs2mBhCQnKzjAQoQCC4SDAjZhs2mBhCAwqPnAQoQCBASDAjZhs2mBhDI%2B4XoAQoQCBkSDAjZhs2mBhCQ24joAQoQCBoSDAjZhs2mBhDI15HoAQ%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKREU1TW1aa056UTRMV0UxWkdJdE5HWXhZeTA0WldVd0xXVXpZekUxWmpNMFpEWTRaQklmTkhwSVdWaDJOVUpLVXpoalRVbG5SM0JuU1V4dVVETnZZMlpIVkc1U1p3PT0iXQ==. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The script is of en:Telugu language. The logo is of en:Eenadu written in Telugu. Seems like under COM:TOO India -- DaxServer (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

+File:Prajasakthi Telugu Newspaper Logo.png which has the same typeset. I went ahead and changed the license to PD. If the closing admin closes as delete, this file should also be deleted -- DaxServer (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Andhra Jyothi newspaper logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: own work? https://lens.google.com/search?p=AUM6UZA6xokfKCubGXtUcFYu2eT_npNoURLhC05vJoGfCk3mOHMjmqPtnicT2LcuJYm8y0CKUBe-DH2Fhb6Hrm2XpNNXcqAnXMf0fRc4VY0XqYiR7muWS-3xrhXHEXiX3d16dDIUTPTeYWnoc4TCFa7wc1Hedf20oPjU-zq49mZjXqs941675nfM0bvlscN1fn6PpOdJSLnXlixO9-kT4IX38GblKiOPps6bo8iVbQ2BElWVQalyZ-iAaP5gKo8%3D&plm=Cg8IDxILCPmGzaYGELDVkXoKDwgXEgsI%2BYbNpgYQkLCTegoQCBgSDAj5hs2mBhCg%2BsLMAQoQCC0SDAj5hs2mBhCY0MPMAQoQCC4SDAj5hs2mBhCQ7PTQAQoQCBASDAj5hs2mBhCwzdzRAQoQCBkSDAj5hs2mBhCYz97RAQoQCBoSDAj5hs2mBhCwrOfRAQ%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKREExWm1ZME9USTRMVEl4TkRndE5ETTJOQzA1TkRCaUxUTXlOREZsWVRFMk5tTTVZeElmTURaNmFHZE9PRGRqTVdkalRVbG5SM0JuU1V4dVVEQTBVbEJ0Vkc1U1p3PT0iXQ==. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep The script is en:Telugu language. The logo is of en:Andhra Jyothi written in Telugu. There is a new logo [21], but this one is being printed on newspapers. Also under COM:TOO India -- DaxServer (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:الكراهية في نادي بيلونا.png

This file was initially tagged by Zaxxon0 as Fair use (Fair use). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this can be converted into .svg format. Zaxxon0 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• That wouldn't affect the copyright status. It's a 1928 British book. Are the small decorations enough to exceed COM:TOO UK? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Fairbanks,Alaska First Settlers.jpg

Statue is Unknown First Family by Malcolm Alexander (1925-2014). Created in 1985, published in 1986, it received a copyright registrations https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=Unknown%20First%20Family&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=XIFlp1cU3xmUP0dNu5RE3kM2d5vT&SEQ=20230809133707&SID=1 and https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=Unknown%20First%20Family&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=PD3ShSyDCN46FUJwtPSlWlwyTr6t&SEQ=20230809133956&SID=2 No FOP in the US for 3D Artwork. Undelete in 2082 since this was a for-hire work. Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Уралдааны машинууд (Шуудангийн марк).jpg

The copyright term for anonymous works in Mongolia is at least 75 years after the publication date, which clearly hasn't passed yet in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cairo 1961.jpg

I couldn't identify nor original author nor date of publishment so this file fails copyright declaration by {{PD-Egypt}} A09 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Blason famille Advisart.svg

AFAICT this is an exact duplicate of File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg (as is File:Dampierre.svg). I have been advised that in such cases, the preferred solution is to either delete the duplicate file (and just note all the different things "gules a chevron argent" can be the arms of in its description), or if someone would like this image to be kept at this title, then please upload a new version that distinguishes itself through some arbitrary difference like making the chevron a few pixels wider or the red slightly darker (as at File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg, File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg, or File:Blason famille de Poligny (Franche-Comté).svg) so that they are no longer exact duplicates. -sche (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Advisart and Dampierre are different families that have similar coats of arms, thus these are different files that are in use and must be kept, as well as Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are their arms "similar", or are they both defined identically as "gules a chevron argent"? Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Omphalographer. They are both defined as "gules a chevron argent".--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Then all of these images should  Redirect to a single image, ideally with a generic title, containing a "gules a chevron argent". The arms of these families are "gules a chevron argent", not a specific graphical rendition of those arms. The arms of the Poligny family do not have a broader chevron than the Burguzahars, for instance; the images on Commons do, but both images are equally representative of both families, just as a single-story and a double-story lowercase "a" both represent the same letter.

A similar solution should be implemented for other arms with simple blazons which are claimed by multiple families. Omphalographer (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually it would be fine if all of these images would  Redirect to the generic-titled Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg. The problem would be if Adivsart.svg would redirect to Dampierre.svg…

I fix old CoA images but I don't creat new ones if a generic file exists. Once I have created the Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg, I use it for other families that use "gules a chevron argent"

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

PS @-sche you could also nominate for deletion File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg or File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg which are identical, as well as some File:Blason Séverac-le-Château.svg, File:Blason Sévérac-le-Château 2.svg, File:Blason Sévérac-Le-Château.svg which are useless duplicates of File:Blason Famille de-Sévérac.svg--Kontributor 2K (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of much other input, I'm going to ping @C.Suthorn and Jmabel: this is the kind of thing I was talking about at the village pump: the files are duplicates, but at least one user wants to keep them (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dampierre.svg). BTW, I have just noticed that File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg vs File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg only appear to have slightly different shades of red in their thumbnails, but when I click through to the files themselves (Hasparren vs Basse-Navarre) they are identical to each other. Does that mean they are, or are not, duplicates? -sche (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A redirect of Advisart.svg, which is a coat of arms that will never change and that is not in use anymore on wp, to the generic File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg would be relevant. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise, mixing the other two files together, which are certainly identical, is not a good idea in my opinion.

In other words, if the the first (Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg) is redirected to the second (Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg), even if it won't change anything visually of course, there's a risk of creating inconsistencies in terms of SEO (not a so big deal, as the files are used on the same page, but this may be more of a concern for unrelated files). These are not huge files, their presence has little impact on the servers, and the primary task is rather to classfy all these. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You pinged me (i only commented at VP, had this DR not even on the watchlist), but not @RZuo who also commented at VP. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I pinged everyone who I remembered commenting (you, Jmabel, me); I had stopped checking back after on the VP discussion after it went silent for several days, and missed that RZou also commented. -sche (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

if they are all defined in the exact same way:

1. keep the oldest file.
2. rename it to a generic title (by its definition for example).
3. redirect all other files to it.

RZuo (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dampierre.svg

AFAICT this is an exact duplicate of File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason famille Advisart.svg for extended commentary. -sche (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep This one is in use, and specific to Dampierre-city. Otherwise  Redirect to the generic-titled Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg --Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(Note, to closer or anyone else: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason famille Advisart.svg where I brought up both files and where this is discussed more, and at least one user who hasn't commented here has expressed that such exact duplicates should be deleted.) -sche (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi -sche, "to closer or anyone else",

I agree, nevertheless coats of arms of cities can change and, as a result, the file can be modified and should not be deleted (once they exist) in order to avoid creating a new file with the same name… This happened, for example with this file.

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Lieusaint (77) - Street Art.jpg

Il n'y a pas de liberté de panorama en France. La publication de la photo de cette fresque nécessite l'autorisation de son auteur Poudou99 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Línea 9 del metro de Santiago.png

Out of COMMONS:SCOPE, no use Sfs90 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, a map is useful and should be kept if it's indeed the uploader's own work. However, it's a pretty complex map, so it's probably copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

   Keep probably under {{OpenStreetMap}}. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:P LR Landhaus-Rubinski-Begründung-Denkmalschutz-2005 Fassung Limberg Steinfest 20191118.pdf

A release of this document under cc-by-sa-4.0 by the author of the text is not discernible, as the document was scanned or photographed and uploaded by a third party.--mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 18:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bitte warten Sie noch mit der Löschung. Ich habe heute einen Antrag auf Freigabe beim Leiter der Unteren Denkmalschutzbehörde Potsdam Herrn Jumpers gestellt.

Mit freundlichem Gruß FGPSteinfest (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sie schrieben 19:53, 9. Aug. 2023ː Eine uneingeschränkte Freigabe dieses Dokuments schließe ich kategorisch aus, weil so erwa schon aus Datenschutzgründen nicht möglich ist (die Eigentümer des Hauses haben ein Mitspracherecht). Gilt das nicht mehr? Bitte stellen sicher, dass die Rechteinhaber aufgeklärt werden, was Freigabe unter freier Lizenz bedeutet. Fiona (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ich denke, eine Freigabe in der hier dargestellten oder ähnlicher Form wäre hier zwingend erforderlich, um eine Löschung zu verhindern. Wobei in diesem Fall an Stelle eines Wikipedia-Artikels diese Datei hier auf Commons also die URL "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P_LR_Landhaus-Rubinski-Begründung-Denkmalschutz-2005_Fassung_Limberg_Steinfest_20191118.pdf" im Text der Freigabe benannt sein sollte. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 17:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ebenso am 10. August, 02:51 Uhr: "Und noch einmal, die umfassende Freigabe habe ich nicht erlaubt, weil ich das gar nicht kann. Ich habe keine Rechte an diesem Text, auch nicht Herr Limberg.

Davor auch schon mehrfach unter de:Wikipedia:Fließband ThüringerChatte (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Freigabe zur Veröffentlichung

Ich habe heute vom Referatsleiter der Unteren Denkmalschutzbehörde Potsdam, Herrn Marc Jumpers die schriftliche Genehmigung bekommen, das Dokument bei wikipedia zu veröffentlichen. Bei Zweifel an meiner Aussage schicken Sie mir bitte eine Email an steinfest@kabelmail.de. FGPSteinfest (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Die Freigabeerklärung muss nach den Regularien hierzuwiki jedoch vom Rechteinhaber selbst, z.B. mittels dieser Mailvorlage an die Mailadresse permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org, erfolgen. Ist dies geschehen, trägt ein Administrator bzw. ein Mitarbeiter des Volunteer Response Team (VRT) diese unter Nennung einer durch dieses Team nachvollziehbaren Ticketnummer in der Veröffentlichung nach. Bei Dir nachzufragen ist diesbezüglich keine Option und somit quasi nutzlos.

Btw: Ich habe mir erspart, deine persönlichen Informationen (Mailadresse) vorstehend zu entfernen, da Du diese ja auch an anderen Stellen streust. Normalerweise sollte man solche Informationen nicht öffentlich preisgeben. Du bis über Wikimail oder auf deiner Disk ja auch ohne diese Angabe erreichbar. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 13:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Martin,

glauben Sie nicht, dass wir damit einen Ressortleiter überfordern? Was hat der persönlich bzw. in seiner Amtsfunktion mit Wikipedia zu tun? Er brachte nur zum Ausdruck, dass er sich über mein Engagement freut u.a. auch für Potsdamwiki.

Warum wird mir nicht geglaubt?

Bei einem Zeitungsartikel wird doch auch nicht der Chefredakteur um Erlaubnis gefragt. Oder sogar der Herausgeber. Und dass Bücher "geduldig" sind und auch falsches enthalten können, habe ich gerade beim Landhaus Rubinski gemerkt. Jeder hat von jedem etwas abgeschrieben und keiner kontrollierte, ob das zutrifft. FGPSteinfest (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, aber so langsam verliere ich die Geduld mit Dir. Es gibt auf Wikipedia klare, durch die Community festgelegte Regeln, über die Du dich scheinbar hinwegsetzen möchtest. So geht das in keiner Weise. Entweder wir alle halten uns an die vereinbarten Spielregeln oder wir sorgen im Zweifel dafür, dass wir wegen fehlendem Willen zur Zusammenarbeit (nach eben diesen, abgestimmten Regeln) aus den Wiki-Projekten irgendwann ausgesperrt werden.

Und im Zusammenhang mit Inhaltsfreigaben bedürfen halt auf Wikipedia-Systemen abgelegte Inhalte (im Gegensatz zu: Zeitungs- und Buchveröffentlichungen, die unter eigenem Lizenzrecht stehen) die Freigabe des Rechteinhabers. Eine Versicherung eines Dritten (=> hier: Deiner Person) reich da in keiner Weise aus! mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 11:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Martin, es tut mir sehr leid, dass ich Deine Geduld strapaziere, aber ich versuche doch nur, den Inhalt dieser Begründung/des Gutachtens für die Wikipedianer lesbar zu machen. Ich bestehe nicht darauf, dass das Schriftstück als Dokument bei commons erscheint.

Gibt es nicht die Möglichkeit, dass ich die wesentlichen Teile über Architekt, Architektur und Raumaufteilung im Artikel zitiere und als Beleg/Quelle angebe: Untere Denkmalschutzbehöre der Stadt Potsdam, Akte Landhaus Rubinski-Seestraße 45? Wäre das ein gangbarer Weg?

MfG FGPSteinfest (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Solche Fragestellungen sind besser auf WP:BLG oder auf WP:FZW aufgehoben und gehören mMn nicht hier hin. Aber das alles wurde Dir an verschiedenen Stellen schon sehr umfangreich erläutert - du scheinst aber entweder die Erklärungen nicht verstehen zu wollen oder wirklich nicht zu verstehen. Sorry - ich bin hier 'raus und bleibe auf Grund der nach wie vor fehlenden Freigabe bei diesem Löschantrag. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 10:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

August 10

Files in Category:Gottfred Eickhoff

Specifically:

• File:Vendsyssel Kunstmuseum - Skulptur af Gottfred Eickhoff.jpg
• File:Vendsyssel Kunstmuseum med skulptur af Gottfred Eickhoff.jpg
• File:Vendsyssel Kunstmuseum, Hjørring.jpg
• File:Øregaard Museum 03.jpg

as Gottfred Eickhoff died in 1982 and there's not any FOP in Denmark for works of art. The two others, currently, is one placed in Sweden where their FOP should cover it since the statue seems to be "permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors", the other is just a shadow on a wall. TherasTaneel (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ParizhskayaKommuna1941.jpg

No publication information is given making it impossible to determine copyright status Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Anjos barrocos com música (revivalismo).jpg

Not sure about the freedom of panorama CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Question COM:FOP Portugal addresses the "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture." Are we to understand that as a non-exhaustive list that would include this kind of image? Is there any record at all of Portuguese jurisprudence, legislation or legislative history regarding other types of works? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  It seems that, according to the definition, we an leave it on Commons. Meanwhile, I am not aware of any legislative history regarding Portugal and the FOP. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I can't assume this kind of work has freedom of panorama in Portugal. There are many countries that give FoP to sculptures and architecture but not murals. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  FoP in Portugal applies to everything. Portugal law regarding FoP is seen as one of the best use cases in Europe here's the Communia's explanation for reference. The FoP mark was added. Is there any chance the deletion mark can be taken down, please. Thanks RCorreia (WMPT) (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• If any kind of publicly displayed art is covered by Portugal's FoP laws, great. An admin will eventually make a decision and close the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Delete File source is the Iconomus website, which uses an unfree non-commercial license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). If the content is being legitimately relicensed under a free license, COM:VRTS must be used to certify it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Alqazweeni.jpg

No proof that PD-Iraq allies. No source or date of publication known HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Imam chamseddine.jpeg

No proof that PD-Iraq allies. Date and source unknown. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by KìttyCãssiø (talk · contribs)

Dubious claim of own work. A mix of cameras and some with no exif. File:Tomoko Kawase fast4.jpg is clearly marked (c). PCP

• File:There will be love there cover full.jpg
• File:Tomoko Kawase fast1.jpg
• File:Tomoko Kawase fast3.jpg
• File:Tomoko Kawase fast2.jpg
• File:Tomoko Kawase fast4.jpg
• File:The brilliant green 100年MUSIC FESTIVAL.jpg
• File:Thebrilliantgreen DFDZ-5007 1280.jpg
• File:Thebrilliantgreen DFCZ-1004 1280.jpg
• File:The brilliant green - LIKE YESTERDAY Promo.jpg
• File:Thebrilliantgreen DFCZ-1003 1280.jpg

Gbawden (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Autorennen Rennautos Auto Racing Race Cars (Sonderausstellung Verkehrszentrum München).jpg

Image likely taken inside the museum, so the text is protected by copyright and FOP does not apply. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Seyyed Nasir Hosseini, the representative of Wali Faghih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist).jpg

Not a work by Tasnim, no photographer credit nor an indication of being created by the agency HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Template:Subst : delete3

Files uploaded by Ghaemi60 (talk · contribs)

Questionable own work claims. One has visible watermark (motahari.ac.ir) and one is a copyrighted logo. Only one upload by this user is known to be not a copyvio File:سید حسن مدرس.jpg, which is a historical picture in public domain wrongly claimed to be own work.

• File:20161109065808!سپهسالار-شبستان زمستانی1.jpg
• File:Sepahsalar mosque.jpg
• File:Shahid motahari university.png
• File:سپهسالار-ضلع جنوبی حیاط.jpg
• File:Rouhani (in Youth).jpg
• File:Rouhani (Friday prayers).jpg
• File:Ayat Allah Rouhani.jpg
• File:Rouhani.jpg

HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mural en la Facultad de Estadística e Informática.jpg

wrong ubication with personal data. I will add a similar photo with correct information after delete Koffermejia (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Guernica at the Whitechapel - geograph.org.uk - 1593698.jpg

Copyright violation? Apparently there is permission from the photographer. But I do not see permission from the heirs of Jacqueline de la Baume Dürrbach (1920-1989, see mutualart.com), the creator of the tapistry, and Pablo Picasso (died 1973), the maker of the painting which was the inspiration for this tapestry. JopkeB (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, per no copyright violation. This is a major artwork exhibited in the United Nations Building as a part of their art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  And why is this not copyright violation?

  • Is the Freedom of Panorama in the United Kingdom so broad that it includes temporary exhibitions? Because this photo was not taken in the United Nations Buildings, but during a temporary exhibition in London.
  • Is the Freedom of Panorama in the United States (where the United Nations Buildings in New York are) so broad that it includes pieces of art indoors?

  I think both these questions should be answered with "NO". So it is indeed copyright violation. And it does not matter for copyrights whether it is about a major artwork or not. JopkeB (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

File:VANNING2023-08-06 21.03.07.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 222.117.173.33 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Looks useful if there's no copyright problem, but it needs relevant categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Fingerprint JPG.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 范 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This could have educational use if the license is OK. Yann (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but needs categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:CCTV JPG.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 范 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 Yann (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This could have educational use if the license is OK. Yann (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but needs categories. I don't understand why there's an allergy to companies providing useful images of their own products. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Atatürk Cerrahpaşa'da Cumhuriyet Gazetesi.png

Turkish newspaper. I cannot make out a date on it. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The date can be seen on the higher resolution version of the same newspaper (here). As we have seen, the date for the newspaper is "PAZARTESİ 15 KANUNUEVVEL 1930" (right upper corner) means "MONDAY DECEMBER 15 1930". According to the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No.5846 article 27 the protection period ends after 70 years. Consequently the stated image has no copyright, kind regards. Yeminli Savaşçı (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This would appear to be public domain in Turkey, but this was not public domain in Turkey in 1996 so URAA would have restored U.S. copyright, which would exist until January 1, 2026. Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Лімниця 24.jpg

poor quality Luda.slominska (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Such assessments of image quality as "poor quality" should not be the yardstick for deletion. On the one hand, this would open a gateway for the arbitrary exercise of discretion and, on the other, even images with minor technical characteristics can make an important contribution to documentation and illustration - you never know what might be used for what. --Anil Ö. (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Deletion policy: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality. That`s the case.--Luda.slominska (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΠΛΑΚΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΕΚΚΛΗΣΙ ΠΑΝΩ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΚΕΝΟΤΑΦΙΟ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΡΙΛΛΟΥ ΣΤ'.JPG

The whole text of this inscription - created/inaugurated in 1991 according to the signature at the bottom - is still under copyrights belonging to its original author. And as its length proves, it's far more than a simple mention or anything like that. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

August 11

File:Chris Brown in London (2023).png

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment not found elsewhere in reverse image searches. @Shizhao: what sort of permission from who do you think is missing? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Chris Brown in London, Influence tour (2023).png

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ComeTogetherChrisBrown.png

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). Uploader has uploaded multiple images from this same spot, and it looks a lot like cell phone footage. Sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy, as it's a non-trivial case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Prince Edward's signature.svg

No evidence that the source or author has released the rights under a CC license and Template:PD-signature doesn't apply per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pasabordo Jhonatan y Gabo.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment If for no other reason than that the uploader is a username and the metadata mention a specific person. But it's true that we don't know who has the rights to the photo and have no proof that the copyright holder consented to the license. It would be best to resolve this through COM:VRT, but it would be a shame to delete a photo COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Leather jumpsuit IMG 8892.png

I don't think this file should be deleted, but it has been nominated for speedy deletion by an anonymous user (red linked user page) for not being of 'educational' value, a reason I don't understand and should be elaborated if it is to be used for this file. E.G. (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Abusive speedy deletion request (unvalid argument/reason) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the reson for the DR was that this is an AI image. And we should be quite careful about what AI images we accept, because you never know what they actually show. Here, however, a real image would probably look very similar. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kulim Hi-Tech Park.jpg

Unused logo *angys* (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep You want to throw away a PD logo for w:Kulim Hi-Tech Park? I sure hope this is not deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Habib ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri bin muhammad assegaf.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Uhai as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. File is currently used on Indonesian Wikibooks, so it may be COM:INUSE if that book is in-scope on the sister project. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The Wikibooks page it's used on is spam created by the image uploader and is similar to the now-deleted spam user page of the uploader. Uhai (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

:* Keep I don't think we have the right under Commons policy to rule on why an image is COM:INUSE or whether we approve of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Also requesting deletion of files uploaded by sockpuppet accounts of this user, ASEQWD and Ahmad asegaf:

* File:Ahmadbarok.jpg

* File:Ahmadsegaf.jpg

* File:Barokasegaf.jpg

* File:Mubarokwibowo.jpg

* File:Mubarokmeliano.jpg

* File:Janesbakoy.jpg

* File:Habib muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg

* File:Habib ahmad bin abdillah assegaf.png

* File:Habib ahmad jans assegaf.jpg

* File:Habib ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg

* File:Ahmad jans assegaf.jpg

* File:Habib ahmad jans assegaf 1.jpg

* File:Al-Habib ahmad jans assegaf.jpg

* File:Ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg

All personal photos. Common instance of a spammer spamming on more obscure Wikimedia projects with few contributors and little to no moderation which also allows them to take advantage of COM:INUSE. The header of COM:EDUSE states that "[files] must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". These images fall under the first and fourth bullet points of COM:SPAM; therefore, COM:INUSE does not apply in this situation. None of these images have any educational value and this user does not, on any of their sockpuppets, seem to have any number of constructive contributions on any project, making them a non-contributor. Uhai (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look forward to hopefully reading the reasoning of the closing admin for keeping or deleting the files that are in use. I see you left out the sentences starting three sentences after the header of COM:EDUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." So no, EDUSE cannot be a countervailing guideline. I don't see how COM:SPAM can override COM:INUSE, either. Note what's not mentioned here: "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere." Right, not if they're displayed as a gallery. Nothing is mentioned about their being used in articles on Wikimedia sites, because that would make them automatically useful per COM:INUSE.

I don't think it's the job of Commons to remove spam that's in use on other projects. We have more than enough to do as it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The spam is on other projects but the images themselves are on Commons. Removal of images such as these is an application of common sense. COM:INUSE was not meant to apply to situations such as this and, like I said, is heavily abused regardless by spammers such as this individual. I don't see how this Instagram-filtered, low-quality selfie, beyond all policy citing and wikilawyering, has any argument for educational value when the stated goal of Commons is to host educational media:

File:Ahmad jans bin muhammad sobri assegaf.jpg

I don't understand why Commons users are so often averse to removing unequivocal garbage, especially considering how easily the user can re-upload the images (and probably will anyway, if the reviewing admin chooses to delete).

Regardless, if there's an argument to be made for how any of these files have educational value and cause to be retained, beyond "well COM:INUSE says we should keep it!!!", I'm all ears. That's what deletion discussions should really be about. See COM:SNOW. Uhai (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There are other solutions to deal with spammers, such as blocks and userbans, and it's not up to Commons users to decide what should be used on other projects. If you want to appeal to SNOW, my response is that I don't want to spend time making decisions for other projects or encouraging people to use Commons in lieu of removing images from their projects. Get cross-wiki spammers banned across all projects, and maybe you can appeal to stewards to remove all the images from other projects. Once they're no longer in use, come back here and request deletion, or maybe there'd be a basis for speedy deletion tags at that point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete the whole crap, LTA Category:Sockpuppets of Habib mubarok assegaf (34 accounts within one year). --Achim55 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Info: Now all accounts are locked globally. --Achim55 (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition, this file has been removed from everything but an absurd id.wikibooks.org page. Once that page is deleted, we can delete this file from Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Glory, Halleluyah! It's no longer in use anywhere. Let's delete it before this individual inserts it somewhere else! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 4.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Gamowebbed as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: -reason|1=no educational value|help=off. There isn't a speedy criterion for general COM:SCOPE issues, so this has to go to DR. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. Substantially similar to a number of other images by this uploader that were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/AI porn images, including images 1 - 3 in this series. While this image isn't as explicitly pornographic as those were, it still seems intended more to titillate than to provide educational value; all of the same arguments apply.

Two other images from this series remain - File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 5.jpg and File:Stable Diffusion - In space - 6.jpg - and should probably be deleted as well. Omphalographer (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per above Gamowebbed (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Good quality example of AI-generated image, therefore in scope at least to illustration that topic. Unvalid reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are plenty of other AI-generated images on Commons, most of which are considerably less "distracting" than these. The theoretical possibility that an image could be used doesn't necessarily mean that it's in scope; see COM:NOTUSED for details. Omphalographer (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Omphalographer: My main consideration is impartiality. If one chooses to keep or delete a file just on basis of what one may like/prefer, it's contrary to NPOV. It's the case here, I see no other argument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I originally voted delete on the mass AI porn purge because it was out of scope personal art clogging commons; a few images by this promptmaker (it’s a word now because I say so) is fine. A little bit of “fan service” is also fine as we literally have a whole category for that. Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep, decent enough to me. Being "distracting" isn't a valid rationale; nominator could have ADHD and be easily distracted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ohio signs

• File:Ohio Welcome Area.jpg
• File:Outside the welcome center in Ohio.jpg

These photos of signs are COM:DWs of copyrighted material and lack the permission of the original creator. - Eureka Lott 17:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I can't even find Ohio's laws in this regard. I guess just delete them. Edenaviv5 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Skyline de Uberaba.jpg

Enviei por engano o arquivo "Skyline de Uberaba.jpg", e solicito a remoção dele pois um arquivo idêntico já havia sido enviado por mim anteriormente: File:Skyline_de_Uberaba.png Pedroepaulo (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mahbanootata.jpg

No watermark or photographer credit, not a work by Fars HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The source states "Fars Media Corporation is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License", and a reverse search only shows news portals owned by Fars Corporation. I don't read Farsi to see if somewhere it states the image has a different provenance, e.g., from another news agency. Günther Frager (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The source reads "به نقل دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان", meaning that the content was provided to Fars by the public relations department of the Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

HeminKurdistan is referring to the first paragraph which states: "According to Fars News Agency University Group, citing Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, a retired member of the statistics department of the university donated part of her capital to..." No indication that the photo was provided by University people. Charlatana (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Charlatana That exactly means that the content was provided by that institution and this is not a work by Fars News. This image lacks typical watermark and photographer name. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The syndicated version of the content: [22]. Clearly not a work by Fars. HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@HeminKurdistanُYou're right. I hadn't seen this picture before. The source you mentioned published the picture 10 hours before Fars. This leaves no doubt that Fars has violated their copyright. I have no objection to deletion. Charlatana (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Xtra Market logo 2020.png

This file was initially tagged by Taichi as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is literally a text logo, and with 152,346 likes for Xtra Foods on Facebook, I think it's in scope, though it would probably get deleted as out of scope for not having a Wikipedia article or just not being used. However, there is no COM:TOO Panama page, so I have no way of judging whether it's problematic that way, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hola @King of Hearts. Le digo que por favor, retire la imagen de File:Xtra Market logo 2020.png de borrados, ya que la compañía me dio los derechos de la imagen. Gran Sonic (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Close to the line for COM:TOO US with the gradient, c.f. the American Airlines logo example. I think it is ineligible for copyright in the US though. For Panama, however, I would  Weak delete due to uncertainty due to the applicable threshold of originality, per COM:PCP. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Laberge - Images de la vie, 1952.djvu

Was not PD in home contry as of URA data. 1960+50 = 2010, and is thus potentially still copyright in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Rouleau - Légendes canadiennes tome I, 1930.djvu

1961+50 = 2011 which is after the URA date of 1996 . The issu is the illustrator, not the author of the text ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Laberge - Hymnes à la terre, 1955.djvu

Author died in 1960, meaning it was not in PD in it's origin country at the URAA date, and thus may still be in copyright in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Laberge - Le destin des hommes, 1950.djvu

Was not PD in Canada as of 1996, and thus potentially subject to URAA restoration in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Abocado Rosado, Misuraca.jpg

It should be identify as a part of a group of related images prior to upload FColman (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Marta Minujin en el Malba (5344494188).jpg

Installation from Marta Minujin (b. 1943). As she is still alive her works are still protected by copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tabla-salarial-ugt-inv-2023-color-horizontal-2.pdf

Out of scope? Looks like a fee table for a company. Promotional? Omphalographer (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment It is not promotional. UGT is the biggest trade union in Spain. The table indicates salaries for security personnel. Günther Frager (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment It could be useful, but Commons doesn't usually host PDFs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

August 12

File:Saudi Arabia - Road Sign - Stop (Arabic).svg

Wanted to delete the Saudi traffic sign file that belongs to his side and that can't be edited to prevent overloading the file so I actually uploaded it separately which is standard for all Saudi traffic signs, the rest of the signs. Completely delete it. Mongolia44 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by มองโกเลีย๔๔ (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tiamat.JPG

Looks like a scan from a book rather than selfmade based on the regular noise. And since it is not an entirely 2D image, probably not public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the only thing we have have at this moment, lets keep it or do you have anything beter? 2A02:1810:9C07:9100:D1EA:4D5:90FF:7572 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Former US Journalist Joins Ukraine’s Military Medic Unit.webm

This video (and its Ukrainian version, File:Історія американської трансгендерної журналістки, яка служить як медик в лавах ЗСУ.webm) contains content that is taken from Reuters, a news agency, in multiple instances. The uses appear to use several videos taken from the news agency, which is not freely licensed. If we are to host this on Commons, we would need to remove the video from Reuters and replace it with black screen (or other free filler video), but we can't host this on Commons in its current state. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:近鉄19200系電車SA01編成（元近鉄12200系電車NS56編成）.gif

別のサイトですでに使われているから 和寿平瀬 (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BäuerinUndKühe.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Burundi stamps of Burundi are copyrighted until at least 50 years after the date of publication, which clearly hasn't passed yet in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. And in case anyone wants to say it's PD because the image in the middle was created in 1890, the stamp clearly contains unique artist elements separate from the painting that can be and probably are copyrighted. Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Several files in Category:Sonderausstellung Wahnsinn Illegale Autorennen (Exhibition)

• File:Autorennen Rennautos Auto Racing Race Cars (Sonderausstellung Verkehrszentrum München).jpg (already nominated separately)
• File:Gaffer und Schaulustige Gawkers and Rubbernecks Information (exhibition).jpg
• File:Illegale Autorennen in Bayern Illegal car racing in Bavaria (Verkehrszentrum Deutsches Museum München) 01.jpg
• File:Illegale Autorennen in Bayern Illegal car racing in Bavaria (Verkehrszentrum Deutsches Museum München) 02.jpg
• File:Klima auf den Straßen Sonderausstellung Verkehrzentrum Deutsches Museum 2023-2024 Text.jpg
• File:Mahnmal Geisterräder Sonderausstellung Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum 2023 (Munich) Info.jpg
• File:Klima auf den Straßen Sonderausstellung Verkehrzentrum Deutsches Museum 2023-2024.jpg (COM:DW)
• File:Mahnmal Geisterräder Sonderausstellung Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum 2023 (Munich) 01.jpg (this apparently is art)
• File:Mahnmal Geisterräder Sonderausstellung Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum 2023 (Munich) 02.jpg (this apparently is art)
• File:Mahnmal Geisterräder Sonderausstellung Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum 2023 (Munich) Info.jpg
• File:Michael Warshitsky Opfer des Kuhdamm-Rasers 2016 (Infotafel Sonderausstellung).jpg
• File:Rennen gemacht Auto weg Race run car gone (Sonderaustellung Wahnsinn Illegale Autorennen) Bild.jpg (DW)
• File:Rennen gemacht Auto weg Race run car gone (Sonderaustellung Wahnsinn Illegale Autorennen) Text.jpg
• File:Tempo tödlich Deadly speed - Exhibition Verkehrszentrum Deutsches Museum (Munich 2023-2024).jpg
• File:Unfälle, Opfer, Hinterbliebene Sonderausstellung Wahnsinn Illegale Straßenrennen (Munich).jpg
• File:Werbung die wütend macht Infuriating Advertisement Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum (Munich) 01.jpg
• File:Werbung die wütend macht Infuriating Advertisement Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum (Munich) 02.jpg
• File:Werbung die wütend macht Infuriating Advertisement Deutsches Museum Verkehrszentrum (Munich) 03.jpg

These signs are inside the museum, so FOP does not apply. The text is copyrighted by the museum. The content of the texts could be used to extend the Wikipedia article, though. Some of the images are obvious COM:DW violations (pictures of press pictures)

I do think the images like File:Jeep des Opfers der Kuhdamm-Raser 2016 Sonderausstellung Verkehrszentrum München 2023-2024.jpg can be kept, because a car damaged by an accident is not art and hence it's not protected. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Chinese Braille (2018 form).jpg

{{FoP-China}} doesn't cover text. 沈澄心✉ 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete photo contains copyrightable texts. Wcam (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SpoPetrosyan (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.

• File:SpartakPetrosyan1.jpg
• File:SpartakPetrosyan.jpg

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Sforza family.svg

This coat of arms doesn't represent the original coat of arms of the sforza family, the original coat of arms isː Azure with a lion rampant or holding a quince; the eagle is an augmentation awarded by the holy roman emperor to the Visconti family, from whom the Sforzas took the arms upon ascending to the throne of the duchy of milan MostEpic (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Imperial Eagle/Reichsadler quartering the Visconti Biscione

Thanks a lot for that clarification, I was trying to get to the bottom of File:Arms of the House of Sforza.svg by User:Heralder which showed these quarterings but gave no explanation. Is that file name accurate? So the Eagle quartering the Visconti Biscione is the Imperial Eagle/Reichsadler, an augmentation awarded by the Holy Roman Emperor to the Visconti family (do you know any more details as to date, etc?), and the Sforzas continued to use these arms upon ascending to the throne of the Duchy of Milan. So in fact these are the augmented arms of Visconti being used by Sforza. They are not Sforza arms at all. Is that correct? I hope the position is now shown clearly at Category:Coats of arms of the House of Sforza. Instead of deleting the image, which I fully accept is wrongly described/named (thanks for having raised this issue) how about just changing the incorrect filename to "Reichsadler". That might be simpler. Always useful to have images of that in various forms.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Spanish Empire cross Flag.png

Duplicate of File:Flag of Cross of Burgundy.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Spanish Empire Flag.png

Duplicate of File:Flag of Spain (1785–1873, 1875–1931).svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Atomium 9 april.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source states: Авторские права © MasimovAsif.net Все права защищены 2012-2023 DMacks (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Uploader's user-page identifies themself as "Masimov Asif" links to that website as their own (even also have it in their username), so it's reasonable to assume they own the license whether or not they have a suitable release on a different site where they uploaded it. Still to check: license on the sculpture itself. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  {{FoP-Belgium}} allows it, so it's just a question of the licensing of the photo/photographer. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mini Europe Brussels.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The claimed source states: Авторские права © MasimovAsif.net Все права защищены 2012-2023 DMacks (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Uploader's user-page identifies themself as "Masimov Asif" links to that website as their own (even also have it in their username), so it's reasonable to assume they own the license whether or not they have a suitable release on a different site where they uploaded it. Still to check: license on the sculpture itself. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  {{FoP-Belgium}} allows it, so it's just a question of the licensing of the photo/photographer. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:La plage de La Tonnara (5830083177).jpg

Title card for a freely licensed video. Educational use? Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes if the video is of any educational use, no if it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by EuroShowSC (talk · contribs)

Above COM:TOO Spain which I think is the relevant TOO. The FC Barcelona logo has been deemed above the TOO per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of FC Barcelona and I think these logos are as complex or more complex than the FC Barcelona logo.

• File:Rayo de Barcelona FC.svg
• File:XbuyerT.svg
• File:PIO FC.svg
• File:JIJANTES FC.svg
• File:El Barrio KL Logo.svg
• File:1K FC.svg

Jonteemil (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging King of Hearts and Ellywa who took part in the FC Barcelona DR. Jonteemil (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 01.jpg

Also:

• File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 02.jpg
• File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 03.jpg
• File:Russian soldiers frozen to death in fields near Chuhuiv, Ukraine (March 2022) 04.jpg

{{PD-UAexMilitary}} is sub-template from {{PD-UA-exempt}}. It is not like {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. These works are not symbols or signs of the AF of Ukraine.

It is possible, what these works were released under some free license. If such permission will be found, images can be re-licensed.

Similar case and its resolution with updated permission and successful re-licensing see here --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сгоревший вагон Д1-657-3.jpg. Alex Spade (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@DinoSoupCanada: You probably know better about this than I do, your thoughts? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper

I thought about posting this on COM:VPC rather than to create a DR but I hope the discussion is better when making a DR. Maybe I'm completely an idiot here and the files are OBVIOUSLY covered by FOP Spain here but what the hell, #BeBold. And for the record I'm not saying that these files are copyright violations, I'm asking if they are, but in a DR since I hope that brings to a better discussion than at COM:VPC. Anyway, here goes:

COM:FOP Spain says that works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.

To interpret this, one must know how Spanish courts define permanently located since this is not a completely unambiguous phrasing. Commons:FOP#Permanent vs temporary says that whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent". […] Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same.

What makes this case unlike the standard FOP case I guess is that the copyright ownership belongs to the club, not the artist of this wall painting. What effect does that have on the FOP/copyright question? Also in this case, the design already exists, before the wall painting ever existed, and it will continue to exist after the wall painting has been removed or the building torn down. What effect do those two facts have on the ”If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same.” question. Also can there really be a general #Permanent vs temporary page when so many different countries have different law books? Do all courts agree with each other across the borders on this matter?

Lastly, it should be said that some of these might be covered by COM:De minimis eventhough they might be considered copyvios and hence be kept regardless. For example File:009 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí).jpg seems as a more obvious de minimis case so decided not to nominate that file.

• File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg
• File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí).jpg
• File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper-2.JPG
• File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper-3.JPG
• File:Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper.jpg
• File:FC Barcelona training facility (33630127961).jpg
• File:FC Barcelona.jpg

Jonteemil (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And if anyone is questioning whether the logo at all is copyrightable the FC Barcelona logo has been deemed above COM:TOO Spain per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of FC Barcelona. Jonteemil (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This logo of FC Barcelona appears on the facilities of the sportive city of the club and you see it walking on the street. If you take a picture of these buildings, the logo fatally appears. Besides, this is the modern interpretation of a logo created in 1910's. --Enric (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A logo created in the 1910's can still be copyrighted so we need COM:EVID of the logo being in the public domain in that case. Jonteemil (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep for me. Not sure what the copyright ownership has to do with FoP, unless you are suggesting it was painted there without permission from the copyright owner. You don't have the right to use the logo elsewhere, but photos depicting it in its public setting should be fine. A crop which removes its public context may be problematic, especially for a 2-D work as it may be more of a copy than a depiction of it. The fact other copies may exist before or later is irrelevant (there are no FoP rights over other copies, unless they are also permanently placed in public). If someone makes 20 castings of a statue, but only one is put up in public, photos of that statue are still fine. The "natural lifetime" part of FoP is not relevant here (since many other copies can exist); just the fact that this copy was placed in public without a scheduled time to be removed ("leaving it in the public place indefinitely"). Even if there was just architectural or three-dimensional FoP, it would only be photos focusing on the logo, or intentionally including it for effect, which would be an issue and I only see a couple of those in there. All other photos would be incidental, I would think (a different concept from "de minimis" but still mentioned on that policy page). As for differing laws in different countries, there are precious few cases on this type of thing anywhere, so often we really don't know -- those courts may well look to cases in other countries for guidance, though they could disagree and rule differently. If we ever get contrary rulings, then we would update the page. So yes, there are always theoretical doubts that a court could rule differently than we have seen before, but until one actually does we tend to go with the best guidance we can, even if the logic is from a different country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't have the right to use the logo elsewhere, in that case, wouldn't it be in violation of COM:Licensing? Jonteemil (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No. You have the right to use the photo which shows the logo in its public context, since that is the only content which is licensed. If you crop to a de minimis item for example, it is no longer de minimis. Or use of the logo itself needs a direct license for that, which we do not have. The only thing which is licensed is the photographic content. For example, with a photo of a statue, we need a license for the photo, and (if not in a FoP country) we would need permission from the sculptor something roughly equivalent to FoP permission -- we do not require the statue itself to be fully licensed, which would let other people make copies of the statue itself. We just need permission for the photo to be used as a photo. And of course, it's usually more trademark rights which cover logos, not copyrights, but that is a Commons:Non-copyright restriction so we ignore that for licensing requirements (which are strictly about copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No ned to use De minimis. A photo showing only the logo is still covered by FOP-Spain. De minims would be relevant in a country with FOP for buildings but not for 2D works, but FOP-Spain covers both.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct for these. The nominator was asking some more hypothetical questions though, so just mentioning that for non-FoP countries as well. But even with FoP, don't think you could take a straight-on photo, and crop it to remove all public context, then use it. If something amounts to a copy and can serve as a substitute, it would violate article 40bis of Spain's law -- The Articles of this Chapter may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer. That slight limitation is imposed by the Berne Convention (the wording in Spain's law is taken directly from the treaty). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

So File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg should be deleted in violation of article 40bis? Jonteemil (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That's the closest one, but I think that is still a photo of the logo in its public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That kind of photos (File:034 Ciutat Esportiva Joan Gamper, Futbol Club Barcelona (Sant Joan Despí) (cropped).jpg) has never been deleted in Commons, and "unreasonable" has never been understood here this way. Photos of murals are the textbook example of FOP. The "unrasonable" and "legitimate" are usually understood about works placed outside without permission. Here, it's reasonable and safe to assume that the club is using its own logo with permission and that it has willingly placed the logo in its own wall facing the street. No reason to delete.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Obvious FOP case. The pictures are clearly taken from the street (in case of doubt, a quick Google Street View check confirms it) and the logo is clearly a work placed permanently in a public place with permission of the copyright owner. It would be hard to imagine a more obvious example of FOP-Spain.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment This discussion should have been on COM:VPC. Of course, "the discussion is better when making a DR" because when you threaten with deleting valuable files from Commons, editors are more pressed to answer than if you just ask questions on the Village Pump, but this way of acting is not fair.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should but my experience of VP is that participation isn't that big. That's why I chose a DR. Jonteemil (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Even exceed TOO in Spain, {{FoP-Spain}} applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bucha massacre aftermath, c. April 2022.jpg

Also:

• File:Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 02.jpg
• File:Bucha civilians massacred by Russian soldiers, c. April 2022 - 01.jpg

These are not PD-UA-exempt. {{PD-UA-exempt}} is not like {{PD-USGov}}.

• These are not official documnet in the terms of law, because these works have not political, legislative, or administrative nature.
• These are not official sign of symbol.
• Such works do not fall section "daily news or details of current events that constitute regular press information" (see Ukrainian juridical commendatory here for example).

It is possible, that these works were released under some free license. If such permission will be found, images can be re-licensed.

Similar case and its resolution with updated permission and successful re-licensing see here --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Сгоревший вагон Д1-657-3.jpg. Alex Spade (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@DinoSoupCanada: You probably know better about this than I do, your thoughts? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked into this much but I think you are correct. However, if the government site says that it's in public domain, than it can stay. DinoSoupCanada (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The current source of these works is not the government site licensed by any of free license, and not every Ukrainian gov.site is free licensed, only some of them are free licensed. The current source is just twitter message lacking any license. It is possible, that these works were released under some free license, but these are not exempt indeed. Alex Spade (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Animoca Brands logo.svg

This is a logo for a Hong-Kong based company, so COM:L requires that this be freely available in both the United States and in Hong Kong. While simple, and probably under COM:TOO USA, COM:TOO Hong Kong indicates that the TOO in Hong Kong presumed to be equivalent to that of the United Kingdom (i.e. very low). With things like the logo of Edge Magazine being under the U..K.'s threshold of originality, it seems likely that this logo (particularly with the crowned figure for the "o" in "animoca" and the placement of "BRANDS" as negative space) is above the TOO in the U.K., and thus would appear to be above the TOO in the administrative region of this logo's origin. For these reasons, I believe that the file should be  deleted in line with COM:PRP as being non-free in Hong Kong. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bob Kustra.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Putitonamap98 as Copyvio (Copyvio)

Flickr source https://www.flickr.com/photos/navyoutreach/28934948200/in/photolist-oGf4B1-4NU63C-cHgi-7YV12S-KzjvNd-L5Tb2f is "all rights reserved" but also says "US Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1stClass Marie A. Montez) Released" and EXIF has the U.S. Navy in the copyright holder field. Would seem a clearly public domain photograph regardless of default setting on Flickr. Abzeronow (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

August 13

File:Mcb office230513.png

No exif = not own work. Ratte (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete While there may be cases where exif-free phots are own work, I think the lack of EXIF raises significant doubt in this case here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Кузнецов ИА(для вики).wmv.ogv + File:Noname10.mpg.ogv

COM:NOTUSED These two files were uploaded by same user (Колосова_Галина). She has not got any other contribution on Commons or any other Wikimedia project. These files are not used in any Wikimedia project. We can not identify these person, there are not articles about Кузнецов И.А. or Волков Нестор Иванович in Ru-Wiki. The uploader had not registered in Ru-Wiki or in any Wikimedia project. It is possible, that she is registered in Ru-Wiki as Галина_Колосова, but that user has not got any edits (including deleted). Alex Spade (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Nous avons l'autorisation d'exploitation de la photo par l'auteur lui-même.

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:Caroline Loeb par Stephane Coutelle1 jpg.jpg

annoncé comme étant téléchargé depuis un site internet. Ne semble pas une oeuvre du contributeur Limfjord69 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination, can be undeleted with VTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

File:ISS-ExposeR-Study-DmitriyKondratyev-2014-Roscosmos.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Alex Spade as no permission (No permission since) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Riksvåpenet.jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This design is made especially for the use of the Norwegian parliament "Stortinget". It is explained here: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/stortingets-designhandbok/stortingets-riksvapen/ Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hans Cappelen care to explain? I see no reason to keep lower-quality jpeg version File:Riksvåpenet.jpg when we have File:Coat of arms of the Storting (monochromatic).svg. No global usage refers of use of the jpg file on Wikimedia projects, not that nobody in the world uses an image like that.  Delete Platonides (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hans Cappelen that is correct. These are exact duplicates. And if you read the file description of the newer vector versions of the 6 variants of the coat of arms of the Storting that are in use today you will see that I have explained precisely what each coat of arms is used for. Also with references. There is absolutely nothing lost by deleting the raster versions. Only the opposite, so that people who stumble across the coats on the Commons know what their use is and of course the files are of better quality.  Delete Worldlydev (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Riksvåpenet, tofarget.jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This is for the eclusive use of the Norwegian parliament the "Stortinget", look here: https://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/stortingets-designhandbok/stortingets-riksvapen/ Hans Cappelen (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hans Cappelen that is correct. I probably should have linked to the superseding versions right here in the deletion requests so that you could easily see the newer version for yourself. There is nothing lost by deleting this raster version. This coat of arms should be deleted, just at the other should be. Read the explanation here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riksvåpenet.jpg  Delete Worldlydev (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

File:National Formosa University logo.png

Copyrighted calligraphy work, per COM:TOO Taiwan. Larryasou (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:暨大附中師生於學校藝文中心集會.jpg

可能侵犯肖像權，故提刪 Naven227 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Vista aerea di Frigento.jpg

Unlikely to be own. Image widely been found on the internet (e.g. here) with no exif data. 3knolls (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The image is mine because the author gave it to my dad in 2015: that's why I printed it a few years ago and it's a poster on my room's wall. The author took it about 10 yers ago while flying over the village. I met him yesterday in order to speak about this image. I specifically asked if I could upload and he said yes. However, the image is not everywhere online. It's just available on 2 web pages: here (and in the same web page, just the English translation) and here. It's easy to check: just use Google Lens. However, the images on those web pages are low quality, mine is HD and it's easy to know why: I have the genuine file. The photo was uploaded on social media a few years ago and then deleted. So it's easy to find out why someone else has it: they downloaded it in low quality from Facebook years ago to be able to misuse it. I hope my report can clear up the misunderstanding. I apologize for the bad English, I hope it's all understandable. And I apologize for any possible mistake too, I'm just a beginner in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I look forward to receiving your feedback. Thank you. Frg.gm (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Waldemar Kolmsperger d. J.

The painter who created these paintings/frescoes in German or Austrian churches, Waldemar Kolmsperger the Younger, died in 1954, so his works are not in the public domain in Germany and Austria yet, and the files should be deleted. There is no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany, and while freedom of panorama in Austria (COM:FOP Austria) does extend to building parts (like church windows, among many other parts) also when photographed from the inside, it does not cover frescoes.

The works were created in various years from 1925 to 1945 and had their US copyrights restored by the URAA. The files can therefore be restored in various years from 2025 to 2041, depending on if the German/Austrian or the US copyright will run longer. I'll add notes and categories.

• File:Au hl Leonhard Indoor Böhringer 12.JPG
• File:Au hl Leonhard Indoor Böhringer 13.JPG
• File:Au Hl Leonhard04.JPG
• File:Maria Himmelfahrt (Pfons) 10.JPG
• File:St. Michael (Jesenwang) Deckengemälde Langhaus.jpg
• File:Jesenwang St. Michael 764.jpg
• File:Jesenwang St. Michael 767.jpg
• File:Jesenwang St. Michael 771.jpg
• File:Jesenwang St. Michael 772.jpg
• File:Völklingen Versöhnungskirche Innen Deckengemälde.JPG

Rosenzweig τ 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Are these really original paintings by Waldemar Kolmsperger, or merely reconstructions of the original frescos by Josef Adam Mölk († 1794)? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(referring to the fresco in Pfarrkirche Matrei/Br., I didn't see there are several different places, even in different countries, mixed together). --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

de:Pfarrkirche Matrei am Brenner (as well as the file description) says it's a 1945 work by Kolmsperger, no word about a reconstruction of an older work by someone else. --Rosenzweig τ 22:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, then this should be clarified before the picture is unnecessarily deleted. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What is there to "clarify"? We have a clear statement that it's a work of Kolmsperger. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Where is this "clear statement"? And where does ist say that it is an original work by Kolmsperger and not a restoration? Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And wait... He died in 1954, so on 1 January 2025 his works will be in the public domain. What's that about 2041??? --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing: “Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” As explained above, based on the year they were created, some of the works are still protected in the USA (because of the URAA law). US copyright terms of that kind run for 95 years. The work from Pfons/Matrei dates from 1945, so it is still protected in the USA until the end of 2040. --Rosenzweig τ 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That is absurd. The 70-years-after-death rule has always ben applied to artworks from Austria. If that would really be the case, then thousands of images had to be deleted (or better be moved to the German Wikipedia). (And, btw, how likely is it, that the heirs of an Austrian painter are going to court in the US and sue someone based on some obscure American law?) Luftschiffhafen (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You may find it absurd, but others don't, and it's official policy here at Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Воронки. VTR 16.jpg

Фото не зображує об'єкт ПЗФ України Мокрицький Павло (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Авжеж, не заперечую, дійсно зайве Іван Вєтров (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Steamsnipe Kai Cenat.ogg

Although from a YouTube video with a YouTube CC-BY license, Agent uses clips from Cenat's livestream during many parts of the video as it is a video about streamsniping. The clip is from 12:37 in the video, which is also from Cenat's livestream. Agent doesn't have copyright over Cenat's livestream. reppop^talk 18:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mohammad Reza Shah et Soraya à Rome.jpg

This photograph was taken outside Iran and most likely by a non-Iranian photographer. [23] I found no proof that PD-Iran applies. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Statue of Aristide Briand in Ouistreham

This 1934 sculpture by French artist Emile-Oscar Guillaume is located in France. Guillaume died in 1954, so the work is not in the public domain in France yet. French freedom of panorama excludes commercial uses and is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. The sculpture's US copyright was restored by the URAA and runs until the end of 2029. So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2030.

• File:Aristide Briand (1862 -1932), Ouistreham, Lower Normandy, France - panoramio.jpg
• File:Square et statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham 2.jpg
• File:Square et statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham.jpg
• File:Statue Aristide-Briand, Ouistreham.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rosenzweig,

There's serious doubt about the French sculptor Émile Guillaume's year of death. 1954 or 1942 ?

Two art websites and the base Leonore, an Archives nationales de France database that lists the records of the members of the National Order of the Legion of honor, give 1942 as year of death for Émile Guillaume.

The French Wikipédia article gives 1954 as year of death and gives as the source of a such information, the birth records in Paris archives where the date of his death would have been added. But I didn't find this information with the link in the article. The university of Nantes and an editor website where a book on Émile Guillaume has been published also gave 1954 year but an interview of the book author gave 1942 ǃ

The Wikidata element gaves both 1942 (4 references, one of which is the serious Benezit dictionnary of artists (I can't read it) and 1954 (1 reference, the above-mentioned Paris birth record).

So it probably needs some further researchs

TCY (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Which means 1954 is not some absurd theory, but a serious possibility. Per COM:PCP, we then have to assume 1954 could be true and act accordingly. A 1942 death year would not change anything for the US copyright of this statue anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 06:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The Legion of Honor file has an Avis de décès which says he died 17-7-54 in Paris. I don't know why their overview says he died on 01/01/1942 (a death date of January 1 is a bit suspicious anyway, not impossible of course, but it looks a bit like a placeholder). --Rosenzweig τ 06:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

On further investigation, the year of birth appears to be 1954. It can be seen on the cover of the biography dedicated to him]. And the sculptor is the great-grandfather of the author's wife. And in the book, it's written : "Samedi 7 juillet 1954 à 7h00 du soir, décés à son domicile du square Vergennes à Paris (15e)" (Saturday, July 7, 1954 à 7PM, death at his home, square Vergennes, Paris (15th arrondissement).

As this lady seems to have the rights, I'll ask her if she'll accept the photos. :)

In the meantime, OK to remove the photos from Commons and to restore them no later than January 1, 2025 when his works will be in the public domain in France (January 1 following the 70th anniversary of his death if I not mistaken). TCY (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Here at Wikimedia Commons, we also have to consider US copyright (see Commons:Licensing), and that runs to the end of 2029 for a 1934 sculpture. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

July 7, 1954 was a Wednesday by the way, not a Saturday. July 17, 1954 (as noted in the avis de décès) was a Saturday, so that would fit. --Rosenzweig τ 17:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Newmont Suriname, 1.png

Original video on YouTube is a news item of ATV-Networks about a gold mine in Suriname. For this TV program they used still photos taken from an airplane or so. Not clear if these photos were provided to the press or if ATV-Networks took those pictures. If ATV-Networks had used their own drone, most like they wouldn't have shown it as a still photo. Robotje (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

News item on ATV-Networks was in 2019, other website used same photo here in 2016. - Robotje (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The owner of ATV is Telesur. Why should be doubted that they have drones? Ymnes (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Иркутский национальный исследовательский технический университет Logo.png

Not a state or municipal symbol / sign. Does it overcome the threshold of originality? Maxinvestigator (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Azerbaijan's military checkpoint to the Lachin corridor.jpg

Image is not free. Wrong license NMW03 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

1) the exemption template (PD-AZ-Exempt) should be updated to the current copyrights law of 2013

2) by the current law, "News of day, data about various events and the facts of information character" are exempt from copyright, it is my understanding that that this image falls under this exemption. R.Lemkin (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that but I don't think it falls under that NMW03 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? The checkpoint was installed in April and is newsworthy. The website of the Azberbaijani Foreign Ministry, has discussed the checkpoint multiple times under the category of "Press service." The checkpoint's installation is news. R.Lemkin (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete No, this isn't "news of the day"; that sort of exemption tends to protect facts, not what essentially amounts to a stock photograph. Merely that a photograph is included in a news report does not appear to remove its copyrights; the law's English translation at WIPO states the exact exemption as News of day, data about various events and the facts of information character (Azeri: günün yenilikləri, müxtəlif hadisə və faktlar barədə informasiya xarakterli məlumatlar). But this photograph seems to go beyond that narrow exception, so this should be deleted in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  The exemption states "News of the day...and the facts of information character."

  The website of the Foreign Ministry literally has discussed the checkpoint multiple times under its "Press service," sometimes twice on the same day or on consecutive days. If this isn't "news of the day," then what is? To be clear, are you saying that no photos published by the Foreign Ministry can be exempt from copyright? R.Lemkin (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, that phrase has a technical meaning in the context of the Berne Convention; see page 30 of this guide. Article 1, Section 8 of the Berne Convention is the relevant treaty to look at, and you will notice that the language is the exact same. The exemption is quite narrow in practice. Just as Associated Press photographs taken yesterday are copyrighted in the United States, even if they are used in newspapers, so too are press photographs taken by citizens of Azerbaijan. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  delete copyrighted material. Solavirum (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

August 14

File:Hour of the Dragon, Berkley edition, 1977. Cover art and tip-in mini poster.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). Uploader has subsequently claimed a license, but it's not clear to me that the license allows re-use off of Wikipedia, which would be a COM:L problem. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added a license tag. I requested permission to use this from the person who owns the artwork, before I added it to the article. He has posted an image of this painting at https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1690952. He explains on that page how he came to own it. He says "For Sale Status: In My Permanent Collection." Maybe I claimed the wrong license. If so, please advise. I did not see a license category that said, "Yes you can use this for the Wiki page- thanks for asking" with the restriction that it can only be used for wikipedia (which can't be done). And it is not clear to me that the owner, Mr. Kirk Dilbeck, intends that anyway. Everyone knows that things on wikipedia are public.

Here is his reply to my request:

Hour of the Dragon by Ken Kelly Kirk Dilbeck <Kirk.Dilbeck@ivescrow.com>

To: You

Fri 8/4/2023 5:49 PM Yes you can use this for the Wiki page- thanks for asking. <--- This is express permission.

Best,

Kirk

Sent from my iPhone

It's a great piece of art, and Ken Kelly, the artist, was a nephew of the famous Frank Frazetta and followed in his footsteps, but I have messed with this too much. I'm not going to ask Mr. Dilbeck again; why don't you? The other artwork in the article is lame. If you, AntiCompositeBot, still want to delete this, go ahead. I own the book and I can take a poorly focused shot of the cover or the tip-in poster and post it instead. I will give everyone permission to copy it from wikipedia. Regards. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I note that I can copy/paste the verbiage from the other covers and change a few words and it would be acceptable. Right? Give me a week or so and I'll do that. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

Thank you for your reply. I brought this to DR rather than actioning the speedy because of some phrasing with the license, but upon digging a bit more it looks like this is a U.S. work from 1977; absent a copyright notice, this would be {{PD-US-no-notice}}, so this might actually be fine even with the phrasing on the license (we could {{PD-art}} in light of COM:COREL).

My only issue would be w.r.t. ascertaining the date of publication rather than creation, but the cover was made (and sold) along with the artwork, so I think we're OK to go with a 1977 publication date.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Unfortunately looks like no progress in establishing if this is out of copyright. "Yes you can use this for the Wiki page" is unfortunately not permission to free license the image. I have therefore tagged the image as missing permission. If confirmation of free license can be sent per COM:VRT, great. Otherwise, to be deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 01.jpg

Logo above COM:TOO Netherlands and COM:FOP Netherlands is probably invalid on stickers. Jonteemil (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• See also: "Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 02.jpg", as it's the same sticker. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sol de america escudo.png

We need COM:EVID that it qualifies for PD-old. A 100 old logo can still be copyrighted if the author died >100 years ago. Jonteemil (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment That would be less than 70 years ago, per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Paraguay. And this is not a 100-year-old logo; it's a 114-year-old logo. Your arguments still obtain, but the chance that the logo's creator was alive less than 70 years ago are significantly lower than if it were 100 years old and the creator had to be dead for 100 years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 02.jpg

Per "Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.V. 't Zandt sticker, Groningen (2020) 01.jpg". Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Japan Rugby League One logo.svg

Possibly above COM:TOO Japan. Jonteemil (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Chinese Taipei Rugby Football Union logo.png

Above COM:TOO Taiwan which is very low. Jonteemil (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stanstead-Lodge-1949-1200x8891.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag)

1949 British photograph possibly {{PD-UK-unknown}} but it would still be under copyright in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep The uploader quite clearly left this description "This photograph belongs to Stanstead Lodge, Lewisham which has the copyright for the photograph. The current owners of the Lodge have given permission to use this photograph, the only copy of which hangs in a room at the Lodge. It is unknown who the photographer was or who took the photograph on behalf of the Lodge". No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is public domain in the UK, but the current owners of the Lodge cannot assume the rights of the photographer, and the copyright for the photograph was restored by URAA since this photograph only became public domain in the UK on January 1, 2020 which is after January 1. 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stickstoffdioxid an der Station Kiel-Theodor-Heuss-Ring.svg and File:Stickstoffdioxid an der Station Kiel-Theodor-Heuss-Ring 2.svg

Please delete first versions as source has changed. For the old source I now was not able to find any explicit license. Of course the data in this form is probable not protected, but the first versions are not needed anymore. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Unité d'habitation de Firminy-Vert.jpg

Architectural copyright copyvio. There is no commercial freedom of panorama in France, and Le Corbusier is not yet dead for more than 70 years, so this building is still under his posthumous copyright as of this writing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

File:God Mother Kafé 44.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is nto the author as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

August 15

Files in Category:1939 stamps of Italy

The licenses on these images are wrong and stamps of Italy are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the designers death in the meantime. In this case there's no evidence that the designer, C. Cametti, has been dead for more then 70 years. So the images should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:Centenario delle ferrovie - valore da 20 cent - carminio - 1939 - francobollo del Regno D'Italia.jpg
• File:ITA 1939 MiNr0620 pm B002.jpg
• File:ITA 1939 MiNr0621 pm B002.jpg
• File:ITA 1939 MiNr0622 pm B002.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:1994 stamps of Nicaragua

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Nicaragua stamps from this country are copyrighted per the normal term of 70+ after the designers death. Which clearly hasn't passed yet in this case. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:André Kana-Biyik vs Carlos Valderrama 1994 stampsheet of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Enzo Francescoli 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:FIFA Cup players 1994 stampsheet of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Franco Baresi 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Freddy Rincón 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Luis García Postigo 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Raí 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Roy Wegerle 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg
• File:Thomas Dooley 1994 stamp of Nicaragua.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:大甲鎮農會.png

This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as no permission (No permission since). TOO? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:广州大学校训.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). TOO? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete: Calligraphy/handwriting work is considered copyrightable in China. See COM:TOO China.

File:رقیه بنت الحسین.png

This file was initially tagged by Modern Sciences as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this is not own work. This looks a lot like {{PD-text}}, so I'm doubtful that we actually need permission here, but is it in-scope? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I think this is in scope, considering that we host hundreds of similar files in Category:Names in Arabic calligraphy. Also, image search brings no results. HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:2010-gorsko-galeria-rzezby-ptakow.jpg

photo of artwork without permission from author of this sculptures. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Milano, 1999 - C'era una volta una fabbrica.pdf

Notwithdtanding the previous License review, this PDF contains a series of press clippings which would not necessarily be licenseable under Creative Commons terms. The document itself doesn't contain a clear indidcation of Creative Commons release. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• The licensing statement has been provided by the municipality of Milan, which hosts this scan on behalf of the school which published the work. The editor is s:it:Autore:Giuseppe Deiana, known to use free licenses. The inclusion of quotations doesn't alter the overall licensing status. Nemo 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The press clippings clearly can't just be re-used without permission and there's no reason to think they optained it. I don't think the fair use thing is valid either since its apparently whole pages of clippings from the originals. You can't just copy complete pages of an original document and then republish them under the guise of fair use. That's not how it works. - Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

File:National Football Museum Manchester 5714 (14200951042).jpg

Artwork located in a UK museum, The concern is that UK FoP does not cover 2D art. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:National Football Museum, Manchester (Ank Kumar) 08.jpg

UK FoP does not cover 2D art such as posters. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:National Football Museum, Manchester (Ank Kumar) 09.jpg

UK FoP does not cover 2d art such as posters ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:National Football Museum, Manchester (Ank Kumar) 10.jpg

UK FoP does not cover 2d artwork ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tammy Wynette--1975.jpg

Copyrighted — Racconish ^💬 07:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Improv Themes 1953.png

Adriaan Engels dead in 2003 [24]. eien20 (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bartholomäus Bruyn d. Ä. 012.jpg

File:Bartholomäus Bruyn (I) - Portret van een ridder - GG 868 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg, File:Bartholomäus Bruyn d. Ä., , Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie - Bildnis eines Ordensritters - GG 868 - Kunsthistorisches Museum.jpg Oursana (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kubah-masjid.jpg

violating no-FoP in Indonesia Veracious (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:FC Cartagena Logo.png

Link provided is a dead link. It is not specified who this "Kakashi" author is, and if he has just drawn an existing logo himself for his website. There is no indication that FC Cartagena itself has given permission for its logo to be shared, and this page on their website strongly indicates it hasn't https://www.fccartagena.es/aviso-legal Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094934080).jpg

1955 drawing published in work by Methun/Wiley - Not Public domain ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep: published in 1955 where I see there is no copyright notice, so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Embryogenesis in plants (1955)

Sourced from 1955 work by Methun/Wiley, Not necessarily Public domain.

• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (20660304194).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094903890).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21094920720).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21095159698).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272449902).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272508892).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21272519742).jpg
• File:Embryogenesis in plants (1955) (21283131295).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep: published in 1955 where I see there is no copyright notice, so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Claude Wardlaw was British and died in 1985 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/appliedsedimenta50tras/

Diagrams from 1950 published by Wiley. Not necessarily PD.

• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19746663325).jpg
• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19559941359).jpg
• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19123942584).jpg
• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19746667645).jpg
• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19558486770).jpg
• File:Applied sedimentation (1950) (19558417628).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep: published in 1950 where I see a copyright notice, but doing a renewal search returns just three renewal results for this author and none for this title or this date: so is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-not renewed}} as its copyright details.

Also noted - https://oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb0580022s;doc.view=content&chunk.id=div00024&toc.depth=1&brand=oac4&anchor.id=0 confirming the author as American. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bio-ecology (1939) (20362769912).jpg

1939 image from work published by J Wiley and Sons, Not necessarily PD. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Only one title by this author renewed for a 1939 book called Plant-biology, so {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies. ShakespeareFan00 you appear to be doing several drive-by deletion nominations without any investigation that I've figured out in a few minutes to save several files. Ww2censor (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cytochemistry- a critical approach (1953) (20639762998).jpg

Sourced to 1 952 by J Wiley and Sons, Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep this book does not appear to have had its copyright renewed per this search so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Ww2censor (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• James_Danielli was British and was still alive in the 1980's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/biochemistryofse00mann/

Sourced to a 1953 publication by Methun/Wiley - Not necessarily PD as claimed.

• File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20183080508).jpg
• File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (19748358104).jpg
• File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20371036325).jpg
• File:The biochemistry of semen (1954) (20362530802).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep: published in 1954 where I see there is no copyright notice, so it is in the public domain and should have {{PD-US-no notice}} as its copyright details. Ww2censor (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not seeing a renwal, but the primary author was working in the United Kingdom. Thaddeus Robert Rudolph Mann (4 December 1908 – 27 November 1993) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/elementsofecolog00clar/

Sourced to a 1954 publication by Wiley - Not necessarily PD

• File:Elements of ecology (1954) (20628306903).jpg
• File:Elements of ecology (1954) (21249320825).jpg
• File:Elements of ecology (1954) (21061502918).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply Ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Biochemistry of plants and animals, an introduction (1960) (20184919509).jpg

Sourced to a 1960 publication by Wiley. Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Besides which, that image is like PD anyway. Ww2censor (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Design for a brain; the origin of adaptive behavior (1960) (20857251826).jpg

Sourced to a 1960 publication by Wiley, Not necessarily PD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep while this has a copyright notice there is no result of any renewal so {{PD-US-not renewed}} should apply. Ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• William Ross Ashby (6 September 1903 – 15 November 1972) was British. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:LIFE.svg

This file was initially tagged by Emu as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. If this is really logo of political party, then maybe the logo has educational value. I allow a week for discussion. Taivo (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/alphaamanitincon00henc/

Sourced to a 1979 thesis , Identifiable author and not a Federal work that I can see.

• File:Alpha-amanitin-concanavalin A conjugates as inhibitors of specific cell types (1979) (17923196689).jpg
• File:Alpha-amanitin-concanavalin A conjugates as inhibitors of specific cell types (1979) (17486816274).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/bulletinsofameri305pale/

Sourced to a 1979 journal, The journal itself doesn't seem to have an obvious notice in the first few pages.

• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20315693829).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20493602482).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20476135646).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19879812164).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20502566885).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20315804199).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19881482743).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19879745644).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20314420470).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19879688764).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20314345670).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20315754089).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20315835889).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20314311510).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20493569322).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19881585233).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19879683904).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (19881566603).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20315864559).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20493580872).jpg
• File:Bulletins of American paleontology (1979) (20502502485).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Rem Re-Zero Cosplay otaku.jpg

Original version: File:Cosplayers of Rem and Ram at FFACG 20160715a.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Best management practices for grazing Montana (1999) (20367195035).jpg

Sourced to a 1999 publication of a State agency in Montana. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Angre Rue Grison n°19.jpg

We have a claim in the ticket:2023081010004811 that the photo was made from a private garden without permission. Initially I thought that it was made from this street position but Google view shows trees there that were not much smaller 3 years ago. Also, metadata does not suggest about using tele. If the photo was not made from a public location, we may have not only privacy infringement, but also a copyright problem, depending on the architect death date. (FoP works only in public locations.) @Torsade de Pointes: can you comment on these, please? Ankry (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The picture has been taken from a public place, namely : from a narrow street running behind the pictured house. You can easily verify it if you ask ‘Rue Chasse Lotteau, Angre Honnelles’ in Google Street View (go to the southern part of the mentioned street). Best regards. Torsade de Pointes (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but not convincing to me. As you can see in the linked above Google street image, the space between trees is so narrow that it is unlikely to make a good photo of the building from Rue Chasse Lotteau. Moreover, I doubt if the photo could be made from the street (which is 70m away from the building) using 16mm lens (which has view angle ~100 degrees). But I would appreciate another opinion. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What you see in Street View is the situation as it was ten years ago. Since then, the trees have grown taller, making more likely that there would be sufficient space between the trunks to take that photograph. I can’t remember exactly of course, but what I’m sure about is that I did not jump over the wall to take that picture!—Torsade de Pointes (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person requesting that the image be removed because it's not the facade visible from the main street! This is our private garden! This garden has a 2m wall all around the house. It is therefore not possible to obtain this view without climbing the wall or taking a ladder (or other indiscretion). We've lived in this house for 30 years, so we've known about all the changes for several years, and this wall hasn't changed. On the other hand, this photo is no more than 5 years old (there were other plantations before that). Please remove this photo. 95.182.192.53 07:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Sjøforsvarets avdelingsvåpen.png

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution around edges. Worldlydev (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Larvea and Webbing - Cydalima perspectalis.jpg

"Photo courtesy of Matteo Maspero and Andrea Tantardini, Centro MiRT - Fondazione Minoprio (IT)". Not a U.S. Government work. Metadata links to https://gd.eppo.int/ which doesn't appear to have a Creative Commons license. Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure if it makes a difference, but it says it is PD on flickr. P,TO 19104 (pls ping!) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does have the Public Domain Mark, but I don't know why it would have that. Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Guards Armoured Division D-Day.png

Already made here: File:Guards Armoured Division Structure.png Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Alte Nationalgalerie, Arnold Böcklin, Selbstbildnis mit fiedelndem Tod.JPG

we have several others of that image without the reflecting light. Not used in any project as well Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Zunächst sollte man feststellen, dass das von mir hochgeladene Bild gut gelungen ist. Die geringfügige Reflexion im oberen Bildbereich gibt dem Foto sogar eine gewisse Lebendigkeit.

Natürlich kann man das auch anders sehen, und ich wäre somit nicht beleidigt, würde das Bild tatsächlich gelöscht. Dguendel 14:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:1872 Boecklin Selbstbildnis mit fiedelndem Tod anagoria.JPG

we have several others without the reflecting light. Used in one project before I exchanged it already with a better one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logotipo TV Cidade Nova Mutum.png

Possibly exceeds threshold of originality * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep COM:INUSE and I doubt this is above COM:TOO Brazil or COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wuppertal Sankt Laurentius innen 38.JPG

unbrauchbar aufgrund der starken Unschärfe Im Fokus (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:München (9497915918).jpg

fully copyrighted, no FoP (because temporary advertisem.) Mateus2019 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Crop the left half of the photo away and  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Opening van de Daniël den Hoed kliniek (1965) (cropped).jpg

Copyrighted sculpture by Robert van der Veen. The photograph is CC0, but the underlying work is still in copyright. Multichill (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) This includes the photos in Category:Works by Robert van der Veen. Commons:De minimis might apply to some, but having them in Category:Works by Robert van der Veen kind of defeats the argument.

• File:Burgemeester Thomassen (r.) in gesprek bij het borstbeeld van Daniël den Hoed, Bestanddeelnr 918-3539.jpg
• File:Heren en dames tijdens de opening, Bestanddeelnr 918-3543.jpg
• File:Jongeman naast borstbeeld van Daniël den Hoed, Bestanddeelnr 918-3540.jpg
• File:Opening van de Daniël den Hoed kliniek (1965).jpg

Not sure if Robert van der Veen (Q117353355) is still alive or not. Multichill (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep one file (File:Heren en dames tijdens de opening, Bestanddeelnr 918-3543.jpg), because of Commons:De minimis. Delete other 4 files. Delete Category:Works by Robert van der Veen. --- Vysotsky (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:King Michael I and Queen Anne of Romania.jpg

1. The King was exiled from Romania by the communist government. The marriage took place in Greece. The author is unknown. There is no reason why Romanian law should determine copyright. 2. The marriage took place in 1948. There is no reason that a decree issued in 1956 shall determine copyright. HENCE: NO VALID LICENSING. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

File:CSD Berlin 2023 015.webm

copyrighted music in video, not cc licensed Victorgrigas (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As the subject are the people and the protest on the video the music in the background could be considered de minimis. GPSLeo (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I added a revision without audio track. However I think the music is de minimis. Nobody would watch the video for its music content. The same music can be found at youtube or spotify for free in superior quality and in different versions without background noise and complete from second 1 to the end of the track. It would also be difficult to find one specific song within the more than 5 hours running time of the video. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

August 16

File:Triple Bridge (Ljubljana) in 2023.01.jpg

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free architecture by J. Plečnik (d. 1957); built in 1932. TadejM ^(t/p) 00:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bridge over Kamniška Bistrica in Kamnik.jpg

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free architecture by M. Pipenbaher. TadejM ^(t/p) 01:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Aagreatwestern.png

I'm not finding this company, so presumably little-known and out of scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's a logo of a Brazilian football club created in 1928 and dissolved in 1954, see https://historiadofutebol.com/blog/?p=71836 Not an own work, of course. But maybe we can keep it after changing the license: Brazilian anonymous works are in PD upon 70 years after the first publication. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have no objection to keeping this file if it could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023)

Not covered by FOP Spain, as there is not any shred of panorama here - instead, the images and crops only cover copyrighted material, interfering in the author legitimate interests of exploitation of his work. Notably, it goes against this disposition of the law: "The above may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer."

• File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 02.jpg
• File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 03.jpg
• File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 04.jpg
• File:Historia de Málaga (Idígoras, 2023) 07.jpg
• File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 02.jpg
• File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 03.jpg
• File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 04.jpg
• File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 05.jpg
• File:Mural by Idígoras in Málaga 08.jpg
• File:Sinking of the SMS Gneisenau (Detail from History of Malaga by Idígoras).jpg
• File:Umar ibn Hafsun (caricature).jpg

Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Speedy delete as this is merely the reproduction of an artwork not owned by the uploader, in spite of being uploaded as "own work". Rkieferbaum (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The photos are my own work. The public mural is by Ángel Idígoras. He is duly credited in the image description and in the wikidata item of the mural. All my images of public street murals are my own work and their creators are duly credited in the image. You can check it here. Dcapillae (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

These files correspond to a public artwork. It is a mural that is publicly displayed on the street in Malaga, Spain. In this panoramic image you can see the complete mural. These files are only extracts from the mural (check it out here). It is a work of public art in the street. --Dcapillae (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Spain allows 2D art per COM:FOP. If you want to change our interpretation of Spanish law, you should start a thread at COM:VPC instead of opening individual DRs that argue for an interpretation of the law which is contrary to longstanding consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts Pardon me, but who are you, to have any expectation that your personal opinion would prevail over what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists, and why do you have any expectation that somehow COM:VPC would prevail over these courts? Not only Spanish FOP (article 32.2) do not apply to copyrighted works extracted from it's panorama, due to its obvious interference with the normal exploitation of the work by its author, but there are actually serious doubts that it still exists at all for commercial use after the introduction of article 40bis - "Tras la introducción en nuestro ordenamiento del artículo 40 bis LPI 183, la doctrina que se ha ocupado de esta cuestión se ha pronunciado unánimemente en contra de permitir, al amparo del artículo 35.2 LPI, la utilización de obras ubicadas en la vía pública cuando haya fines lucrativos / After the introduction into our legal system of Article 40 bis of the LPI 183, the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." (source, p. 75) but I'll not go into this last one, at least for now, since it would revoke the entire Spanish FOP. The cases in this DR are similar to others that have a clear court sentence in Spain against the commercialization of such works. See, for instance, the jurisprudence and court cases cited here, page 74 and following ones, notably the cases of "Conjunto Escultorico Los Raqueros" and "Toro de Osborne", among others, which ruled against the commercialization of reproductions of these works by 3rd persons, despite being located in a public space. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do not have a solid enough understanding of Spanish law to form a personal opinion on the matter. However, it is important to note that what you call "what has been consistently decided by the Spanish courts, and written numerous times by Spanish jurists" is nothing more than your personal interpretation of what Spanish legal professionals have written, which does not override the community's interpretation of the same. The community may decide to change their interpretation at VPC if you provide sufficiently compelling arguments, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @King of Hearts No, it is not my interpretation at all, as can be seen from the court cases, quotes and sources mentioned above, which apparently you didn't care to read. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Did the courts rule specifically on this mural? If not, then your claim that the precedent is applicable here is original research. Whenever we have general jurisprudence that appears to affect a very large category of images, we always want to first filter it through the community, who may: 1) decide that such images are free enough for Commons anyways (e.g. we have long allowed COM:DM photos even though they prohibit certain types of derivative works such as extracting a 2D billboard from a cityscape in the US, and this restriction technically violates the Four Freedoms of Free Cultural Works); 2) find contradictory jurisprudence from other sources. Since we don't know if your examples are cherry-picked or truly representative of the Spanish legal consensus, it is currently nothing more than your own original research/synthesis of the sources.

  Since you do not seem to be arguing that this work is any different from any other 2D murals in Spain, let's not waste any more time in this DR and resolve the issue at a global level at VPC. Then these images will be kept or deleted based on the global community consensus interpretation of the law. If everyone else backs up your interpretation, then we can codify it in COM:FOP Spain and move on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dcapillae I'm not contesting (for now) that the mural inserted in the surrounding scenery is a violation of copyright, though the Spanish jurisprudence seems to point that indeed it is. However, any instance of these works that isolate the work from it's surrounding panorama and use it for commercial purposes are indeed copyright violations in Spain, as has been consistently ruled by Spanish courts (see above). Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

My only interest in this matter is to know if I can continue documenting photographically the murals in Malaga, Spain. I have been doing it for several years. I am photographically documenting the murals, graffiti, memorials, public art and street art in Malaga and wish to continue doing so. But if I am informed that my images are not welcome, I will stop doing it. In that case, it would be convenient to delete many other images that I have been uploading. I leave it to the discretion of the administrators. In my galleries are all the images I have uploaded to Commons. Thanks! Dcapillae (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dcapillae Look, this is nothing personal against you as a photographer, it's a mistake commonly done and has nothing to do with the quality or pertinence of your work, which I vehemently applaud. While I'm absolutely sure that the commercialization of the work extracted from its panorama is a violation of copyright in Spain, as is in many other jurisdictions like Brazil and Portugal, I still hope that the reproduction of the work inserted in the panorama would be allowed under the current law. However, a number of sources I consulted say the opposite, so I'll be opening a topic about it in COM:VPC, so that we as a community can check if FOP in Spain exists at all and eventually find more sources clarifying its status, or otherwise act accordingly to remove the copyright violations from Commons. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I know it's not personal. I try to be respectful of Commons conventions and will accept the decision of the administrators. In no case will I take it personally against me or my work. Dcapillae (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete It seems pretty clear to me after reading through the discussion on the copyright board that Spanish FoP doesn't cover images being used for commercial purposes. To cite something from a source that was provided by DarwIn "the doctrine that has dealt with this issue has unanimously ruled against allowing, under the protection of Article 35.2 of the LPI, the use of works located in public places when there are profit-making purposes." Also another source says ""Authorization or permission required not for transforming or photographing the work, but for exploiting the results of the transformation." I'm not really sure how anyone can claim a unanimous decision against images being used for commercial purposes is just DarwIn's "personal interpretation of Spanish law" or whatever. Guidelines are supposed to be based on actual cases, the opinions of legal experts, and the scope of the project scope (which doesn't allow for images that can't be used commercially). All of those things point in the direction of deleting these images. Not to say it's not worth having a wider discussion about, but the images should clearly be deleted regardless. It's not like they can't just be un-deleted if the discussion goes a different way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama section says that "authorization from the copyright holder is required for commercial use of photographs". I understand that you are referring to copyrighted works. How can I know if a street mural is protected by copyright? I have many murals photographed and none (that I know of) are copyrighted. --Dcapillae (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in this matter because if the images of this mural are deleted, I think the administrators should also delete all the other images of street murals that I have uploaded (and many others that are in Commons). I have put a lot of work into this and it would hurt me, but if that is the right decision, I accept it. What I would not understand would be to delete these images and not delete all the others in Commons.--Dcapillae (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation and if we know who the artist is or not. Like if a business hires an artist to paint a mural on the side of their shop and said artist puts their signature on the mural then it's reasonable to assume the work is copyrighted. You'd probably be fine if the mural is just random graffiti on a highway underpass and there's no way to prove who created it though. In this case we know who the artist is and I wouldn't call it graffiti. So it's probably worth airing on the side of caution by just deleting the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not graffiti, it's a mural. Almost every mural I have photographed has an author. I usually research each piece to find out the name of the author and the date of creation. That, in addition to taking photographs, is what my contributions to Commons consist of. You can check my gallery of murals and graffiti and you will see that most murals and graffiti incorporate the name of the author, as in this case.

I initiated this project as part of my contributions to OpenStreetMap. I have been working for years to geolocate public art, street art and memorials in Malaga (Spain), adding their location on the map and uploading at least one image to Commons. I insist that I don't understand why this mural should be deleted and not all the others in Commons. I am saddened by the deletion of my contributions, but I accept the decision if it is correct and reasoned. In this case I don't understand why this mural should be deleted and not all the others in Commons. Dcapillae (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it graffiti. Nor would I. The reason I mentioned it is because there's Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#graffiti, which has this line "Graffiti are essentially murals that have been painted illegally. Photographs of graffiti have long been allowed on Commons. As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." That's the only reason I can think of why these images would be allowed, but as you say we know who the original artist is and they can prove authorship without admitting to doing something illegal in the process. It would be hard to argue that they qualify for freedom of panorama since the Spanish courts has ruled against commercial use of works situated in public spaces where the work had been extracted from it's surrounding panorama given that these are zoomed in shots of the artwork that are devoid of the surroundings. So I'm not really sure what other grounds there would be to keep the images. That's just my opinion though.

I initiated as part of my contributions to OpenStreetMap. Might I suggest using Mapillary? I know it's not popular with OpenStreetMap users since they got bought out by Facebook but they don't really care about FoP and I'm pretty sure you can re-upload them to Mappillary using their desktop app if the images have coordinates. I'm pretty sure there's a tag for them in OSM that's supported at least by OsmAnd, if not other apps, to. Really, I'd recommend doing that even if the images are kept since It's always good to images backed up and supported in multiple places just in case anyway. Apparently there's even a tag for images hosted on flickr. Although I don't know what OsmAnd software supports it, but you might also look into to that. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still interested in knowing why images like this mural cannot be uploaded to Commons when there are many street murals on Commons whose author is known and they are not illegal works. I would be disappointed with the decision of the administrators if they deleted only these images and not all other murals on Commons. The guidelines should be the same for everyone. Dcapillae (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Graffiti can also have a known author and not be illegal. For example, this graffiti by Octavi Serra (Aryz).

•  Keep. These pictures are bidimensional reproductions of works in permanent display at publicly-accesible places and therefore they are subject to the FoP exception pursuant to article 35.2 of the Spanish Copyright Act. As things stand now, the question of transformation has been the subject to doctrinal debate, but I couldn't find any judgement that holds that it is a copyright infringement to remove the surrounding panorama of a FoP picture. As I've stated elsewhere you can find as much sources and scholars arguing that FoP pictures do not need to be accesory or incidental, and that some acts of transformation are also allowed or even a logic consequence attached to taking the photograph, the video or the drawing (cf. Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano, Martín Salamanca or Rodríguez Tapia, to name some). Who's right? If anything, the question is not settled; precisely because of the absence of case law. I don't think that by simply uploading and hosting these pictures in Commons we are causing the author an "unjustifiable" prejudice to his legitimate interests (the paternity and integrity moral rights are being fully respected) nor that this is against the "normal exploitation" of his work, which in any case must be proven. Both concepts are dynamic and need a case-by-case interpretation because there's no one-size-fit-all answer. About these limits, the Spanish Supreme Court (Judgement no. STS 3942/2012 of April 3, 2012) held that (intellectual) property is not an absolute right and is limited by the Spanish constitution to serve a social function according to the laws, and while copyright exceptions have to be narrowly construed, nor article 40 bis LPI nor the closed system of exceptions can be used abusively nor to foresee absurd hypotheses, nor prevent the ius usus inocui doctrine in copyright law, subject to a case-by-case analysis pursuant to both article 40 bis of the Spanish Copyright Act and article 7 of the Spanish Civil Code. Then there's the attempt of some scholars to extrapolate the Swedish court decision of COM:FOP Sweden to Spain. None of the sources that argue that the Swedish judgement shall apply to Spain can identify any Spanish judgement that has ruled about a similar case, and openly say so. Nonetheless Hernando Collazo (to name one) thinks it may apply because in her opinion a Supreme Court judgement of December 2012 that ruled about a paid online database for ringtones supports her views. That case involved a for-profit company taking parts of copyrighted songs, transforming them into ringtones and then putting them up for sale; nothing like that is being done here, nor songs are a matter of of FoP either. Respectfully, —MarcoAurelio 10:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Seaview Wharf - Autumn 2019 (fuji~a170~DSCF2725JPG) ~256 colour indexed.png

Offers no real use? Text mdnp (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hEireann, 1937, government of Ireland.jpg

Uploader suggests that this file is eligible for "cc-zero". And that the copyright owner (the Government of Ireland) has released this into the public domain waived all of their rights. I can see no evidence of this. And I note that the same file is used on the EN project (en:File:BunreachtHead.JPG) with a Fair Use claim. With a suggestion that this file represents the cover of a work that is copyrighted. Something's wrong somewhere... Johnj1995 (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a photograph of the top half of the standard edition of the booklet, Constitution of Ireland, released by the Irish government in the 20th century (not sure if still available in this form... the booklet was free and widely distributed and the image will be familiar to may in Ireland of a certain age)

If you enter into Google the terms

Constitution of Ireland 1937

you can see lots of similar photos of the booklet.

There is no mention of copyright inside the booklet and I am faurly sure that the government could not copyright the publication of its Constitution anyway. I see Amazon has one copy on sale for a cool $96.74 ... and I am sure private interests will be very happy to see public goods copyrighted, or give that impression !

There you have it...

TGcoa (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

TGcoa, none of what you posted suggests that it can be used commercially, as required by COM:Licensing. Merely giving out booklets for free does not mean that they lack any copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yea, but {{PD-IrishGov}} should apply here. According to the description, it was published more than 50 years ago. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. Excellent! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Vittorio Grassi

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy the standard copyright term is 70+ years after the death of the artist. In this case the artist, Vittorio Grassi, died in 1958. So these image are copyrighted until at least 2,029, if not longer.

• File:Amaro Felsina Ramazzotti, immagine pubblicitaria, 1925 - san dl SAN IMG-00002973.jpg
• File:Assisi - Vittorio Grassi. LCCN2004675365.jpg
• File:Venise et le Lido travel poster 1920s.jpg
• File:Vittorio Grassi - Vita Nuova, pag. 4, facsimile.jpg
• File:Vittorio grassi, gnomo basculante, 1914 (coll. priv.).jpg
• File:Vittorio grassi, vaso con barche a vela, 1920 ca.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 16 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 in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig

 Delete: the template {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to Italian stamps per these discussions User talk:Katharinaiv#Italian stamps and User talk:Ruthven#Italian stamps and the revised entry Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Italy. Also the designer's death year means the stamp is still in copyright until 2043: Guido Marussig (1885-1972)

• File:ITA 1930 MiNr0330 pm B002.jpg
• File:ITA 1932 MiNr0409 mt B002.jpg

Ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 2 January 2018 (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 in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig

Italian stamps are copyright for 70 years after the designer's death per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Stamps and {{PD-Italy}} does not apply to stamps. These stamps are attributed by the uploader to Guido Marussig, (1885–1972) whose works are copyright until 2043.

• File:ITA 1930 MiNr0330 mt B002a.jpg
• File:ITA 1932 MiNr0409 mt B002a.jpg

Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: These look like recreations of previously deleted files by the same uploader. Ww2censor (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

---

 Deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Stamps by Guido Marussig

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy stamps by this designer, Guido Marussig, are copyright until at least 2,043. So the image should be deleted until then unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0168 mt B002a.jpg
• File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0186 mt B002.jpg
• File:Fiume 1924 MiNr0190 pm B002.jpg
• File:Francobollo di Fiume - 1 lira - 1923 - San Vito il protettore di Fiume.jpg
• File:Francobollo di Fiume - 25 centesimi - 1923 - arco romano.jpg
• File:PoscardFiume1921.jpg
• File:Stamp Fiume 1920 25c Annunzio.jpg
• File:StampFiume(Italy)1924Michel184.jpg
• File:StampFiume1923Michel158.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think these stamps might be consired works of applied arts. If so, {{PD-Croatia}} applies.  Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

They are all licensed with PD-Italy. So I assume the proper copyright would be Italy. Or at least both places, but they should be deleted regardless if that's the case. Otherwise the files should have been licensed using a template for Italy. Although even if the copyright is for Croatia the artist of the stamps died in 1972. So PD-Croatia doesn't apply anyway. Unless your going to argue that stamps are applied art, but then I'd point out currency in Croatia is copyrighted and there's zero reason stamps would be PD as applied art if currency isn't. Meaning there's still zero justification to assume these stamps are in the public domain no matter which countries laws you want to apply. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dictador General Tiburcio Carias Andino.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Taichi as no permission (No permission since). 1933 Honduras photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:USAAF B-17, Malang 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no source (No source since). 1942 US photo (possible PD-USGov), should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BPM demolition team, Borneo, 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no permission (No permission since). 1942 photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Aerial Photo Balikpapan Ablaze 1942.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no permission (No permission since). 1942 photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo del Gobierno de la Generalitat 2021-2025.png

This file was initially tagged by Wyslijp16 as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo Pixminds.png

This file was initially tagged by Jmcgnh as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hertha Berlin Crest 1892-1923.png

This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hertha Berlin 1968 - 1974.png

This file was initially tagged by Ruthven as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Comendador José de Sousa Faria.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Krd as no permission (No permission since). Likely to be public domain, so a proper DR seems in order. I could not access the specified source, but I'm on a wonky connection right now so that could be my connection rather than the link itself. Jmabel ! talk 07:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link:

Comendador José de Sousa Faria | José de Sousa Faria Fotogra… | Flickr

This is a 1910's photo, circa 1913, uploaded by Sousa Faria Family archives which is run by Intelectual Editora, a company owned by the Sousa Faria family. The photo was taken by A. Sousa Faria, a member of the family. Steve Rogers Jr (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Portugal-photo applies as well. --RAN (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Krd: do you still have an issue here, or can we consider this resolved? - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  This file was tagged by me and was deleted and then, in the same day, re-uploaded from Flickr. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @Kacamata: be that as it may, are you saying Steve and Richard are wrong? They seem to have a rather good rationale for keeping this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Jmabel No, I'm not saying they are wrong, but I don't think the source and permission are reliable at this point. Re-uploading it through Flickr seems like an away to bypass deletion. However, this picture is likely in public domain, so it seems pointless to delete it, specially because it's being used. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Evros Soufli (logo).svg

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Logo. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing really original here. A rather generic design, some letters, two stars. Elements that are present in hundreds if not thousands of sports logos. 🤷‍♂️ Again, I'm failing to see any reasonable justification for deletion of this file, especially if a speedy one, as it was originally tagged for. --🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Beijing Municipal Administration & Communication Card

per COM:CB#Payment_cards, the pattern/design of the card may meet the threshold of originality in COM:TOO China.

• File:China IMG 4075 (29707868516).jpg
• File:China IMG 4076 (29631602482).jpg
• File:China Beijing Transportation Card (44042316380).jpg

Larryasou (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Azi Aslanov wartime.jpg

PD-RU-exempt is not used for images of military personnel as the images are separately copyrighted by the photographer who took the image. Bookish Worm (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Image is from an official ID document and such images have been traditionally used under PD-RU-exempt. Alternatively, pamyat naroda is a publication of the Russian Ministry of Defense and its images can be licensed under mil.ru. Or, since photographer is unknown PD-Russia would apply. This is the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD-RU-exempt (mug shots), Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Alikhan_Bukeikhanov_in_1937.jpg, both kept. Kges1901 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Francesco Netti - Fumatrice al Sofà.jpg

Si tratta di un falso venduto presso una casa d'aste. L'opera in questione non è di Francesco Netti ma di un pittore spagnolo, Francisco Masriera y Manovens. Il titolo del quadro originale è "Joven descansado" (1894) ed è custodito al Museo del Prado di Madrid https://www.museodelprado.es/coleccion/obra-de-arte/joven-descansando/e39308d2-9c30-4c50-a1e7-ffe0d3ec023e Francesco Netti (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Francesco Netti - Autoritratto.jpg

Trattasi di un falso proveniente da mercato delle aste. Francesco Netti non ha mai realizzato questo autoritratto. Si dovrebbe modificare il titolo in "Ritratto" Francesco Netti (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Water carriers (unknown date), by Francesco Netti.jpg

Se ne propone la cancellazione in quanto proveniente dal mercato delle aste e di dubbia paternità. Potrebbe trattarsi di un falso. Il quadro non è mai stato citato dalla critica e non compare nelle monografie e nei cataloghi di studiosi affermati sulla figura di Francesco Netti. Nella stessa asta in cui il quadro fu posto in vendita la prima volta il viso della donna in primo piano aveva una somiglianza sorprendente con un altro quadro nella stessa asta attribuito a Francesco Hayez. In generale sarebbe preferibile presentare l'artista su Wikipedia con opere che lo hanno reso celebre non con quelle presenti su internet e di dubbia provenienza. Francesco Netti (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete Sono d'accordo con lei, se questo quadro è un falso possiamo eliminarlo o in alternativa se la eliminazione non va a buon fine metto nella parte del creator "possbly by" Francesco Netti. Sono anche io alla ricerca e all'eliminzione di possibili falsi (come spesso capita sui siti d'aste), quindi le dò il mio consenso riguardo l'eliminazione. --Niketto sr. (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In effetti Pananti (e catawiki ancora peggio) mi sono accorto da un po' di tempo che vende tanti falsi come autentici, mi ricordo bene di un quadro di Favretto, non presente nei cataloghi ragionati e che non rispecchiava la qualità del pittore veneziano, quindi un altro punto a favore dell'eliminazione! --Niketto sr. (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Painting almost certainly fake, both in style, and because it does not appear in any catalog or monograph of the artist, and other reasons, for more information wade the deletion debate. Niketto sr. (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Vespers, footer drawing by E.H. Shepard for poem by A.A. Milne.png

Self loaded file not copyright in source country Thincat (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

August 17

File:梁熙近照.jpg

Author is TAI KWONG NG, see EXIF, not uploader shizhao (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the official photo, I think it is appropriate SOURCE: https://www.legco.gov.hk/ Kttkthomas (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cinthean flag.svg

Obscure sexuality flag, out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Obscure is an opinion and not a fact. This is a widely used flag. --Albin Schmitt (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

[Citation needed] Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep I agree, obscurity is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Israel BaAliyah.png

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Logo. Speedy previously rejected by AntiCompositeNumber, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Gay man flag chart.jpg

Unsourced, unused image, possibly inaccurate Dronebogus (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Chart used to be used on Wikidata. There is a source (WordPress blog post imported from Tumblr). It's useful to illustrate the history of the en:gay men's flags. MikutoH (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

WordPress/Tumblr are not reliable sources and “used to be used” is far from COM:INUSE Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a source. It can be considered unreliable in enwiki, not in Commons. And it's useful and harmless. This influenced the discourse from cougar flag (many similar infographics were made as you can check in the sources I put there). MikutoH (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I really find it unbelievable that Commons has no reliability standards Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus, see Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia: “Files on Wikimedia Commons do not necessarily need to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as neutral point of view and no original research.”

IMHO, if a file is used elsewhere, it is probably in scope, but I prefer to be  neutral here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you feel it is inaccurate, feel free to use {{Inaccurate}} and similar templates. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep The image was created for educational purposes and meets the basic quality standards. Kelly The Angel (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/baohushengwuxue00make/

Sourced to a 2009 Chinese language publication. This is too recent for copyright to have expired.

• File:Bao hu sheng wu xue (2009.7) (20327625066).jpg
• File:Bao hu sheng wu xue (2009.7) (20345300102).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Queerhet flag.png

Unused obscure sexuality flag, OOS Dronebogus (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep if it's an obscure sexuality, why does it have an article on enwiki? MikutoH (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The obscure part meant the flag. As you can see it’s not, and shouldn’t, be there because there’s zero evidence of its use Dronebogus (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ADOR Ｌｏｇｏ.png

This file was initially tagged by Shizhao as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/daixiezuxuefangf00xugu/

Sourced ro a 2008 Chinese(?) language publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.

• File:Dai xie zu xue fang fa yu ying yong (2008.8) (20837851451).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:/eerduosizhiwuzhi02wuji/

Sourced to a 2007 publication, This is too recent for copyright to have expired.

• File:Bidens parviflora Willd. Image from page 150 of "e er duo si zhi wu zhi" (2007.7).jpg
• File:Olgaea leucophylhi (2007.7) (20990512470).jpg
• File:Olgaea tangutica photo from page 227 of loc image on Flickr.jpg
• File:Olgaea tangutica from page 227 of loc image on Flickr.jpg
• File:E er duo si zhi wu zhi (2007.7) (20555636764).jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose These files are downloaded from Flickr where they are placed in the public domain. --Mr.Rosewater (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Can you show the original is in the public domain? If it's not then the Flickr license is irrelevant. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:HK 南區 Southern District 田灣 Tin Wan 嘉禾街 14-22 Ka Wo Street 嘉禾大廈 Ka Wo Building shop 惠康超市 Wellcome Supermarket March 2022 Px3 ice cream White Rabbit brand.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Davidavgi19

Elemento inapropiado por inexistencia Davidavgi19 (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bandera-Boiro1.png

Elemento inapropiado por inexistencia Davidavgi19 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Hungarysportseventyear

duplicate to Template:Hungarysportseventsyear Superbia23 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Verena Hubertz

The photos were taken from here, where it says you can download the portrait photos for press publications. I don't see any CC license there, so the files are copyvios and should be deleted.

• File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Annika Krüger).jpg
• File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Benjamin Jenak).jpg
• File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Linda Blatzek).jpg
• File:Verena Hubertz 2021 (Niko Roike).jpg
• File:Verena Hubertz 2021.jpg

Rosenzweig τ 11:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The files should be kept. At the time the photos were transferred to Commons, the Website was CC licensed, see the footer here and here. --Fippe 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit thin. There is no declaration or similar that the web site is CC licensed, just the text CC-BY-SA 3.0 Verena Hubertz. I'd hesitate to apply that to photos offered "für Presseveröffentlichungen" (for press publications), implying that they are not offered for any purpose as required by Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Koleje wąskotorowe Zwierzyniec-Biłgoraj (Collection of Andrzej Tajchert) 02.jpg

The picture is from the book. It is not even known whether the uploader has access to the publication. The photo was allegedly taken during the First World War. At that time, the battles of the occupiers took place in Poland. It's hard to tell if the author is a Pole. There is no evidence that the photograph was published before 1989 in Poland. The template is invalid. 5.173.118.213 11:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a photo by a professional photographer, censored by the military and released (published) by the means of photographic processing to be used as a postcard. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nuria Marín Font 2023.jpg

Block Ederim for false own works. 181.203.51.187 11:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:María Patiño 2023.jpg

Not an own work. Uploader is a serial copyviolator. 181.203.51.187 11:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, what do you mean (Uploader is a serial copyviolator)? Please verify. ToadetteEdit (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You can see that the IP reported the other uploads from the user as copyvio. I checked a couple and the images can be found on the web. Apart from that you can see the pattern: taken by profesional photographer, low resolution, no EXIF. Günther Frager (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Gustavo González.jpg

Not an own work like all other uploads by this copyviolator. 181.203.51.187 11:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Wetter, Helosciadium nodiflorum.jpg

Because it's not sure that I photographed Helosciadium. From the distance it looked like it, but could as well be Berula erecta. Because of this uncertainty it should be deleted. Pete (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Or identified. Why don't you ask for a botany forum to look at it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You can trust me that in the last few years I became expert in finding the differences between the two very similar plants. (I could offer a small series of photographs that identifies the differences between Berula and Apium.) I did not want to admit at first but in some years' distance I can say (write) that I was wrong then, wanted to find rare Apium at any cost. The plant on the photograph looks like Berula now. In the last years I also learned that Berula erecta more often exists in this area where I live in. It only exists temporarily for a few years in a place and then other plants take over. Apium can stay longer, but it vanishes too (Equisetum hyemale is able to supersede it, as I could find, by visiting old known places where it once lived). Pete (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:HK 沙田 Sha Tin 沙田正街 Shatin Centre Street 希爾頓中心 Hilton Plaza mall shop 大生生活超市 DS Groceries White rabbit milk candy September 2022 Px3.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ankur Naskar.jpg

Not an own work and user has two personal pictures for very few contributions. 186.174.89.102 14:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That is my own work. Ankurnaskar (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Anisur Rahman Shakil.jpg

Facebook 186.174.89.102 14:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Alton Cemetery plan partial.jpg

Realizing that some of these plots may have been sold but not used, so there's privacy implications. We'll reupload if we get clearance. Region of Peel Archives (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I don't understand what your privacy concerns are. Tying the plot to a living individual would require an extraordinary amount of work and yield no personal information. There are no dates of birth or addresses. I have looked at a dozen names and in at least one case, "John Smith", the name has been recycled for three generations by the family. Some of the plots only contain a family name, and some only contain a given name initial. There really are no privacy concerns. The personal information would appear on the sexton file cards, that are arranged alphabetically. They usually have the name of the owner, and contact information. BTW, a beautiful work you have created. I would love to see a schematic of it with links to Findagrave for the individuals interred. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Gado Do Prado 1994 cena 2.gif

Not educationally useful Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:DawateislamiFlag.jpg

See EXIF. Free? 186.174.89.102 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Candace Lovely and President George H.W. Bush.jpg

This image is not properly sourced and its licensing is not supported by any evidence. The supposed author and source is one of the two subjects of the photograph. Given that the photo appears to be from the Oval Office, it's possible that it is a PD-USGov photo but that's just speculation and, even so, it needs actual sourcing. Denniscabrams (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:014041 Ibrahim UrduScript.jpg

Unused text 186.174.89.102 16:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:ZyGee Profile.jpg

I like the hair style but is everything else alright? 186.174.89.102 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:WechatIMG9.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red-tailed hawk as Speedy (selfie). This file is not eligible for a COM:F10, as the user has substantial positive contributions on the English Wikipedia. However, the uploader appears to be depicted in the image, and based on contextual clues this doesn't look like a selfie. Rather, it looks like someone else took the photo. This is perfectly ordinary in terms of how social media profile pictures work, but we can't host it on Commons because the relevant rightsholder would be the creator (i.e. the photographer) rather than the uploader (i.e. the image subject). As such, this should be deleted per COM:PRP for lacking evidence of permission from the copyright holder to release the file under a free license. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Presentaciones de Fanta en Perú.jpg

COM:PACKAGING is above TOO. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment Fanta was founded in 1940. Are you sure this packaging is still copyrighted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: The company itself may have been founded in the 1940's, but the design of the modern packaging sure as hell wasn't, so it's probably still under copyright. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I take your point that they probably used glass and not plastic for bottles back then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: Not only that, but also the design of the label, which is almost certainly under copyright. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• That depends how old it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Artisam.png

This file was initially tagged by Zen 38 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: not in public domain : the painter died less than 70 years ago

1969 painting by an author who died in 2018. Undelete in 2089. Converting to DR for discussion and easier undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Uploader name matches the artist's and is claimed as an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:VSG Abend 2023.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: src = https://www.gofundme.com/f/diplomlehrgang-texter

GoFundMe was started after Commons upload, and the Uploader's name is the same as the GoFundMe organizer. Converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Robin Putzeys (talk · contribs)

Old images uploaded as "own work" and without source. It is not clear whether the images are PD in Belgium, its country of origin where copyright is life + 70 years, or the United States due to URAA. Probably File:Le couple Parys-Rousselle.jpg is fine.

• File:Émile Parys en 1942.jpg
• File:Emile Parys & collègues de travail, ca. 1920.jpg
• File:Emile Parys & Marcel Fikenne, ca. 1947.jpg
• File:Les auteurs du Monde du travail, ca. 1946.jpg
• File:Direction de la Centrale des Ouvriers Textiles de Belgique, novembre 1935.jpg
• File:Confédération Internationale des Syndicats Libres, New-York, ca. 1947.jpg
• File:Le couple Parys-Rousselle.jpg
• File:Le cabinet du ministre Troclet, 12 février 1947.jpg
• File:René Delbrouck.jpg
• File:Le Monde du Travail - première page du 8 mai 1945.jpg
• File:Joseph Leclercq.jpg
• File:Émile Parys.jpg
• File:Emile Parys 2.jpg

Günther Frager (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stuart Crow, Toronto Grand Prix.png

Usage rights on page state image is under copyright. https://digitalarchive.tpl.ca/objects/283772. At time of upload it might have said Public Domain, but since image was taken in 1991, is incredibly unlikely the image has expired. PascalHD (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Carte postale de l'Eglise du Bas de Perrigny.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). 1920 French postcard. I haven't had luck finding "Aris" as far as postcards so far. Public domain in the US, would need more information on postcard creator to determine copyright status in France. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IEEE defends duplicate publication 2015.pdf

A lengthy email is copyrightable, furthermore most academic journals will ask for some evidence of consent before allowing publication/disclosure of an e-mail between 2 parties. It's not clear if the uploader is one of the mentioned parties in the e-mail. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete as a copyright violation. To pre-emptively note some possible objections, I will note that

• Tennessee is not one of the states that put their government documents in the public domain (source)
• Regardless, most of the email is written by an employee of IEEE, a private organization

Vahurzpu (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The objection is in error. Tennessee does indeed put its government documents in the public domain, as per statute:

As used in this part and title 8, chapter 4, part 6, "public record or records" or "state record or records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency.

TN Code § 10-7-503

The email was "received ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency," namely the University of Tennessee.

The objection links to a website that is in agreement with the uploading of a state university public record:

"The Tennessee Public Records Act does not restrict subsequent use of records, or require a requestor to disclose their intended use." Mentionmart (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The email is a public record under state law. It is in the public domain and not subject to copyright. Mentionmart (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Public record, and public domain are not the same thing. A document can be public record and still subject to copyright, especially that produced by a private organisation like the IEEE. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no copyright in government documents in the public domain, as per statute:

As used in this part and title 8, chapter 4, part 6, "public record or records" or "state record or records" means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency.

TN Code § 10-7-503

The email was "received ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental agency," namely the University of Tennessee. The sender and recipient have no rights with respect to copies of the document, inasmuch as TN Code § 10-7-503 provides that copies are available upon request, and does not restrict their subsequent use. As a result, copies can be made freely and used freely, including uploads to wikimedia. Mentionmart (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition, there are numerous exceptions to the Tennessee Public Records Act. A summary is available at [25]; while I am not qualified to make a definitive statement on the matter, 49-7-120 could potentially be relevant. Omphalographer (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding TN Code 49-7-120, it creates exceptions for such things as patentable materials and trade secrets.

The university has already released this document in response to a request for records, thereby demonstrating that the document is not subject to the exceptions. Mentionmart (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Aside from anything else, this is a text file not in use. Commons doesn't host those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [Crossed out, now that there appears to be a consensus for Commons to officially host some text files that are not in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)]

  On what basis is the claim made that the text file is not in use? The content represents that it describes publication policies, which are currently in use.

  Is every wikimedia file "in use"? Mentionmart (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• On this basis: File usage on Commons

There are no pages that use this file.

If it were in use on any non-Commons Wikimedia pages, those would be indicated afterwards, but there are none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Below the "File history" section are two "file usage" sections, one titled File usage on Commons and another titled File usage on other wikis. These two sections will list all instances on Wikimedia Foundation projects where your file is currently in use.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FAQ

The objector appears to want to delete content before it can be used elsewhere, on the basis that the content has not yet been used elsewhere. Mentionmart (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is one of many examples of wikimedia content where "There are no pages that use this file."

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scissors_image.jpg Mentionmart (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That isn't a text file. This is. Omphalographer (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mentionmart, read Commons:Scope. Text files are out of scope on Commons. We make exceptions for text files that are in use on another Wiki site per COM:INUSE, but they are exceptions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The aim of wikimedia commons is to make educational media content available to all.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

The content of the file is educational. It explains the position of the IEEE IAS Publications Editorial Office regarding duplicate publications due to an:

important change in IEEE Publication Policy that will take effect in January 2016. Many of you are aware of the debate that has been raging within IEEE over handling of conference papers.

The document provides knowledge, is instructional and informative. Mentionmart (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You're wasting time. Read COM:SCOPE. Files that are purely text are not in scope. And arguing here won't change that. If you want to change Commons policy on scope, try arguing at Commons talk:Project scope, and good luck, because you will fail. Commons is a repository of images, not text. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few of the many examples of educational text documents on wikimedia:

File:Robertson_panel_report.pdf

File:20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

File:Report_of_the_Puerto_Rico_Experiment_Station_(IA_CAT31294391015).pdf

It appears there are hundreds of text files merely of reports alone.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=panel+report&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=other&filemime=pdf

No change is needed to the policy on scope. Such educational documents are demonstrably in scope. Mentionmart (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:20210331 - CRED Report - FINAL - Web Accessible.pdf is COM:INUSE. The other two should probably be nominated for deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mentionmart, maybe you won't fail. Here's the relevant policy discussion thread: Commons talk:Project scope#Proposed change in wording. Please feel free to express your opinion there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous "wiki" reports (such as "Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report") at the above link, indicating that the wiki foundation considers such pdf text files to be in scope.

Rather than launching a purge of existing wikimedia content, the recent upload of a 4-page educational document explaining a publishing policy should be allowed to remain.

Here is a partial listing of existing pdf text files on wikimedia commons at the above link. They are generally large, multi-page documents. It appears that there are hundreds of such pdf text files at the above link.

The report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel - September 2012.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (6.79 MB)

Report DCA22MA193.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (4.25 MB)INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-107shrg88709).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.58 MB)

Annual report of Wikimedia CZ 2020.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (2.77 MB)

Policing for a better Britain full report 2013.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (3.09 MB)

NTP‐CERHR Expert Panel Report on the reproductive and developmental toxicity of fluoxetine.pdf PDF 1,268 × 1,647 (778 KB)

Report on meeting of panel of consultants (IA CAT11090248001).pdf PDF 1,158 × 1,539 (253 KB)

Report on meeting of panel of consultants (IA CAT11090248002).pdf PDF 1,170 × 1,533 (245 KB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2019-05.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.06 MB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report, August 2019.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (896 KB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2019-10.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.34 MB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2020-01.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.99 MB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2021-03.pdf PDF 1,241 × 1,754 (233 KB)

20210331 - CRED Report - FINAL - Web Accessible.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (18.51 MB)Health Technical Panel report to the 1991 Advisory Council on Social Security (IA healthtechnicalp00unit).pdf PDF 831 × 1,308 (13 MB)

CAB AcREPORT OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-106shrg66481).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (202 KB)

Social Security Technical Panel report to the 1991 Advisory Council on Social Security (IA socialsecurityte00unit).pdf PDF 847 × 1,304 (6.32 MB)

Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 2 (IA reportofpresiden02unit).pdf PDF 1,175 × 1,535 (22.34 MB)

Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2015-07.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (970 KB)

Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 1 (IA reportofpresiden01uni).pdf PDF 1,137 × 1,527 (13.17 MB)

Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2016-04.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (5.37 MB)

Report of the President's Biomedical Research Panel - Supp 3 (IA reportofpresiden03unit).pdf PDF 852 × 1,158 (12.81 MB)

Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2015-08.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.29 MB)

First annual report - Oil Shale Environmental Advisory Panel (IA firstannualrepor00unse 1).pdf PDF 1,564 × 2,079 (3.46 MB)

Farm building panels - a research report on developing and evaluating an insulated concrete stressed-skin panel (IA CAT31328177).pdf PDF 1,162 × 1,627 (1.02 MB)

The Report of the Kerr Haslam Inquiry - July 2005 - V1 - Cm 6640-1.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (2.67 MB)

Report of the Puerto Rico Experiment Station (IA CAT31294391001).pdf PDF 970 × 1,466 (4.04 MB)

cident Report, United Airlines Flight 736.pdf PDF 1,127 × 1,516 (1.65 MB)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (9.17 MB)

The Report of the Kerr Haslam Inquiry - July 2005 - V1 - Cm 6640-1.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (2.67 MB)

Report of the Puerto Rico Experiment Station (IA CAT31294391001).pdf PDF 970 × 1,466 (4.04 MB)

Evaluation of fire models for nuclear fire plant applications- cable tray fires - international panel report (IA evaluationoffire6872deym).pdf PDF 1,272 × 1,620 (16.52 MB)

REPORT OF THE PANEL TO REVIEW THE V-22 PROGRAM (IA gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-107shrg75652).pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (13.25 MB)

MEETING REPORT 2.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (13 KB)

Special 301 Report 2007.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.65 MB)

Special 301 Report 2001.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.13 MB)

Special 301 Report 2002.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.72 MB)

Special 301 Report 1994.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.06 MB)

Special 301 Report 2000.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.36 MB)

Special 301 Report 1999.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.7 MB)

Special 301 Report 1997.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.3 MB)

Special 301 Report 1998.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.75 MB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report, July 2022.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (350 KB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2021-11.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (570 KB)

N604GA NTSB accident report.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (123 KB)

Meeting report 2 - Team Esté.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (112 KB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report, May 2022.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (360 KB)

Wiki Education Monthly Report 2018-11.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (2.54 MB)

Meeting report 3 - Team Esté.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,752 (113 KB)

Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India Vol 19.pdf PDF 893 × 1,358 (26.21 MB)

Project Blue Book report - 1952-10-6383772-PRESSUREISLEAFBMAINE.pdf PDF 3,233 × 4,079 (4.49 MB)

Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2017-05.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (1.43 MB)

Project Blue Book report - 1959-06-8406927-NewGuinea.pdf PDF 2,866 × 3,631 (3.57 MB)Second Report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (IA secondreportofex00usde).pdf PDF 1,310 × 1,735 (5.56 MB)

WM CZ - Annual report 2016 - print version.pdf PDF 1,327 × 1,839 (11.49 MB)

ADA199891 CRONUS Interim Technical Report No 5 Volume 3.pdf PDF 1,295 × 1,662 (2.78 MB)

Wiki Education Foundation Monthly Report 2016-09.pdf PDF 1,275 × 1,650 (460 KB)

SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2001 – 2002.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,754 (157 KB)

WWH activity report 2022.pdf PDF 1,239 × 1,712 (25.3 MB)

Project Blue Book report - 1950-10-9617263-Lark-Utah.pdf PDF 3,816 × 4,768 (953 KB)

Project Blue Book report - 1963-07-8678562-Morehead-Kentucky.pdf PDF 3,508 × 5,114 (1.01 MB)

Project Blue Book report - 1966-03-7093118-Rehoboth-Mass.pdf PDF 4,033 × 5,914 (8.46 MB)

Desktop improvements, Wikimania 2019 research report.pdf PDF 1,500 × 843 (2.61 MB) Mentionmart (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you participate in the discussion I linked, which is discussing a proposed new wording that will allow some unused text files to be hosted here, instead of providing a long list in a deletion request thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. 108.238.191.152 11:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cheat-Codes-Logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). Below the ToO? Abzeronow (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly below.Jonteemil (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment The recording was put out by BMG, so presumably, COM:TOO Germany would apply. A fair amount of words can be read at that link, but there's nothing that demonstrates clearly to me whether this kind of logo would fall below or above their TOO. I'm guessing below, but I'll look forward to seeing the ruling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  This logo is below TOO in Germany and the Cheat Codes logo is clearly less complex than that. Jonteemil (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• That was the basis under which I was guessing this is below COM:TOO Germany, but the logos have different types of complexity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 19 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.

File:Chuck Norris y Sergio Otón, alumno y recién licenciado en Traducción e Interpretación (francés) de Murcia fb.jpg

My proper name is there and it is violating my right for privacy. 31.222.117.40 11:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Chuck Norris shirt.jpg

T-shirt is a derivative work of a photograph of Chuck Norris. Flickr source link is dead. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't think it matters that the link is dead, as it passed Flick review. As for the shirt, can photos of shirts not worn as part of costumes by cosplay actors be deleted for being derivative works? I thought that since they were clothing, they couldn't be, but that could depend on a particular country's law. Do you have any expertise in the matter, Abzeronow or anyone else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not expert on how T-shirts interact with copyright law but the art of Chuck Norris likely was made from a photograph or some other image of him, so I'd defer to the experts as far as T-shirts go. This is apparently from Spain, where consent is required to publish photographs of persons. Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I see. This seems pretty far from being an exact copy of a photograph, though. I'll be interested to see what the ruling is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am the person under concern about the picture. I am not complaining about the T-shirt itself but about the fact that my name is associated to the file of the picture so when somebody look for me in Google they get that picture. In case companies look for information about me for a job selection process I don't want them to find that picture as it was uploaded without my consent. To avoid problems of this type related to my digital fingerprint, I would like the name of the file to be changed or the picture to be eliminated. I don't care as long as my name is unliked from taht picture. Rincewind89 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted the redirect as courtesy. Yann (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

TimedText:Marcha Real-Royal March by US Navy Band.ogg.pl.srt

Marcha Real hasn't got official lyrics LKR23 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:FoP-Myanmar

Per COM:FOP Myanmar, this country is a No-FOP country. As the subjects of these images all look rather modern, they should be deleted, as they cannot be published without permissions of the designers/architects etc. Please note Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FoP-Myanmar for some background information. The category itself can also be deleted if emptied.

• File:Ancient buddha images.jpg
• File:Aung Myay Buddha Gaya.jpg
• File:BTM, Kahtaintaw Association. Mandalay.jpg
• File:Buddha and Monk Figures - Kawgun Cave - Near H'pa-an - Myanmar (Burma) (11954909135).jpg
• File:Buddha Figure at Inwa (Ava) - Outside Mandalay - Myanmar (Burma) (11996313583).jpg
• File:Buddha Figures at Shittaung Paya - Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12231653213).jpg
• File:Buddha Sculpture outside Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12232046346).jpg
• File:Buddha Statue with Palms and Moon - Village near H'pa-an - Myanmar - Burma (11955321194).jpg
• File:Clock Towel,Lewe.jpg
• File:FACE OF MYANMAR.jpg
• File:General Aung San Statue,Lewe.jpg
• File:Jade letters at Geological Rock Garden. Department of Geology. University of Mandalay.jpg
• File:Kayan.jpg

Ellywa (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment some of the photos may show public domain statues and temple buildings but, information for authorship of most Burmese structures is lacking in the Internet (at least the "surface web" level). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The nominator's rationale seems sound. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment at least, File:Buddha Sculpture outside Mrauk U (Myuhaung) - Arakan State - Myanmar (Burma) (12232046346).jpg, File:Buddha Figure at Inwa (Ava) - Outside Mandalay - Myanmar (Burma) (11996313583).jpg, File:Buddha and Monk Figures - Kawgun Cave - Near H'pa-an - Myanmar (Burma) (11954909135).jpg are seem to be old enough more than 50 years. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with@Ninjastrikers.  Keep -- Ooligan (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

These are not all "modern." This is mixed subjects combined together. Because some are obviously more than 50 years old, these all should be re-submitted individually. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Aung Myay Buddha Gaya.jpg - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shwebo temple city dating to 18th century.  Keep -- Ooligan (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Edward A. McGurk.png

Redundant of File:Edward A. McGurk.jpg, which is straightened Ergo Sum 22:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

August 18

File:Stefano Basalini.jpg

Own work? No! 186.175.16.32 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Basalini.jpg

No es own work. 186.175.16.32 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Any reason for this claim? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stefano Basalini (ITA) 2016.jpg

Based on a copyvio. 186.175.16.32 00:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Boyasepetim-logo.png

Out of scope. Дима Г (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bulletin de Cyclette revue de juillet 1945.jpg

Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Article de presse sur la mort d'Eugénie Guillou.jpg

Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• The current license is incorrect, it was published in France in 1933. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• COM:INUSE. Public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Revue littéraire Art et critique.jpg

Je ne souhaite plus de ce fichier en ligne. JuliusMassius (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Question Obviously public domain, but how do we regard a page of writing with reference to ongoing discussions at Commons talk:Project scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Martin Schongauer - Die Gefangennahme Christi (L 20).jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution, 2 better file: File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 3250.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Betrayal and Capture of Christ, c. 1480, NGA 622.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Martin Schongauer - Die Geißelung Christi (L 22).jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution. 2 better file File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 3251.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Flagellation, c. 1480, NGA 624.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Martin Schongauer - Die Dornenkrönung Christi (L 23).jpg

very low quality, very low resolution, 3 better files: File:Christ Crowned with Thorns MET DP819958.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 3252.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, Christ Crowned with Thorns, c. 1480, NGA 625.jpg Oursana (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Yuuki Okumura 2023-02-26.jpg

without the person's consent Axmano2000 (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:GV - Rive 1934.gif

This file was initially tagged by 5.173.105.130 as no source (No source since). 1934 photo, possible PD? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

1934 is not quite old enough to use {{PD-old-assumed}}. We at least need the source, better yet the photographer to keep this. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:40, 18 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.

File:Mevaco Logo.svg

The file shows an outdated version of the actual logo Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep Old logos are preserved for historical reasons. --Leyo 20:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: per Leyo. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Mevaco Logo.svg

This logo is outdated, but surfaces as logo in rich snippets on google. This is why the company wants it removed. Could it be tagged as former logo so that google understands? Please check also mevaco.com Justwannauploadalogo (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Seems reasonably notable, based on a web search, though that's debatable. Justwannauploadalogo, you can edit the file description to reflect the fact that this was the company's logo between (whatever years), you can request a filename change (see Commons:File renaming), and of course you can upload your current logo under a separate filename (including this filename, once the former logo has a new filename). It's possible that the closing admin will decide that your company is not notable and that Commons shouldn't host any of your logos at all, so why don't you make a statement below that demonstrates how your company is notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:2023-04-16 17-42-09 ILCE-7C DSC14125 Kiri DxO - Flickr - miguel.discart.jpg

(sorry french) photographie d'un catcheur à la notoriété quasi inexistante. N'a pas d'intérêt encyclopédique. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:EMARAT.jpg

This is photograph taken from a map, no clear indication of the year of pubication or the author. Uploaded by globally-banned user. HeminKurdistan (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Interieur, overzicht kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978) - Lemiers - 20001661 - RCE.jpg

Sorry Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail - Lemiers - 20001667 - RCE.jpg

Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Interieur, kapel met moderne muurschilderingen (Hans Truijen, 1978), detail, signatuur (noordmuur) - Lemiers - 20001672 - RCE.jpg

Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Heerlen CS-Fenster l.jpg

Copyvio and no freedom of panorama Bahnmoeller (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tabelklinkerbotsing.PNG

poor quality (low resolution, one cell is the wrong colour); no longer used (the only use on w:nl:Klinkerbotsing has been converted to a wikitable). bdijkstra (overleg) 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pestabola Merdeka est 1957.jpg

Copyrighted logo, no evidence that the uploader is the logo creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ergoldsbach 0.jpg

Not educationally useful Ilieva666 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:A sad day in Morocco.jpg

What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dark Day.jpg

What may be illustrated by this image? Wolverène (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:SMAN 12 WATERMARK.jpg

File with watermark Ariandi Lie (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cancelled-to-order Mauritius Miniature Sheet of the 'Bicentenary of the Mauritius Turf Club (1812-2012)' issue.jpg

This probably isn't the uploaders own work and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mauritius doesn't have anything about the copyright status of stamps from the country. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO per the precautionary principle unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Schießen in Königsbrück, Luftwaffe, I. Flak 13, Leipzig Heiterblick, Lt. Bubendey, Feldbahngleise, 16.-18. Januar 1938.jpg

The album indicates that this photograph is from a private collection. The seller explicitly protected the photos from the album against further copying. It is impudent that someone puts private photos on an online auction and someone else edits a photo from the auction and adds it to some website. 5.173.103.35 11:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep The photographer is anonymous, if the ebay auction mentioned the photographer, we would have something to research. People get these at estate sales and resell, if the photographer was named it would be worth more. --RAN (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete, the license template used now is {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. In the English version of the template you can read: "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship ..." Putting a photo in an album is not publishing. Showing that page of the album on Ebay could be considered as publishing but in 1952 there was no Ebay. I don't see any prove the photo was published more than 70 years ago which is essential for that license claim. I am willing to change my opinion if somebody can convince me when and where it was published before 1953, or if another free license on Commons can be convincingly argued. - Robotje (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Roberto García Toledo (talk · contribs)

Not own work, taken from non free websites

• File:Vistas-desde-apartamento-delfin-tower.jpg
• File:Orangerie - Hivernacle.jpg

Triplecaña (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Tramway de Royan - Une petite retient 2 baladeuses dans la rampe Lessore.jpg

This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file is subject to speedy deletion unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: It is not known when it was published. Licence is invalid. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago. Photo scanned from website. Please refer to Commons:Publication. There is no evidence that it was published 70 years ago. There are many indications that this is a photograph taken by a private person. Please refer to Commons:Project scope/Evidence. The uploader failed to prove that the photo was published over 70 years ago. This is not factory photography. Date of taking of the picture is unknown. All content in the book is copyrighted by the publisher. Respecting copyright is not about making claims without evidence. It never means that someone can scan a photo from a book and a recipe that they introduce shortly after creating it. The photo comes from a private collection with a high probability. The picture probably comes from the family archives. There are no signs that this is a promotional photo. Many such photos were kept in private archival collections. No one can ever immediately assume that a photo was published immediately after it was taken. It shouldn't be discretionary. This can never be an arbitrary decision by one editor. 5.173.103.35 11:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion, part of an harassment campaign by someone using multiple IP addresses. --RAN (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Teresa Mañé Miravet

This portrait is licensed as "EU anonymous" but the IISH record attributes the photo to Xavier Pellicer. The copyright/license should be determined from his death date and not as anonymous. I haven't been able to find more info about him but until we do, we should not assume this image to be out of copyright.

• File:Soledad Gustavo.jpg
• File:Teresa Mañé.png

czar 12:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Spanish copyright law, this image is in the public domain in Spain, as it was taken more than 25 years ago. I think this would also bring it under PD-1996, but I'm not 100% on that. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Good catch by Czar for finding the creator. Agree, 25 years for simple photos in Spain. --RAN (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Guy mafuta kabongo.jpg

Published on several non free websites before date of upload, like this one since November 2019. No exif. Probably not free. "Own work" unlikely considering uploader's copyvio history. Titlutin (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ruguru Pic.jpg

Copyright? The name of the author and user do not match the metadata. It is the only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Leila Nadir, at Desert Research Station, Center for Land Use Interpretation, Hinkley, California, 2016.jpg

Photo taken from here, uploaded on October 18, 2018. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Exposition art.jpg

I think we cannot consider the painting as de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Photograph of Barbara Fernandes.jpg

out of scope? Trade (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plan de travail 5@4x-100.jpg

Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo SRC 2023.jpg

Duplicate work of File:Logo SRC 2023.png. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo Draveil.pdf

Logo of a French Municipality. Not necessarily own work as claimed, Mansion graphic at top is above TOO in my opininon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Martin Schongauer - Maria der Verkündigung (L 3).gif

very low quality, ver low resolution, 2 better files File:The Annunciation- The Virgin MET DP820834.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer, The Madonna, c. 1490-1491, NGA 42673.jpg Oursana (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ozgurism (talk · contribs)

Apparently personal project about how to "grasp the magic embedded in this vibrant triangle", uploaded to illustrate a now-deleted enwiki user page that was using enwiki as a web host. Out of COM:SCOPE for Commons.

• File:Coherence-and-Cohesion-of-infinities-Ozgurism.jpg
• File:Ozgurism Triangle.jpg

Belbury (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Martin Schongauer, Christi Geburt (1480) (2).jpg

very low quality, very low resolution 5 better files: File:De geboorte van Christus, RP-P-OB-997.jpg, File:Martin Schongauer - The Life of Christ- The Nativity - 1978.85 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif, File:Martin Schongauer, The Nativity, c. 1480-1490, NGA 30302.jpg, File:The Nativity MET DP819879.jpg, File:The Nativity MET MM7781.jpg Oursana (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BJ Sam maestro.jpg

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 that 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 🇺🇦 16:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BJ Sam music star.jpg

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 that 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 🇺🇦 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The original uploader has expressed the wish on their talk page that this file be deleted 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BJ Sam image 1.jpg

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 that 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 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BJ Sam performance at French institute Bamako, Mali.jpg

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 that 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 🇺🇦 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:جائزة ريا للقصة القصيرة.jpg

Picture available on http://www.full-stop.net/2017/03/15/interviews/dougiefresh/elizabeth-rea/. No information given on the author and license of the photograph. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:جائزة ريا للقصة القصيرة - دينغانون.jpg

Doubtful that this logo of a foundation was created by the uploader. No indication on source, author and license given. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Dudley Gladstone Gordon.png

1950s British photograph, would enter the U.K. public domain by 2030 and the U.S. public domain by 2055. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nintendo switch OLED model - 3.jpg

Violation of COM:De minimis, a copyrighted video game screenshot is taking up a large portion of the image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep the screenshot is very low quality as it is and could easily be blurred Dronebogus (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

File:RitaDeCrescenzo.jpg

I'm no longer sure if the license is the correct one and if the file can be present on commons. I would therefore like it to be deleted to avoid any copyright infringement Yeagvr (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Escudo de Cabildo.svg

No es un trabajo propio, es una obra derivada de un escudo propiedad del municipio y que no hay constancia que haya sido lanzado al dominio público/patrimonio cultural común, y aún si así lo fuera, no incluye la correspondiente mención al municipio que requiere la ley de propiedad intelectual Bedivere (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. Derivative work - this is clearly autotraced from a bitmap image, and not very well, either. Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Edward Forman.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jonteemil as no license (No license since). This has a license but a dubious one. 1932 photograph from a college yearbook, non-renewal of the yearbook should be checked. Abzeronow (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, when I tagged the file for deletion, it was unlicensed. Jonteemil (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow, could you advise on how I can check the non-renewal of the copyright? Note that Pasadena Junior College ceased existing in 1954 when it merged to another high school and was named Pasadena City College. Sabih omar (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Check the 1959 and 1960 copyright renewal catalogs for either the name of the yearbook or the names of the college (old and new), copyright terms back then were 28 years, renewable only once. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/index.html Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Could not find any renewal information.Sabih omar (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep There was no copyright registration, or renewal for the yearbook. I have never seen a copyright registration for a yearbook prior to 1990. There is no aftermarket for the books or worry about being copied, you presell the the 500 students, it would be hard to justify the expense of a lawyer to renew a registration. I can see the page in the yearbook at Ancestry. --RAN (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Enrique Mac Iver sentado en una banca.jpg

Pre-1923 Chilean photograph that was published in 1940. It is possible this photograph was created after 1902, so we cannot assume the creator has been dead for 70 years. It is possibly public domain in Chile and the US (since Chile was 50 pma in 1996) but that needs to be verified. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I agree PD-Chile. Republished in 1940. --RAN (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kościół de la Madeleine w Paryżu 2013.jpg

Too blurry and many better images available Romainbehar (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Doroschenko.jpg

Random PD rationale (Anonymous work + 70 pma), no evidence of PD. Komarof (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Femme récolte.jpg

Exif says author is "MERCY_CORPS", probably this humanitarian organization which is present in DR Congo. No proof uploader is the true author and works with this organization. An authorization is needed. Titlutin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris Eglise Madeleine Mariage Marie Joseph - panoramio.jpg

too blurry, many other better images are available Romainbehar (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Josh Utter-Leyton.jpg

The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sonic Prime logo.png

Above TOO Trade (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete U.S. and Canada, so not a slam-dunk, but I agree with you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:My beauty salon of tehran 13jun2024.jpg

No es sobre un salón de belleza sino una persona desconocida 186.173.41.26 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paul Rietzl.png

The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Jon Finkel.jpg

The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Olle rade.jpg

The claim that this image is released under a creative commons licence is unsupported, and likely untrue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:CoverHongKong97.jpg

Derivative work Trade (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Kingsteven1982 (talk · contribs)

Hoax images (2 files). Anonymous emblem is a poor-quality duplicate

• File:Anonymous™ emblem.png
• File:Asteroid SLK666 November 1 2022.jpg
• File:Moon or black hole.jpg

Юрий Д.К 21:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Darieno-Ermakovsky council.jpg

Если автор умер до 1953 года, то как он же смог загрузить его в 2022 году? Неясный лецензионный статус. — Redboston 22:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

August 19

File:Audacity.jpg

Superseded by File:Audacity-corrección etiqueta-.jpg Iketsi (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Queen Elizabeth II and Eileen Gray.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Cessna 172P over Lago di Guardia in FlightGear.jpg

A screen of a game that is not freely licenced.
After a bit more research I found that it is a screenshot from the video game en:FlightGear which is licenced under the GPL licence (so this part is no longer an issue). The question that remains is weather a screenshot (of a game licenced under GPL) can be published under CC-BY-SA-4.0. IMHO we should have a template for screenshots of FlightGear since there are more of them in Category:FlightGear.
If unclear: The remaining question of this deletion request is if the used licence is correct (since you can not free licence files for which you do not own the copyright) --D-Kuru (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

More updates:

This image itself is taken from http://wiki.flightgear.org/ and there is no further link that would give any clue that it was created outisde of this project. However, the Screenshot of the month (SOTM) on the wiki's main page links to https://forum.flightgear.org/. An example would be this image that links to this forum page. The "Participation Rules" say:

10. You agree to license your screenshot under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for publication by the FlightGear project.

11. You agree that the screenshot may be used to promote the FlightGear project, including publication on the flightsim.com forum with proper attribution according to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.

If we just look at the forum, it seems that CC-BY-SA-4.0 is the correct licence. However, it is not said at all that the game devs really allowed licencing screenshots of their GPL licenced game under CC-BY-SA-4.0. I went through the page on wikipedia, their wiki and the official website but I couldn't find any note on that. It's possible that I missed something, so feel free to check again.

If CC-BY-SA-4.0 is not the correct licence we could still use eg. {{Free screenshot|license={{GPL}}}} for the image since the game is without a doubt licenced under the GPL.

--D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I asked them on xtweet. Maybe they can help out. --D-Kuru (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Screenshots from programs are not covered by the GNU General Public License, version 2 (GPLv2).

The first sentence in the second paragraph of section 0 of states that "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

Johan G (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kazimierz Deyna.png

No publication date and publicator, it's polish photo, so this licence template doesn't apply. PD-Poland also. On source web site there are not also any information about date. Matlin (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Jest to zdjęcie wykonane do dokumentu tożsamości, nie jest dziełem. Autor nieznany. W2k2 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Sueter Revista Pelo 1995

Image published in Argentina in 1995. It is in the PD there, but not in the United States (at least 70 years protection). The source uses CC-BY-NC-SA license [26] that is incompatible with Commons.

• File:Suéter (1995).jpg
• File:Suéter (abril de 1995).png
• File:Miguel Zavaleta (1995).png

Günther Frager (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Monet--Glas-Pijen--w.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ukázka obrazu ze sbírky Noví mistři - Claude Monet.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution 3 better files File:Claude Monet - Jar of Peaches - Google Art Project.jpg, File:Dresden, Albertinum, Claude Monet, das Pfirsischglas.JPG, File:Claude Monet - Das Pfirsichglas.jpg Oursana (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Revista Gente

Images that appear in Gente, an Argentine magazine, after March 1989, when the United States entered Berne Convention. The images are PD in Argentina (25 years after publication) but not in the US (70 years pma).

• File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993.jpg
• File:Déborah de Corral Gente 1993 (cropped).jpg
• File:Gente Magazine (Argentina) (26 January 1993).jpg
• File:Maradona casamiento gente 1989.jpg
• File:Maradona drogas 1991.jpg
• File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg

Günther Frager (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment File:Nicole neumann sexy12 gente.jpg was previously nominated and kept in this DR. Fma12 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The argument in that DR is wrong. As I stated the files were published after the US entered the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention implies that all works published in a member state (Argentina in this case) are protected automatically in the other member states (the US in this case). It follows that the US did not restore the copyright of any of these images at URAA time for the simple reason they were never in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Rockilib manager.png

Fichier pixellisé, aucun intéret. Sa seule utilisation est par un utilisateur spam qui l'utilise pour faire sa publicité sur divers projets Wikimédias. CKali (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:javigbureba

Screenshot of a short video of Metal Magazine. The video was uploaded to Vimeo by Javier Bureba, the editor of the video. This is likely a WFH and the copyright holder is Metal Magazine. Notice that the Vimeo user uploaded also TV advertisement under CC-BY (even less likely to own the copyright).

• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 06.jpg
• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 02.jpg
• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 03.jpg
• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 04.jpg
• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine.jpg
• File:Jessica Goicoechea Metal Magazine 05.jpg

Günther Frager (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Christopher Britton.jpg

Very suspicious. Claims own work, but why is it so low-quality, and why is there a watermark? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Monet - fruit-basket-with-apples-and-grapes.jpg

very bad quality very low resolution better file:Claude Monet - Nature morte au melon d’Espagne.jpg Oursana (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:South Korean YouTuber 이녕(원보라) 오버워치 게임 레고.png

Derivative work of LEGO Trade (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Overwatch Lego series, a collaborative product between Blizzard and Lego, has been released.

This is an image of promoting Overwatch Lego products on SNS of game YouTuber 이녕 at the request of Blizzard Korea.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know what the problem is. 민혁123 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Blizzard and Lego have agreed to let their product packaging be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license Trade (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many agreements between Blizzard and Lego to launch an Overwatch game collaboration product on the Lego website or in media articles.

Isn't the collaboration product a licensed brand?

• LEGO homepage - https://www.lego.com/ko-kr/themes/overwatch/about
• a press story - http://gamefocus.co.kr/detail.php?number=89799

민혁123 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The license that the collaboration product uses is proprietary which is not compatible with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Trade (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If you upload a version of the image where the LEGO box art is blurred i will be willing to withdraw the deletion request Trade (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your kind words.

But isn't it impossible to upload an image because it's a duplicate upload if you mosaic it?

Even if I can, I think I'll make a mistake because I don't know how.

Please delete it

Thank you for taking care of me even though you are busy.

Have a nice day!! 민혁123 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont counts as a duplicate if you mosaic the box art. Trade (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply.

Do I need to upload a new version of this file through upload?

Replication upload is not available in this domain. There is a warning.

I've tried many times, but I can't upload it because I don't know how.

So I mosaiced the Lego box image and re-uploaded it.

File:South Korean YouTuber 이녕 OVERWATCH 게임 레고.png 민혁123 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Statsikon.png

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Monet - flowers-in-a-pot.jpg

very low quality very low resolution better file File:Fleurs dans un pot (Roses et brouillard) .jpg Oursana (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Monet - still-life-with-apples-and-grapes.jpg

very bad quality, very bad resolution better file File:Claude Monet - Apples and Grapes - 1933.1152 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg Oursana (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kystverket RGB liten.jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:MP kompani.jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

OK to delete. Znuddel (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Deltawiki2.JPG

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Beredskapstroppen.png

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:1976 UT.png

This file is unused and is replaced with a SVG file 2603:6010:F006:964B:1D11:4BE4:A8A8:E8E6 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Uozu Jomon Period 001.jpg

copyright infringement derivative work of non-free map in Japan. 61.120.241.1 14:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE motorway symbol.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Natures mortes aux raisins et clémentine.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Buste de Marylène Biste.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Portrait d’une vieille femme au foulard.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Le repas des paysans.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Plantes et vue sur le village.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Femme allongée lisant.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Who drew this picture? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Lucie Bouniol (1896-1988) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Femme nue 7.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Vache et son petit.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Femme rousse en robe rouge.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nature morte aux oignons.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Etude du bas relief pour la fontaine de l'exposition de 1937.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Chateau de Giroussens.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pigeonnier 1.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Buste de Françoise Rosay.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Buste de son mari, Jean Bouniol.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Nature morte à la pendule.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Eben Byers Without a jaw.jpg

Source given does not actually provide evidence of pre-1963 publication without a copyright notice. The image also shows some signs of digital manipulation as it has traveled across the internet. There is also apparently some doubt over whether this image depicts Byers at all, but I have been unable to confirm this either way. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete So for transparency I had spoken to AntiCompositeNumber prior which led to this being made, but I used Tineye and found multiple postings of the uncropped image (obv NSFW warning) from 2010 being associated with WW1 veterans, it was apparently posted somewhere on DocumentingReality back in 2013; since Tineye doesn't give me the actual *page* it's useless beyond showing a date and I already had to see a ton of horrific shit trying to find it. Someone at some point around 2016-2021 decided to falsely post it on the internet labelling it as Eben Byers. For what it's worth Crispin Glover also had a book from 1995 with the image as the cover photo. --NorthTension (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This image is first found (as far as i know) to this book! https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.550449/page/n37/mode/1up Kedokinnie (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Delete It's almost certainly not Eben Byers, as it bears little resemblance to the description given by an attorney who visited him to take a deposition: "his whole upper jaw, excepting two front teeth and most of his lower jaw had been removed" and that "All the remaining bone tissue of his body was disintegrating, and holes were actually forming in his skull." (Source) As noted above, the image is to be found in a 1943 military work on treating battlefield wounds, in which it is described as an injury to the jaw. BillC (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting that if this is deleted, the file talk page on enWikipedia needs deleting too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Tête de sa fille Chantal.jpg

Copyright still active Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

All archives and pictures shown are the property of the Giroussens Town and are managed by the associaiton who wrote the article. Pictures of the artworks have been taken by one of our employee, whithout claim from copyright. Ceramique81 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign F-330.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment No need to delete the PNG files unless the SVGs are more accurate. They are not identical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies for the late response. The PNGs are my own, so I would like for them to be deleted, as they have been made redundant by higher quality SVGs (uploaded by myself also) Do also note the differences in colour and some differences with the symbols. EthanL13 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign F-333.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign P-050.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign P-080.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign P-052.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:IE road sign RUS-028.png

Superseded by SVG EthanL13 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (logo).jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, no colors, and low resolution. Worldlydev (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Hämeenlinna Flag.png

Fictional (and indeed illegal, as per sections 6 and 8 of the Act on the Flag of Finland) flag, completely unsourced yet purported to be real. VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Oberth Hermann rocket scientist.jpg

There is no indication that this photo is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep I agree the website does not release under the cc license, I changed it to more appropriate "PD-Romania". --RAN (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is your rationale to use PD-Romania? and not Germany where Oberth also lived? That is, where was this image taken / published? And in case of PD-Romania is right, why wasn't it restored by URAA? Günther Frager (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Info: From 1923 until 1938 Oberth lived in Transylvania which was part of Romania since 1920. --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Salute! I apologize if I uploaded the image incorrectly. Tell me, please, what is the difference between Romanian and German PD? What is the URAA? Richard Arthur Norton, thank you for your support! Qupeed66 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment The image is a cropped version of this photo, and the copyright is claimed by the Smithsonian Institution. Notice that the logo on the bottom-left corner is from Universum Film AG, a German film company located in Berlin. According to our Wiki entry Oberth advised Fritz Lang during 1928-1929 for the film Frau im Mond. Maybe the copyright claim is bogus, but unless there is a strong evidence the image is in the public domain in Germany and the US we should follow COM:PCP. Günther Frager (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

How can this situation be resolved? Do we need to write to someone and ask for permission? Qupeed66 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs vol.2 (logo).jpg

No global usage, superseded by an .svg file, and low resolution. The green color is also incorrect, it is supposed to be blue (possibly an effect of being a highly compressed image from the Norwegian government achives in 2009?) Worldlydev (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Skulptur Annunziata.jpg

Sculpture by Raimondo Puccinelli (1904-1986) located in the Garden of Castle Gemen, Germany. Freedom of panorama in Germany requires that the picture to be taken from a "public" place, but that notion is quite restrictive, for example photos taken inside train stations, museums or churches are not OK. Günther Frager (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:5T0A3864.CR2.jpg

pt: Vide diversos casos semelhantes (1, 2, 3, etc.): segundo o levantamento do status de direitos autorais de imagens publicadas por governos e assembleias legislativas estaduais do Brasil, imagens publicadas pela ALERJ (Assembleia Legislativa do Rio de Janeiro), como esta, não podem ser incluídas no Commons porque não são disponibilizadas sob uma licença livre. // en: according to the survey on the copyright status of images published by state governments and legislative assemblies of Brazil, images published by ALERJ (Rio de Janeiro legislative assembly), like this one, cannot be included in Commons due to not being disponibilized under a free license. Solon ^26.125 19:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sergei Nikitch Kovalyov.jpg

There is no indication that the image is free from copyright in the country of origin (USSR/Russia), which is a necessary condition for a file to be placed on Wikimedia Commons, even if the claim to be free from copyright in the US is true. Yellow Horror (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Added license. I struggle to understand why you are so pervasive in attempting to delete Russian and Soviet visual history en mass across the Commons, but so uninterested in identifying whether suitable licenses exist before requesting deletion. – Abovfold (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• The PD-RU-exempt license template you added does not correspond to the nature of the work, which is neither an official document or symbol, nor a work of folk art, nor a message of an exclusively informational nature.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  It came from an official Soviet state biography, which is a state document. - Abovfold (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  • There is no such thing as a "official Soviet state biography". Any biography is a copyrighted creative work, because it isn't a material of legislative, administrative and judicial character. Moreover, even if a photo is a part of an unprotected government document, removing it from the context of the document returns the photo under copyright protection.--Yellow Horror (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. Random authorship claim, fake PD rationale, this is not an 'official document of state government agencies' as stated by the uploader. --Komarof (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Komarof very curious how you have so much knowledge of Wikipedia shorthand and admin requests for a month old account whose entire contribution history has been mass deleting Russian history across the platform collaborating together with @Yellow Horror here. What is the agenda here? Is this a derivative account? Why are you concealing your prior wiki experience, and why so aggressive in demanding punishments for other users? - Abovfold (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Pedro Silva Solnino.jpg

The author was Apolo Ronchi Desquier (1896 - 1963), and it is marked as PD. However, Uruguay has 70 years pma. Notice that in the past it was 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. Günther Frager (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photographs by Apolo Ronchi

The Uruguayan photographer Apolo Ronchi Desquier died in 1963. The copyright in Uruguay is 70 years pma, thus all these images are not in the public domain in its country of origin. Notice that in the past protection was for 50 years, but in 2019 it was extended and applied retroactively. I don't know when they can be undeleted because the copyright in the United States was probably restored in 1996.

• File:Antonio Cadenacho.jpg
• File:Atalibio Ribeiro.jpg
• File:Bonifacio Fleitas.jpg
• File:Braulio Manuel Ojeda.jpg
• File:Dionisio Almeida.jpg
• File:Emilio Rivero.jpg
• File:Francisco Giacosa.jpg
• File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con acordeon.jpg
• File:Fructuoso Rodríguez con guitarra.jpg
• File:José Gabriel Carró.jpg
• File:José Ramírez.jpg
• File:Juan A. Feijoo.jpg
• File:Justo Peralta y uno de sus nietos.jpg
• File:Lucas Buschiazzo.jpg
• File:Marcelino Barrientos.jpg
• File:Perico Díaz y Marcelino Barrientos.jpg
• File:Presbiter Moltracio.jpg

Günther Frager (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• According to the website: https://cdf.montevideo.gub.uy/articulo/el-archivo-historico-disponible-en-alta-resolucion the images are released under Sobre la licencia "CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)" . --RAN (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  That links says the images under CC0 are the ones that the government commissioned and doesn't include the donations. The relevant text is as follows:

  El contenido liberado pertenece al archivo fotográfico histórico producido por la Intendencia de Montevideo y custodiado por el CdF. No está incluido material proveniente de donaciones.

  The photos by Apolo Rochi are from the private collection of Lauro Ayestarán and you can find them here. Notice that they are not part of the catalog. If you click on any of the images you can see "© Fotografías del Archivo Lauro Ayestarán / Centro Nacional de Documentación Musical". On the contrary, when you click on any image from the catalog, for example this one, you will see that it clearly states it is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

August 20

File:Nazara TV logo.png

This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment Couldn't this be interpreted as mere simple geometry and text? Bremps... 17:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Moreno ocampo juicio juntas.jpg

Image must be PD in both Argentina and the US to be on Commons. It is not (Argentina only). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep per Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Keep per user:Nard the Bard – Fma12 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete A couple of things, the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} cannot be used in file uploaded after 2012 (see template page). The image was uploaded 8 years after that. The discussion @Nard the Bard cites was superseded by this proposal to modify COM:PCP. The proposal was rejected. Also the discussion was about avoiding massive deletion requests of existing files. This file was uploaded way after that and without proper sources. Anyways, this image belong to W:Agence France-Presse [27]. The country of origin is not Argentina but France, where copyright for anonymous works is 70 years afer publication. Thus this is a clear copyvio. Günther Frager (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Getty has a habit of claiming ownership of photos they don't own. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Strassera y Moreno Ocampo.jpg

Image must be PD in both Argentina and the US to be on Commons. It is not (Argentina only). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep A mere allegation of URAA should not be a sole reason to delete per Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I was not aware of that page. But I'm also confused by the licensing tag's large-text documentation, "This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012." @Nard the Bard: , can you explain this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete The link provided was a provisional resolution applied to already uploaded files (not to future ones) that was superseded a few months later (i.e. nearly ten years ago). The requirement to have a free license or be in the PD in both its source country still applies, as the precautionary principle. Günther Frager (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment we should also delete File:MorenoOcampo.jpg as it is a cropped version. Günther Frager (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

File:1976 campaign hat c.JPG

Duplicate file of File:Gerald Ford delegate hat 2007-1.360.2.jpg. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:2021 postage stamps of Albania

These images are licensed with PD-Albania-exempt, probably because of the part of it that says means of payment are in the public domain. Most countries don't consider stamps to means of payment though and there's zero evidence at least from what I could that Albania does. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until 2092 per the normal term unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:Kristo Frashëri 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
• File:Ramadan Sokoli 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
• File:Sandër Prosi 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
• File:Shaban Demiraj 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg
• File:Vexhi Buharaja 2021 stamp of Albania.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep. {{PD-Albania-exempt}} is based on Copyright Law No.35/2016, which says that means of payment (mjetet e pagesës) are not protected by the Albanian copyright. This government regulation on postal stamps, in General Provisions, Article 2 (Neni 2), says "Postal stamp is used to pay for postal services .." ("Pulla postare shërben për pagesën e shërbimeve postare .." ). Materialscientist (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute what you cited, but it should be added to the guideline if that's the case because I asked what them qualifying for PD-Albania-exempt was based on six months ago, no one ever responded, and I couldn't find the document your referring to in the meantime either. Obviously no one can follow a document if it's not even cited in the guideline and guidelines should be based on more then a template that was unilaterally added to the article when it was created without evidence that it was valid. It's good that you found something confirming that Albania considers stamps to be means of payment though. But it would have been cool if that was done sooner. Not that I'm blaming you for the fact that it wasn't. But there's clearly a disconnect between a lot of the guidelines and them being properly sourced. Not just with stamps. Although it does seem pretty pervasive in that area for some reason. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you added a reference to the document in the guideline since there isn't one currently. Thanks. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:Marina Kalezić

This is a follow up to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Famous_personalities_1999_Yugoslavia_stamp.jpg which resulted in delete. Rosenzweig gave a better argument there for why Serbian stamps don't qualify for PD-SerbiaGov then I can, but summarize Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Serbia says nothing about stamps and the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia said in email that only "“official acts, drawings and blueprints of building and cadaster agencies, diplomas, certificates, official reports of government agencies, statistical reports, drafts of Laws and other documents" are covered. Stamps are none of those. So there's zero evidence that the Serbian government considers them to be official materials or in the public domain. Given that, these images should be deleted as COPYVIO per the normal term of 70+ years after the artist died. While I wasn't able to find information on if Marina Kalezić is dead or not, it clearly hasn't been 70+ since their death due to these stamps being published in the 2000s.

• File:23rd Byzantology Congress, 2016 post stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Doctors 2018 stampsheet of Serbia.jpg
• File:Edward Ryan 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Ivan Tabaković 1998 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
• File:Lajos Zilahy 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Laza Kostić 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Ludwik Hirszfeld 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Mihajlo-Mika Marković 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Milena Pavlović-Barili 2009 Serbian stamp.jpg
• File:Miloš Crnjanski (post stamp of Serbia, 2018).jpg
• File:Miloš Popović 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Vojislav Subotić 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:Wassily Kandinsky 2016 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:William Hunter 2018 stamp of Serbia.jpg
• File:William Hunter 2018 stamp of Serbia2.jpg
• File:Živojin Milenković 2013 Serbian stamp.jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep per #2 in {{PD-SCGGov}}: "materials published by any other person or institution which do public function." We have ticket:2012042310010184 confirming that 2012 Giants of Serbian Literature Stamps are in PD. I see nothing particular in those stamps - Serbian post issues such series, designed by Marina Kalezić, every other year or so (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The main reason behind deletion is COM:PCP. Per ticket:2012042310010184 it is safe to assume that applying PCP is overzealous in this case, and that stamps by Marina Kalezić are not protected. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems weird to me that there would be a multiple point clause in the law laying out specific things that are in the public domain like law acts and judgments if at the end of the day everything created persons or institutions which do public functions are PD regardless. It's not like laws or judgments aren't created by institutions that do public functions. So at least IMO the fact that it specifically lays out specific types of works that are free of copyright kind of insinuates that there are other things that aren't. Otherwise there'd be zero reason for them to cite specific examples. There's also the clarifying email. Plus Like you said yourself, there's ticket:2012042310010184 for other Serbian stamps, which I had nothing to do with BTW. I don't know why we need special permission in one instance to host the images, but not in the other. Either Serbian stamps are copyrighted and we need VRT permission to host them, or they aren't and we don't.

As a side to that it's also unclear if Post of Serbia is even considered a government agency to begin with since they are owned by a holding company. Although that's less important IMO to the other points I've brought up, mainly that there would be zero reason that the law would name specific types of works that are PD if everything created by the government is de-facto in the public domain. And the clarifying email is particularly strong evidence against stamps being PD in that regard. Although us needing VRT permission to host other Serbian stamps also points to them being copyrighted. Otherwise there's no reason Marina Kalezić would have given us permission to host the images to begin with. If they want to file VRT permission for these stamps to though, cool. But there's no justification to keep the images baring that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Ask Logo.svg

Duplicate of File:Ask.com Logo.svg Kelly The Angel (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's a duplicate, you can delete mine, I arrived late and didn't know about the copy already present in the SVG. Giov.c (talk) 07:27, 20 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.

File:Korshun.jpg

False license. The source indicates that this is a photograph from the 1920s, therefore it could not be published before November 7, 1917. The statement about the publication before 1928 is also unsubstantiated, as is the statement about the death of the author more than 100 years ago. Yellow Horror (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that the photo was actually published before 2015, nor any information about its author.--Yellow Horror (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are right Hunu (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Kept: Banned user socking. --Yann (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Korshun.jpg

False license. The source indicates that this is a photograph from the 1920s, therefore it could not be published before November 7, 1917. The statement about the publication before 1928 is also unsubstantiated, as is the statement about the death of the author more than 100 years ago. Yellow Horror (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Previous removal request was not considered on the merits due to the erroneous accusation of me being a sockpuppet.--Yellow Horror (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep PD-Russia, I changed from "1920" to "circa 1920". --RAN (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Please note that the PD-Russia license for anonymous works is based on the date the work was made public, not the date it was created. This license does not apply to unpublished and newly released works.--Yellow Horror (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep This photo should have been taken in Ukraine in the 1920s and was probably published for some jubilee of the scientist (he was 60 in 1928, and here he looks younger). As the author is not known we can use PD-US now or with better assurance - in January, 2024, in 4 months.--Brunei (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Commons' policy requires that creative work be free from copyright restrictions in both the United States and its country of origin. For now, there is no evidence that this photo was made public before 2015, and its author is not known, so it may be copyright-protected in Ukraine until 2086. And in US, as first published after 2002, it may be copyright-protected for 120 years after creation, so until about 2050. The claim that the photo was "probably" made public in connection with the anniversary of Stepan Vasilievich Korshun in the 1920s for now is unfounded.--Yellow Horror (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:MBHHC Chairman.jpg

Permission? 186.175.110.105 12:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Sarkar (32).jpg

No sign of own work 186.175.110.105 12:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Myint Moe Aung Profile Photo.jpg

Own work? 186.175.110.105 12:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:BankNujin.jpg

تصویر غیرکاربردی و بی‌ربط به ویکی Siavosh9 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) وجود این تصویر الزامی است. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirrezaweb (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Mansorabadlogo.jpg

تصویر بدردنخور Siavosh9 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Filemangeraide.jpg

اسکرین‌شات‌ غیرکاربردی Siavosh9 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Copy of IBQ Logo PMS FOR CIRCULATION.jpg

Needs proof of permission and someone said {{No permission since}} can't be used for old files so starting a DR instead. Jonteemil (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Joseph cornell (121873694).jpg

If it's a work by artist Joseph Cornell, it might be copyright and there's no information to know if FoP applies. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:PJ MORTON.jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Анна Ивановна Щетинина.jpg

Not free image. Journal "Soviet woman" says that author of this foto is Ivan Shagin who died only in 1982. So this foto will become in PD only at 2057. Kursant504 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete 4 points for PD in their license all failed. Lemonaka (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Three recipients of the "For the Defence of Leningrad" medal in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) Russia 1943. (40060751273).jpg

Not free image. Original photo is by Boris Kudoyarov (who died in 1973). Not in PD yet. Kursant504 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see that user J J has deleted the file on Flickr and that may indicate that something has happened there that concerns licensing. If it is possible that you have a source for your claim, the situation becomes much clearer. Otherwise, I have no objection. Best regards VisbyStar (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Masjid Al Abrar, Beruwela.jpg

No metadata so the own work claim is probably bogus. The link below the Information table says: © Copyright 2023, All Rights Reserved at the bottom of the page. Permission of the stated license is needed to keep the file. Jonteemil (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Joshua in concert.jpg

Image search finds this image in wide-spread use and one of them is the likely source. An EXIF would also be expected if uploader took picture with own camera. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Yoyohonybro (talk · contribs)

Seems to be bogus own work claims. If not covered by something like {{PD-Sri Lanka}}, proof of the stated license is needed to keep the files.

• File:Matale Municipal Council.png
• File:Matale Divisional Secretariat.png
• File:Matale Municipal Council Logo.jpg

Jonteemil (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jso111 (talk · contribs)

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 that 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

• File:John S. Oghalai, MD.jpg
• File:01.1.5-rev.jpg

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 20:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Проф. др Радослав Пауновић.jpg

Possible copyright volation, from http://www.primagdoo.com/index.html Ђидо (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Andrea Hernández .jpg

Low resolution image missing full EXIF data, dubious claim of own work CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Muharram in cities and villages of Iran-342 16 (122).jpg

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Union Station Mural by Gregory Ackers Columbus, Ohio 1987.jpg

There's no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D works of art like this mural installed after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP United States, and formalities such as a copyright notice and registration also seemed to stop being required for such works after 1978. This means that copyright status of the mural itself needs to be assessed and unless it can be clearly shown to be within the public domain, the artist's COM:CONSENT is needed for the file to be considered OK to keep by Commons. The license for the photo is fine, but I don't believe it extends to the mural itself, and the photo is a COM:DW in which both the photo and the photographed mural need to be clearly OK from a copyright standpoint for Commons to keep. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Again, you can "believe" all you want, but you're harming the collective of knowledge here with your conjectures. Why do you want us to cover artworks without being able to adequately show them? ɱ (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content per COM:FAIR; however, some local Wikipedia projects do allow such content to be uploaded and used. Photos of artworks such as this that can't be hosted by Commons can often be upload locally to a Wikipedia project and used there as long as the use complies with that project's relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, usually around 100x100px. Completely useless. Again, why do you want us to cover artworks without being able to adequately show them? Why are you actively choosing to harm the collective of knowledge here with your conjectures? ɱ (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  The restrictions that local Wikipedia projects place on non-free content (e.g. fair use, fair dealing content) aren't relevant to Commons. These restrictions do not make it OK to upload higher resolution images of fair use content to Commons. If you find the restrictions of the local projects to be too restrictive, you can seek a consensus to change them on the local projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep No copyright registration filed under Gregory Ackers or a Union Station mural for the post-1978 database. Works up to March 1989 needed a copyright notice and if no notice, a copyright registration within five years. {{PD-US-1978-89}} Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought that could be a possibility and brought up as much at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#PD-US-1978-89 for murals?. Since some were of the opinion that a notice wasn't required from 1978 onward, I started this discussion. If the consensus is that it does, then the file can relicensed and kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren’t necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was “published”. The definition of “published” also was changed to mean something other than “publicly displayed” from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to this mural. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Murals by Gregory Ackers

• File:Union Station Mural.jpg
• File:Trains mural.jpg

Since there's no freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 2D works of art like these murals installed after January 1, 1978, per COM:FOP United States, and formalities such as a copyright notice and registration also seemed to stop being required for such works after 1978, the copyright statuses of these two murals themselves needs to be assessed. Unless it can be clearly shown that they are within the public domain, the artist's COM:CONSENT is needed for these files to be considered OK to keep by Commons. The Flickr license for the "Trains mural" photo is fine, but I don't believe it extends to the mural itself (which is described as being completed in 1989 per en:Trains (mural)), which makes the photo a COM:DW in which both the photo and the photographed work need to be clearly OK from a copyright standpoint for Commons to keep. The {{DLC}} licensing for the "Union Station" mural was created by the file's uploader and doesn't appear to have been vetted for accuracy. It also doesn't seem to be applicable because the mural is described as being finished in 1987 per en:Union Station (mural), which means it's not going to be within the public domain simply because of its age (i.e. copyright has expired) or because of a lack of formalities as stated in items 1 and 2 of that license, and there needs to be some way of verifying items 3 and 4 or that the artist has otherwise given their consent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• JSTOR and the Columbus Metropolitan Library licensed these images appropriately. I don't care about your personal opinion reading into the legalities; if the CML believes an image to have no copyright, then it does not. Please stop incessantly trying to remove cultural content from encyclopedic spaces; you ought to be blocked. ɱ (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  If you think I should be blocked for questioning a licensing template that you created yourself or pointing out that there's no freedom of panorama for these mural under US copyright law, then you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU. However, you'd have a better chance of convincing others to keep these files if you can show how these murals aren't protected by copyright based on US copyright law or how JSTOR or the CML has the authority to act on behalf of the Ackers as his representatives with respect to the copyright status of his works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, you should be blocked for copyright paranoia. Wasting everyone's time. I don't represent JSTOR or the CML, but they are legitimate institutions, not some dumb wiki site where people like you can harass other people over valid content and play "lawyer". ɱ (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  As posted on my user talk page and above, you can start a discussion about me at COM:ANU if you feel I should be blocked for any reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  And license templates are all created and used by individuals. If you don't think I'm qualified to create and edit the many incredibly useful templates that I do, perhaps you should have my 'template editor' rights removed. And perhaps if you think I'm somehow debasing the Columbus Metropolitan Library, perhaps you should contact them. I've been working with them to contribute over 335,000 images to Commons. Doing a world of good that you apparently just want to see washed away. Where do you get off? ɱ (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Union Station mural, there is no copyright registration for Gregory Ackers in the database. It's {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Trains may be trickier, if it were published in March 1989 or after, it would still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought that could be a possibility and brought up as much at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/08#PD-US-1978-89 for murals?. Since some were of the opinion that a notice wasn't required from 1978 onward, I added the 1987 file to this discussion. If the consensus is that it does, then the file can relicensed and kept. The 1989 mural is a bit trickier to assess because it's not clear it was completed (i.e. installed) before March 1, 1989, per en:Trains (mural). Given the mural's location, it would seem probable to be completed at some point other that the winter months, but it would be helpful to know the exact date it was completed if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Finally found the answer to your question in this 1989 video. The mural was started in June and completed in the same summer (the dialogue between 5:17 and 5:37 of the video). -- Asclepias (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• COM:PACUSA#After 1978 seems to imply that formalities like a notice or registration weren't necessarily a requirement for copyright protection except in cases where the artwork was "published". The definition of "published" also was changed to mean something other than "publicly displayed" from 1978 onwards. These are two things that probably need to be clarified with respect to these murals. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. Abzeronow (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  What form of publication are you looking for, if you imagine up that painting in a public place is not publication? Keeps on moving the goalposts... ɱ (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  The goal posts were moved by en:Copyright Act of 1976 which changed (clarified) the meaning for the term "published" with respect to US copyright law as explained here. The US Copyright Office's current definition of "publication" can be found here and Sections 1902 and 1908 state "a public display or public performance does not constitute publication". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's relatively contradictory with itself, where it states "A statutory copyright owned by the artist is created as soon as the work is made." So, the Union Station mural should be copyright 1987. ɱ (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  It also says a notice is required " to keep the work out of the public domain after “publication.”". So if there is no notice or registration or anything for Union Station it is in the Public Domain. ɱ (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  And if we use the Section 1902 definition of publication, it happens on first sale of the work. Which is beneficial for this case, as the work was sold before creation: it was commissioned for the space, and thus transferred from artist to first owner as it was made. ɱ (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  According to this and this, the commissioning of a work of art doesn't automatically mean there's been a transfer of copyright from the artist to the commissioning party. That could depend upon whether a en:work for hire agreement was in place between the artist and the commissioning body. In addition, formalities seem to have only been required for works "published" between January 1, 1978, and February 28, 1989 (inclusive). A copyright notice wasn't necessarily required but registration within five years of first publication was needed in order for a cclaim of copyright ownership to be considered valid. So, if Ackers retained copyright ownership over the mural, then he would seem to need to have been the one to "publish" it (not the commissioning body). If, for example, he did make tangible copies of the mural available in some form prior to February 28, 1989, then that would seem to constitute publishing and require formal registration. If he never did such a thing or did so sometime on or after March 1, 1989, then his copyright ownership over the work still seem to remain in effect for 70 years en:post mortem auctoris per COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Your deep dive into the nuances of this just muddles it further... Can't you search for registration or see if you can find a notice? You're giving a lot of hypotheses without a clear explanation. Abzeronow found no copyright registration, and the source you gave plainly states that these works must have registrations. Can we just leave it at that? You're seemingly fighting tooth-and-claw to provide as many obscure legal loopholes as possible to keep these images off the internet; do you have some sort of conflict of interest with relation to Ackers or this area? ɱ (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  The pages I referenced above state formalities are only required in the case of "publication". They also state that "publication" doesn't equate to "displaying the work in public". Abzernow's last comment in this discussion was I do suppose it would need to be clarified if Union Station was indeed published in 1987 according to the 1978 and afterwards definition of publication. That, at least in my opinion, is what still needs to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Delete File:Trains mural.jpg, per Asclepias' research. As it dates to June 1989, it is already 3 months after the {{PD-US-1978-89}} cutoff date. No comment for File:Union Station Mural.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

August 21

Files uploaded by Thx2005 (talk · contribs)

Insufficient sourcing information to verify that these items were released under a free license by Towson University. They also lack author and publishing date to determine if they are in the public domain.

• File:TUDocMinnegan.jpg
• File:TUStephConstr.jpg
• File:TUCarroltonSt.Building.jpg
• File:TURedMan'sHall.jpg
• File:TUfisher.jpg
• File:Elijah Barrett Prettyman (1830 - 1907).jpg
• File:TUNewell.jpg
• File:TUhawkins.jpg
• File:TUwiedefeld2.jpg
• File:Sarah Richmond, Towson University.jpg
• File:George Ward, Towson University.jpg

✗plicit 06:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Agree, I do not see any GFDL license since there is no link, but they all are pre 1964 and to be eligible for a copyright, they would require registration and renewal, and none so far have either. So migrate to PD-US for pre 1928 and "PD-US-not renewed". --RAN (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: According to this source, https://archives.towson.edu/Documents/Detail/president-james-l.-fisher/60409, the TUfisher.jpg is from 1970. Salavat (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Otto Bennewitz und Barbara Valentin 6 Tage-Rennen Berliner Sportpalast 1968.jpg

The author of this 1968 German photograph is named as Otto Bennewitz. Yet Otto Bennewitz is the guy we see IN the photo, on the bike in the middle. Obviously this is not a selfie, so if he is in the photo, he cannot be the photographer, and something is wrong here. The photo is from 1968, so not old enough to be in the public domain. The file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to be actually under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Stripchat-logo.svg

No info on TOO in Cyprus QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Biometric passport of Mongolia.jpg

No proof that the design is freely licensed. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/22 Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/23 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/24 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/25 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/26 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/30 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/31