J'ai pris cette photo dans le cadre d'une mission avec une association à laquelle j'appartiens, et ils m'ont demandé de la supprimer car les droits de cette photo appartiennent également à l'association. Slim Alileche (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Was your statement of authorship and license false when you uploaded this? Image is in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the authorship and license statement, I took the photo as part of a mission with an association to which I belong. The copyright for this photo belongs to both me and the association. The association has requested that I remove the photo. Slim Alileche (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You uploaded under a CC license, which is IRREVOCABLE. Read the fine print first or do not upload. Keep --Zenwort (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dubious PD rationale: 70 pma for unknown (!) author. 194.9.27.69 10:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author of the 1925 article, Georgy Aleksandrovich Shmelev (1895-1931), was identified and indicated in the template. He was sentenced to death in 1931. The requirements of the PD-70 template were met. Трифонов Андрей (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73 but there is no explicit permission in the Indonesian law allowing free uses of copyrighted works of art and architecture. Any free use claim may not stand in the courts. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 Yeah it's a strange situation. But I think it is the same with URAA. We can keep unless someone complaint. I hope one day copyright laws will be the same world wide. --MGA73 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73 but now, public-domain sculptures from no-commercial FOP countries that have U.S. copyrights are no longer accepted here. For example, cases from Slovenia. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 20:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345 Yeah but only because someone start a DR. There would be no problem if users just left the files alone. If someone think their copyright is violated the can ask for deletion. Many files have been here for 10 years or more without any complaints. --MGA73 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep As previously discussed, there is no clear consensus on this issue. Davidelit (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep The law literally says "efforts/acts to document, announce, and re-license works in the form of buildings or monuments, as art or architectural works, in two or three dimensional format, [...] is not considered as act of copyright violation [...] as long as the creator or copyright owner do not mind such efforts/acts."
I would say that users who post their own documentation photo/art of government buildings/monuments here (such as myself) don't mind that the works are used on the wiki sites. At least per my understanding there shouldn't be any legal issue.Amelia Guo (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amelia guo I think you missed the point. Freedom of Panorama is a law about the copyright by the architect, designer, or developer of a building nor monument, not the photographer. Veracious (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amelia guo permission from the copyright holder (heirs or estate of the sculptors) must be explicit, through an email sent to Wikimedia via COM:VRTS process. Permission that explicitly releases this monument in public domain and any image of it can be exploited in any manner, especially commercial purposes. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 20:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I really agree if the image is deleted as per COM:FOP Indonesia, and I have created one such image only on English Wikipedia (In accordance with United States law). Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Some could be kept based on simple shape? Unless their TOO level is UK-like very low (but given a keep decision of "Aliyan" village room, I don't believe so). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment majority of these files were nominated by me before at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monas, but were kept because of claims that structures owned by the Indonesian state or government are "free to use". Italy be-like? And yeah, it is very noticeable that Indonesian and Italian Wikimedians are similar with respect to using established loopholes in their copyright laws instead of trying to lobby for FoP introduction. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 19:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with you, I hope not all images in Category:Monumen Nasional are deleted. Because there are several images (as the link mentioned) that have passed copyright use permission. Hopefully contributors can choose which ones to delete and which ones they shouldn't. Baqotun0023 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. After she uploaded file:Loodus by Oksana Labutina.jpg as own work of Estonian nature (actually not own and not from Estonia, but Israel), I do not trust her anymore. Taivo (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Keep no evidence provided for „I suspect not own work, but copyright violation.“ No match on tinyeye. The fact that the uploader does not provide metadata -- which is totally legitimate as a privacy concern, why should anybody know the make of my camera? -- is nor reason for deletion. --Zenwort (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provided multiple evidence of trustworthless of the user. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The typewritten text suggests that this is some sort of official award. Is it possible that this is {{PD-RU-exempt}}? Omphalographer (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything is possible, that's why help is sought by nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Military patch created by a site that doesn't freely license. Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally asked to the owner of the website to upload the patches on Wikipedia, he said it's ok. And the patches are also free of copyright according ukrainian law. Filli99 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The owner of the website either needs to show that this drawing of the patch is under a free license or he needs to contact COM:VRT because all I see is an all rights reserved copyright notice. Yes, the patch would be free from copyright in Ukraine, but this drawing would have its own separate copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Oppose This file represents the insignia of a Ukrainian military unit, this representation is therefore excluded from Copyright according to Ukrainian law (online on the official website of the Ukrainian government here => [1] ) which therefore places this file in the public domain, regardless of the means used to reproduce it.
It is therefore appropriate not to remove this file from the public domain, but to add the template {{Insignia}} in addition to the template {{PD-UA-exempt} }.
There is no need for permission other than Ukrainian law.
When someone creates a drawing of an emblem, the drawing would have its own copyright, which is the reason why I filed this DR. I'm not disputing the emblem itself is not copyrighted, but the drawing would very much be in copyright by the artist. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: No, whatever process is used to reproduce a Ukrainian military insignia, the resulting image will always be excluded from copyright by Ukrainian law, that would be too easy, it would be enough to redraw the insignia, say "this is I who did it" and to demand royalties from the Ukrainian army: If it is the image or reproduction of a badge used by the soldiers of the Ukrainian army, it is in the public domain . Even the original design of the badge is excluded from copyright, only drafts are entitled to it, but they do not represent the badge exactly. Christian28TMA (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butko: @Ahonc: I'm going to ask a few people who know more about Ukrainian law to check your claim. Abzeronow (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, according new copyright law, symbols of military inits are not copyrighted if they are officially adopted by state authorities.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Scyrme as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|History shows that the author (Otogi) requested its deletion back on 13 April 2022, but the request was unhelpfully blanked by a different editor, probably for not using the right template. Should be deleted, per the original request.. Too old for G7, converting to DR for evaluation of courtesy deletion + to allow Otogi to provide a reason, if any. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too old for G7. You're right, sorry. I didn't notice that G7 only applies for the week immediately after the upload. Still, the file isn't being used so complying with the photographer/uploader's request seems harmless and reasonable. Scyrme (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploader on YouTube almost certainly does not have the rights to this image. It is a compilation channel. Bremps... 21:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image from an Argentine movie directed by María Herminia Avellaneda (1933-1997) released in 1971. The film is still copyrighted (50 years pma) in Argentina. Notice that the Buenos Aires government is not the copyright holder, so it cannot re-license to CC-BY as the tag claims. Günther Frager (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not a screenshot of the film, but a rather a film still, that is, a photograph. The now offline acceder.gov catalogue compiled lots of film stills, mainly from the Museo del Cine.--Bleff (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the same argument. It can be a photograph taken during the filming by the producers. The creators are still the copyright holders, and the government cannot re-license their intellectual property at will. This is the same as trying to upload this painting by Carlos Alonso (b. 1929) to Commons just because the owner of the painting happens to the government and it posted it on their website that has a footer claiming all the content is CC-BY. The government might own the copies, but not the copyright. Günther Frager (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sculpture by Alberto Lagos (1893-1960) installed in Buenos Aires. There is no freedom of panorama for non-architectural works in Argentina and the copyright protection is 70 years pma.
File:Busto de Carlos Thays.jpg taken from the Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (GCBA) official website. GCBA owns the sculptures and can give the usage rights as they like (CC-BY 2.5 AR).
--Madamebiblio (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photography itself can have CC-BY license, and the government can own the physical object. Yet, the copyright of the sculpture belongs to Lagos' heirs. Notice that for 3D artworks we need two licenses: the license of the artwork and the license of the photograph, see {{Art Photo}}. Here we have only one. Günther Frager (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fma12 Could you explain why the Argentine legislation regarding freedom of panorama (i.e. the lack of it) doesn't apply here? Because that is the argument to delete the file, not the license of the photo itself. Günther Frager (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepBuenos Aires Botanical Garden (20986755).jpg. The small part of the photo occupied by the bust can be blurred, keeping intact the educational value of the photo as representing a corner of the Botanical Garden. DarwinAhoy! 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Mercurio - estatua en el Jardín Botánico de Buenos Aires.jpg taken from the Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (GCBA) official website. GCBA owns the sculpture and can give the usage rights as they like (CC-BY 2.5 AR).
--Madamebiblio (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photography itself can have CC-BY license, and the government can own the physical object. Yet, the copyright of the sculpture belongs to Celma and Lloreda. Notice that for 3D artworks we need two licenses: the license of the artwork and the license of the photograph, see {{Art Photo}}. Here we have only one. Günther Frager (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
¿Y si en lugar de solo poner plantillas de borrado, ayudas a ubicar los derechos en el MOA? En este caso es una reproducción del original y no se les niega la paternidad de la obra. Madamebiblio (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La información de los escultores lo saqué de la página del Gobierno de la Ciudad [2] donde también menciona que fue seleccionada en un concurso. ¿De dónde sacaste que era una reproducción del original? Günther Frager (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a still from the 1976 IMAX film To Fly!. Looking at the archived URL, it seems that Air/Space misattributed it to the US Navy; the still is most likely provided by Conoco or DuPont as the film's copyright owner, to the Navy, who then shared it with Air/Space. This can be seen in page 395 of this book, and can be seen in the film here, the only difference being that this image has a muted regrading. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am very sorry and it's some 15 years since I imported this file from wikipedia. Thank you for bringing it up. I uploaded a similar file from the U.S. National Archives, PD-USGov-Military-Navy. Cobatfor (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries-- I happen to be editing the article on that film and stumbled upon the image. I think this nomination can be archived now, though I suppose the previous image should be deleted from the history too. I'll leave that to the admins here, but please ping me if I can do anything on that part. Not really a Commons guy, you can tell. Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP. Two are taken from the air and are also not covered.
Keep pls what its proprietary on this pitures? I dont see any work of art. No work of art, no problem with fotos are dont FOP. --Bobo11 (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works of architecture are covered by German copyright LGAtalkedits 11:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep@LGA: Please understand what FOP means in general. You are right, German FOP does not apply for these pictures, but still there is no problem with the photos as there are no or hardly any (→ De Minimis) copyright-protected parts in these pictures. The interior architecture of a usual football stadium cannot be considered protected when not having concrete indications (such as court decisions). Yellowcard (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LGA: Yes. Works of architecture are covered per § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 UhrG. However, it's a requirement that there has to be a "geistige Schöpfung" (roughly translated with "intellectual creation") per § 2 Abs. 2 UrhG that limits Abs. 1 in its applicability. According to several German court decisions (Supreme Court decisions included), usual works of architecture are not protected. You have to individually reason what is speacial in each picture. Mass deletions are not possible with your arguments. Yellowcard (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The architectur is rather functional and IMO doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is nothing copyrightable shown in these images... Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have taken the liberty to strike the filenames of those images which show nothing copyrightable. IMO, the 2 aerial shots merit some discussion about whether the roof design has originality (Schöpfungshöhe) or not.
Also: I have removed a personal attack against the nominator. Please stay on topic. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I think, that crossing the files was precipitate. All these photos, including the crossed ones, show enough copyrightable architecture. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please remember that the level for copyrightability (COM:TOO) in Germany is rather high. --Túrelio (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio Please revert the "Crossing" - there is more than enough copyrightable architecture on display in all of the images, it is all custom designed quite specifically for this stadium. LGAtalkedits 12:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LGA: Could you please eventually start to CONCRETELY point out WHAT elements (I mean, you state there's "enough") are supposed to be copyrighted? Thanks a lot. Yellowcard (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All architecture is copyrightable, the only time that I am aware of architecture has not been afforded protection is in relation to prefabricated mass produced houses and not to independently designed sports stadiums, all of the elements you see in these images, the roof, the stands everything was custom designed with this stadium and this client in mind and is therefore copyright to the architect. LGAtalkedits 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LGA: You're wrong. Please consider that German Urheberrecht applies here. The roof might be debatable (see Túrelio), the stands for sure are not copyrighted. Please respect the facts, see opinions (for keeping the images) of experienced users above. "All architecture is copyrightable" – that might be true for US or whatever country's laws, but not according to the German Urheberrechtsgesetz. Yellowcard (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just in short, as I don’t have much time now. Per § 2 Absatz 1 Nr. 4, Absatz 2[3] of copyright law of Germany (UrhG), which is primarily applicable here due to the location of the building, buildings (or parts of them) are copyrightable only if they are a work of art (Baukunst) above threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe or Gestaltungshöhe).[4]
Whether something qualifies as a “work of art” needs to be evaluated individually, of course. Nevertheless, § 2 Absatz 2 UrhG[5] clearly states that to be copyrightable per this law, a work needs to be “a personal intellectual creation”. Further qualifiers, as used in legal literature: it needs to be “clearly above the average” of comparable buildings.[6][7]; “individuality does not equal originality“[8]. Other refs: [9],[10],[11]. All my references are in German and IANAL, sorry.
Now, applied to the above listed images, I am still convinced that they show nothing copyrightable, except possibly #6&7. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that the stadium design is a "personal intellectual creation" can not be up for debate, it clearly is; and we are talking about an custom design, created for this tenant, we are not dealing with a mass produced chair, office block or house. LGAtalkedits 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a pity you keep repeating yourself instead of dealing with the arguments other users bring into this discussion based on publications. As Túrelio said before: Individuality is not originality. You say that each stadium is individual. That's fine. It doesn't say too much about the copyright protection due to German law, though, as the threshold of originality must be reached; this is not only reasoned with individuality. Yellowcard (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It seems that COM:FOP#Germany doesn't apply unless the camera is located in a public place, and it seems that places high up in the sky or inside a location which requires an entrance fee do not count as public places. The threshold of originality for applied art seems to be quite low, as established e.g. here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct in your 1st statement about FOP, though it isn't an issue here. However, I have to question your analogy of a designer chair (image) to a complex building. I can easily see quite some originality in this chair, but not in the discussed arena. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, that's two completely different things. I meanwhile feel honestly bothered by Stefan4's quotes and links to court decision that don't fit to the deletion requests at all. I only can speak for German UrhG and this deletion requests are senseless. Please close. Yellowcard (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
per Gnom and H-stt in this discussion in German-language Wikipedia: This stadium is a work of architecture protected by copyright; freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't cover aerial photography, so aerial / drone photos of this stadium can't be kept. Though as mentioned in COM:FOP Germany, a regional court (Landgericht) in Frankfurt am Main ruled "that it is allowed to photograph copyrighted works even from the airspace and to use the resulting images for commercial purposes, provided that the works are in public spaces" in 2020, but apparently, a higher court (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) ruled differently since then (maybe H-stt can elaborate on that and update COM:FOP Germany accordingly). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gelsenkirchen - Photographs of Arne Müseler (Hamm decision).
@Gestumblindi: Ich sehe keinerlei SH bei der Gestaltung des Daches. Das ist so simpel wie nur möglich gestaltet. Bitte begründen, wo da die SH sein soll.
Außerdem wären davon unzählige Luftaufnahmen betroffen. Das wäre eine Grundsatzfrage, die besser erstmal grundsätzlich geklärt werden sollte, statt hier vorschnell ein Exempel zu statuieren. -- Chaddy (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es ist etwas ungünstig, die Diskussion parallel auf zwei Seiten zu führen. Den Ausführungen zur Schöpfungshöhe, die h-stt gerade hier gemacht hat, würde ich mich anschliessen. M.E. muss aber jeder Fall für sich betrachtet werden, ich würde diesen LA also auch nicht als "Exempel" betrachten, sondern eben eine Einzelfalldiskussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das finde ich allerdings auch. Hätte man vermeiden können, indem man mit dem LA noch etwas abwartet. Die Diskussion auf UF hat erstmal gelangt...
Zu den Ausführungen hab ich mich drüben geäußert (@abarbeitender Admin: bitte auch die Diskussion drüben berücksichtigen).
Ja, das sind natürlich immer Einzelfallentscheidungen. So ist das bei den U-Bahnstationen aber auch. Und trotzdem ist es auch eine Grundsatzfrage, weil so quasi alle Luftaufnahmen von Gebäuden, die noch nicht alt genug sind, betroffen sind. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wenn man ihnen Schöpfungshöhe zuspricht. Die sehe ich hier zwar, du siehst sie nicht, das ist nun also zu diskutieren... Gestumblindi (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just updated COM:FOP Germany. And yes, the vast majority of aerial photography from Germany has to go, if modern buildings are the center of the image. Only those buildings, where the copyright has expired, where the modern building is just one of many in the picture or the building is extremely simple, we can keep the picture. And with extremely simple I mean exactly that. The public toilet building on a highway rest station was declared protected, the box shaped toilet building of an public inn in Bavaria is even a listed building, because the proportions of the windows are considered typical for the time of construction de:Waldwirtschaft Großhesselohe. --h-stt!? 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would guess that buildings like merely functional agricultural sheds or typical warehouses / storage buildings (basically boxes with no aesthetical aspirations whatsoever) would still be below the threshold of originality, but buildings like this stadium do aspire to a certain aesthetic appeal, see for example this article published when it opened: "Das Stadion selbst ist ein architektonisch ansprechendes Gebäude (...)", an "architecturally appealing building". Gestumblindi (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because at this point I’m assuming German FOP only exists on alternate Thursdays in November if they aren’t public holidays except in Bavaria where it’s exclusively Wednesdays in September Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The questions we have to answer here are difficult, but not that complicated. First question: Does German freedom of panorama apply? If yes, we keep the pictures. Second question: If the answer to the first question is no and German FoP doesn't apply, is this building above the threshold of originality (TOO)? If no, we keep the pictures, as they then don't need FoP. Now, Chaddy and Ralf who argue for keeping the pictures both argue with the TOO. They don't argue that FoP applies, so I assume thet they concur with the assumption that FoP isn't applicable for aerial/drone photography in Germany. So, I'd say that the state of this discussion is: No FoP, but maybe (I think otherwise) not meeting TOO. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they are difficult, and complicated. Because TOO is meaningless guesswork (how the crap do I know if this stadium is “artistic”?) and German FoP law only applies to, basically, one very specific situation (street-level photography of permanent installations in completely unrestricted public areas). So yes, I’d say that the stadium is above TOO because it’s not some mass-produced, purely utilitarian industrial building and also that FoP obviously doesn’t apply Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Photo of copyright workYann (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My Father was Chief Ebenze of Igueben Kingdom a title my brother now holds. I have entitlement to photograph any work from, and at Igueben Kingdom Royal Palace. The image was photographed on site and not downloaded from the internet. I have therefore not violated any copyright rules. I uploaded this photograph on Wikipedia free license use. Please remove the deletion requests. Thank you very much. Imanluk (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imanluk It is not that we doubt your honesty. It is that this is the internet and we are unable to believe anyone. Please send proof to COM:VRT. I am sure you will understand this small formality. Com:PCP applies. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Imanluk. The process will now run its course. Even if this file is deleted in the meantime, the process will resinstate it if and when they are satisfied with what you have provided. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless and until proof of the statement by Imanluk together with the right to upload images here is supplied to COM:VRT 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imanluk, thank you for uploading the photo and jumping through these hoops! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This user post these pictures without the permission. Other pictures of this person has been deleted uploaded by tuxdiary before. I have seen this today. 2001:250:4001:201:F1CA:23CA:3490:6418 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The file has been 5 years in Commons and it is used in ru.wiktionary. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unauthorized Publishing. This user published unauthorized work without permission. See his posts history. 218.197.152.103 12:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept: no evidence has been provided that there would be a permission problem - in use, so in scope. --Jcb (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Are you saying that you're the photographer, or that this is your penis in the photo? Guanaco (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete "The doctor uploaded means" the reproductive organ belongs to the DR opener. We cannot keep something like this when there is a privacy issue at stake. Although I sometimes say Commons is not a male reproductive organs album, I guess we have a couple of pics of this thing in Commons, therefore if the file in question is used it can be replaced with another. Help the man. --E4024 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept: Most people are identified by their faces rather than by normally-hidden body parts, and I seriously doubt there is any way the requester (even if it is only the one) has any real fear of being identified. So I discount privacy as a serious reason for deletion, and if there is any residual issue here it should be dealt with by way of OTRS rather than in a public forum. I make no comment on the fact that the image has been here for five years without complaint. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
Kept: This request adds nothing to previous ones and is therefore speedily closed. --Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This 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.
Porn only used for vandalism posts at this point in time. We have plenty of images of hard cocks. No need to keep this one when it isn't being used and it is outside of scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Well, according to the other DRs on this image, this has been in use for a long time, so this is not a reason for deletion. And it's also old enough, so COM:PENIS doesn't apply. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per PaterMcFly 20upper 17:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep According to the file description this was originally published in 1928. So unless I'm missing something it should qualify as PD-Old. I assume 1983 is date of publication for the edition of the journal that they scanned, but it wouldn't retain it's own copyright separate from the 1928 original. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The date in the file description has proven to be inaccurate for some periodical volumes uploaded from IA. I checked the front matter in the actual document. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unknown author (this does not mean anonymous), no publication data before upload into Commons. Public domain needs evidence. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep We generally assume family members have the rights to release family images. We have "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs" as a more specific template. --RAN (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced, that uploader is a heir. Taivo (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then where did the image come from, since your argument is that it was never made public before? USA case law has sided with images being made public when they leave the custody of the photographer. --RAN (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not know, where the image came from. It's uploader's duty to explain that. Uploader did not claim himself to be the heir of photographer, photographer is unidentified. Suspicious. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep According to the file description this was originally published in 1894. So unless I'm missing something it should qualify as PD-Old. I assume 1968 is date of publication for the edition of the journal that they scanned, but it wouldn't retain it's own copyright separate from the 1894 original. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a number of periodicals IA's entered the publication date as the date of the first issue of the 'serial', not the date of the individual volume. I try to check the front matter as well as the metadata from IA. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duplicate. This file is the same file type and has exactly the same content as a second file. The second file has a higher resolution than this file. The second file is here: File:Getty Villa - Collection (86.AE.680).jpg Xyxyzyz (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
derivative work of Humphrey Bear, who is still under copyright in the United States MonkeyBBGB (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[12] says that Hooked Bear is in PD in the USA @MonkeyBBGB can you link something who confirm if the short is under the copyright or not? Andr€a (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete First I wouldn't use internet archive as the definitive source. We don't need to check the copyright of the actual short, because this short is from 1956. Humphrey the Bear, the character depicted in the title card, is originally from a . This work would be considered a derivative of that original 1950 work, and Wikimedia does not allow characters who have their original publication still under copyright to be featured in later works. See this deletion request over Wackiki Wabbit for more info. Here is a summary of the argument against this.
"One instructive case was Warner Bros. vs Avela, which was a case about some Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and Tom and Jerry cartoon promotional material. The court ruled the publicity material itself public domain due to lack of notice, however the characters created by the movie/cartoons existed from the date of publication, and any publicity material containing copyrighted aspects of those characters afterwards were derivative works and thus an infringement. Any publicity material published before the film/cartoon itself was published could not be derivative of the characters, and was therefore OK."
Additionally, I would add that at a cursory glance, the short does not appear to have received a proper registration or renewal by Disney. So yes the short itself is public domain. I found 2 cards related to it from 1955, both for music for a man named Oliver Wallace.
But as a derivative this work is still infringement. The 1950 short is public domain in 2046, so this image should be Undeleted in 2046. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One last thought on the short as a whole. The whole of the short can't be uploaded until 2050 as the Scout Master is under copyright under 1954's Grin and Bear It. See the registration here. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Author listed is Martin Kovář. This is a Public Domain Mark file on Flickr from the Czech Pirate Party, so this is not their own work. Abzeronow (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep PD-EU-no author disclosure would apply. --RAN (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep L'image représentée fait partie du domaine public, a plus de 70 ans, et l'identité de l'auteur de ce document n'a jamais été révélée dans les 70 ans qui ont suivi la publication initiale. Et de plus, cette image est de notoriété publique, elle figure sur de nombreux ouvrages et journaux d'époque.
Effectivement, Fafa065844 n'a pas respecté à la lettre la procédure pour expliquer qu'il l'a scanné dans un musée public, mais en aucun cas, cette image n'enfreint les droits d'auteur. Fafa065844 est surement français, et pour beaucoup d'utilisateurs français, téléverser une image du domaine public est mal expliqué dans Common. Plutôt que supprimer cette image, il suffit de modifier la licence, ce qui serait plus judicieux, ou de laisser tel quel, ce qui ne dérange absolument personne.
Le Général François Sevez est une figure historique de l'histoire du monde, il était présent lors de la reddition de Reims, Reddition que la Fédération de Russie veut actuellement effacer des mémoires pour s'attribuer le mérite de la totalité de la défaite du IIIᵉ Reich. Il serait bon, en ces temps troublés, de ne pas entrer, même involontairement, dans le jeu d'un dictateur accusé de crimes contre l'humanité, pour effacer de la mémoire un homme, authentique héro, qui a contribué a la capitulation d'un autre dictateur accusé lui aussi de crimes contre l'humanité commis dans le même pays.
Je comprendrais la suppression s'il y avait une autre image téléversée, mais il n'y en a pas sur Common
Je vais contacter le service historique de l'armée française pour en trouver une, mais cela va prendre du temps Christian28TMA (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please delete this file due to request from soho rezanejad / hreinn gudlaugsson Hreinn Gudlaugsson (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In use, within scope. Only image currently uploaded of her, uploader/requester released image under CC BY-SA 4.0, there's Commons:Courtesy deletions though. 80.62.117.232 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please delete the image as Soho Rezanejad has not given consent for its use. 94.223.81.71 17:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hreinn Gudlaugsson: How could this happen? You seem to be an experienced photographer, you likely know about permission and consent, you supposedly know how licenses work… What now? Courtesy deletion in Commons, sure, but maybe next time upload to Flickr first? -- Tuválkin✉✇ 11:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I (Hreinn gudlaugsson) have asked to have this image deleted and it has now been over a month since my request and nothing has happened yet.
Can you please answer what you were asked so that a possible courtesy deletion might be considered? -- Tuválkin✉✇ 04:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep no valid reason for courtesy deletion given. Heavily in use. The image was published under an IRREVOCABLE CC license (next time: read the fine print first), thus should be kept. --Zenwort (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Netherlands#Stamps stamps of the Netherlands are copyrighted until at least 70 years after the artists death. In this case at least one of the artists, Paul Mijksenaar, seems to still be alive. So this image copyrighted until an unknown date. Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
from my family album. The picture is for genealogy purpose and my family tree using entitree.com with full public access (Type " Lorentz Ehrer " (1663-1751) and then click on each arrow). No copyright on this picture and I am the owner. So, where is the problem ? Tontonflingueur (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourced to a 1959 publication of a South African museum, Whilst it's plausible that some copyrights in the volume may have expired in South Africa, I'm thinking it's to recent for a 70/95 year term (as in the US) to have expired.
A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russian official medals are PD-RU-exempt, but medals do not fall under {{PD-art}}. Photoworks do not created by uploader, they can be easily found on Internet - on phaleristics sites or shops.
P.S. His first uploads (5 medals) have fake authorship too, but I can (will try to) relicense them.Alex Spade (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep files from Mos.ru and Delete another ones. I've found and added links to all files from Mos.ru, which have free CC-BY license. Other websites, as I know, don't have free licenses, moreover, files from news agencies like RIA are basically copyrighted. However, I don't know what to do with files which are marked as a self-made work and not found on another websites through Google or Yandex images and don't have watermarks or signs of another websites in EXIF metadata Xenotron (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From family album, date of publication unknown, PD-Iran questionable HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep PD-Iran, we use Occam's Razor, images of Iranian people, we use Iranian copyright law, until proven otherwise. You haven't presented any actionable information other than your generalized suspicion. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not just generalized FUD. --RAN (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Iranian law, a photograph can be considered to be in the public domain if either:
a) it was published in Iran more than 30 years ago (no evidence is provided for that).
b) its creator had died before 22 August 1980 (No information is available regarding the claimed athour, Arash Khalatbari).
Photograph taken from the internet without any information known about the author, date of publication, etc., PD-Iran questionable. HeminKurdistan (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is a wrong logo of NIFT, errors are 1. Hindi spelling of Rashtriya is wrong, 2. Spelling of Instititute at the bottom of the circle is wrong, 3. alignment of text/words in the bottom of circle is not proper, 59.145.24.90 05:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The footer indicated CCTV (China Central Television), not from the CNS (China News Service), thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNS, as an official government body, uploaded those under the valid license.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The footer indicated CCTV (China Central Television), not from the CNS (China News Service), thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNS, as an official government body, uploaded those under the valid license.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The footer indicated CCTV (China Central Television), not from the CNS (China News Service), thus the CC license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNS, as an official government body, uploaded those under the valid license.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So basically, what it amounts to is that Commons can't host files from China Central Television, I guess. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File was uploaded by שהם אברהם (talk·contribs) but Rotem516 (talk·contribs) claimed in edit summaries to be the photographer and that it was uploaded without their permission. It is too late for speedy deletion by author request, but the file is unused so complying with the request seems harmless. Scyrme (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this really an official document of state governing powers? Looks like an office letter, so may be a copyrighted text. PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Вы думаете, что КГБ и Генеральная прокуратура — это не государственные органы? ) --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Не всякое письмо из КГБ попадает под эту льготу. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Это официальный документ на официальном бланке в официальное ведомство ЦК КПСС. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probable copyright violation, the sculptor John Maltby died in 2022, and we need evidence of permission from his heirs. Freedom of panorama might apply if this work is 'if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public' in the UK (see COM:FOP UK), but we would need some evidence to support such a claim. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probable copyright violation, requires evidence of permission from the heirs of the potter Michael Cardew, who died in 1983. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probable copyright violation, requires evidence of permission from the sculptor Edward Allington, who died in 2017, or from his heirs. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No evidence published under CC-BY. Also, License review has not gone through. Chqaz (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep At the time I uploaded this file to Commons (24 January 2023), this was published under the CC BY.[1][2] At least, it was published under the CC BY until 11 June 2023.[3] The Creative Commons license cannot be revoked, so even if it is not published under the CC BY at the moment, I think there are not any copyright issues.--Momiji-Penguin (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)fix references--Momiji-Penguin (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nope. it is obviously a copyrighted work, as in current version. Perhaps for a while it was a CC bu in current form, in multiple media platforms, it seems to be copyrighted:
also, bad news, your links seem to be broken Cactus Ronin (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cactus Ronin: Part of the copyright of the song is managed by JASRAC (757-8715-6) and NexTone (N01186189), but I don't know if the music video is also managed by them. Also, the author has also published recent works under the CC BY,[4] so I think the author may be the copyright holder of their music videos. In that case, even if they stop publishing their works under the CC BY, they cannot revoke the license.[5]--Momiji-Penguin (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Agree for deletion. Needless to say. Sugi moyo (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The archive links indicate that it was the musicians' own work released under CC-BY at the musicians' own YouTube channel. That seems good enough for us unless there is conflicting information (such as someone else claiming to have its copyright). If they released it by mistake and want to retract it, we might want to honor it. But that would have to start by their explicit request, not by a silent change of license on their side without explanation. whym (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The creation of this map was not based on any reference. The creator saw the Cantino Planisphere and made his own interpretation about the map. As noted by user:Abrahhcadabrahh on en:Malacca Sultanate page: The flag is used by the Portuguese mapper to denote a Muslim kingdom. On the map, several other Muslim kingdoms used the same flag (some together with the blue flag with a yellow crescent) with different shapes. There are also several red-edged blue flags, which denote a Portuguese settlement. The St. George flags are used for Christian countries (and also England) and the Scottish flag is accurately shown w/o the blue. There is also the flag of Castille (Spain). Others are duplicates Surijeal (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The website said nothing about the disputed image. It mentioned Johor Sultanate banners (not the national or official flag of Johor). It also says "there are records about the use of red flags and the crescent moon symbol by the government" but did not use historical or peer-reviewed journals or at least books with clear historiography. Sulalatus Salatin is a semi-historical work written after Johor's golden age ca. 1670, it is okay to reflect the situation of the Johore Sultanate using that book, but it should not be taken at face value regarding the information about the previous kingdoms such as Malacca UNLESS there is a primary source backing up the claim. As such, we need sources from the supposed era (for example from inscriptions or letters to foreign kingdoms) or at least close to the supposed era (for example Portuguese writings such as Suma Oriental which is written not far from the era of Malacca Sultanate).
The problem we have here is that the creator of this file believed that the flag shown in the Cantino Planisphere was THE REAL Malacca flag, which is not indicated anywhere on the government website. Unless there is a historical or peer-reviewed journal that backed the claim, I agree with the deletion: This file is a personal interpretation without any historical basis. Verosaurus (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This flag is just a generic representation of an Islamic state since all the Islamic states in the map are similar (only difference being the shape of the flags), so it cannot be given as a Malaccan flag. Hzh (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per com:China, "if not published by central organizations, then CPC works may considered as copyrighted.". 128.6.37.162 01:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to the "Two Brands for One Institute" (w:zh:一个机构两块牌子) strategy used by the CPC to tie its subsidiaries with government departments, "Guiyang Cybersecurity and Information Technology Commission Office of the Communist Party of China" (中共贵阳市网络安全和信息化委员会办公室), which is subordinate to "Guiyang Municipal Party Committee"(中共贵阳市委), is also known as "Guiyang Internet Information Office" (贵阳市网信办), which is subordinate to "Guiyang Municipal Government"(贵阳市政府). And according to the text, I think it a formal administrative document with the legal effect conferred by government functions.--虹易 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per [13], "Guiyang Internet Information Office" is a public institution (事业单位, public institution (Q10879990), not easy to translate) instead of a governmental department. Njzjz (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That document on guiyang.gov.cn does outline the jobs of the institution: "correctly guide social public opinion, guide and coordinate the work of municipal news orgs", "Plan, deploy and guide the city's ideological and political work; manage the Municipal Spiritual Civilization Office; lead the work of the Municipal Workers' Ideological and Political Work Research Association", "Release major news on behalf of the municipal government". That is, the institution is a de facto government subsidiary, executing administrative functions that are inherited from the government and authorized by laws. In this context, a public institution (事业单位) can be "administrative institution" or "public institution with administrative functions" (行政性事业单位). --虹易 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Low resolution, no metadata information which makes the own work claim doubtful 『白猫』Обг. 01:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepCOM:INUSE, and the only TinEye results first appeared after the upload date for this photo. I can't upload a GIF file to Google Image Search, so that'll have to do. "Low resolution," especially of an image which is said to be from 2007, and lack of EXIF are not deletion reasons per COM:Deletion requests. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no way the uploader has a copyright to it. The comment says "Cross-wiki upload from ru.wikipedia.org", and the user name uses the word "Bot" andd I dont see any other their uploads; maybe they all were deletted Altenmann (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That comment is not suspicious at all to me. Lots of images were uploaded to a Wikipedia first and then transferred to Commons. Otherwise, I refer the reader to my previous comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Uploader has no deleted contributions on Commons. I copied the image and converted it to png to do reverse image searches on Tineye and Google, and found no online versions predating the upload to Commons. Why do you say "there is no way the uploader has copyright to it"? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Can an admin with rights on ru:w take a look to see if there is any possibly relevant history there? Same uploader account name? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a city view with a number of buildings covered. Ukrainian FoP applies an 'independent economic significance' criterion (a norm on which there is no court practice yet), and it will likely pass here because no creative element of Gulliver design is reproducible from this picture, and it is a mix of copyrighted and public domain buildings — NickK (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO the copyrighted building is prominent and fails de minimis--A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, photo is intended on Gulliver Building, as evidenced by the file name. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 20:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern sculpture, no FoP for 3D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I disagree. This is a typical object of park and gardening art, which is not under copyright restriction. I think you can buy similar sculpture in special shops like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325329196421.
Question Garden art is not protected by copyright? --A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright belongs to author of the logo if proof of the opposite can't be presented. The flag and the bus are derivative works of the copyrighted logo.
For the one on the bus and the flag FOP should apply. These are permanently publicly displayed. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After having read COM:FOP Germany I agree that the logo on the bus is permanently placed, so Keep on that one. The flag however, is that really permanently placed? Jonteemil (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's indeed difficult to say without knowing where the image was taken. But I can imagine that a fan of the club would put this up more or less permanently (at least until the next storm destroys it, but that's considered permanent because it is not planned) PaterMcFly (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the image of the Flag. I saw it for years in a allotment of Hamburg-Stellingen.--An-d (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the iOS 17 and IPadOS 17 logo's, I have edited the background art to only match the font as a backing, to harmonize with other iOS icons. Verdel (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but I think it's best that we move them to wikipedia as fair use for accurate representation. Larryasou (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind, I see my edits have been reverted for unknown reason. Verdel (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, can I use this logo for advertising and marketing? 14.177.147.162 15:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Commons allows family members to release family images. Commons prefers {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} as the the license. Tineye searched over 15 billion images and did not find any copy on the Internet, so the uploader's claim the images are from the family archive, appears valid. They uploaded the images 13 years ago in good faith. --RAN (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No, not own work. Captioned as follows in w:Yousuf Shah Chak: "Portrait of Yousuf by an anonymous Kashmiri artist in Srinagar, c. 1580–1585." The portrait is obviously public domain; the only question is how old the photograph is or, if it's scanned from a book, how long ago the book was published. User:Lightningblade23, please give us a full answer for these things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Hold it: this is PD-art, because it's a faithful copy of a public domain work of flat art. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It got caught in a mass F1 since the rest of their uploads were F1s. I've undeleted it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Stylistically, it does NOT look 16th-century to me, although I may be mistaken. If there is actual original source info, please share it. It *might* be PD perhaps 19th century interpretation of historical figure, but without source info I don't see how that can be determined. If this is kept, the license, author credit, date, and file name should all be changed as appropriate. Image is currently unused and uncat - if no confirmation of source showing it is PD-Old can be presented, I'd favor Delete. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Nouill as Speedy (Speedy deletion) and the most recent rationale was: No Fair Use in FranceWdwd (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: You are misinterpreting the Constitution and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As I stated in the file under "Permission": "The National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the official national anthem of the country, does not claim copyright in the sense that it would be available for commercial use or reproduction without permission. It can be considered a public good and can be used in certain situations as free use." and "Typically, national anthems are used solely for official purposes and are not subject to the same copyright rules as commercial or artistic content. However, its use for commercial purposes, such as sale or commercial reproduction, usually requires appropriate permission or approval from the relevant authorities or authors." are the correct interpretation of the Constitution and Laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Dušan Šestić is the author (composer) of the work, but he has no copyright over that work. As stated in THIS DECISION of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) dated June 25, 1999, Article 4: "The copyright of the national anthem is retained by Bosnia and Herzegovina." So, he is the person who made the national anthem, but the owner of the work is Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Also in the same OHR decision, Article 1 clearly states "This law establishes the National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the anthem) and determines its use as a symbol of the State." This means that this is considered a symbol of Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like the FLAG, COAT OF ARMS and any other symbols, which are free to use by Wikipedia rules and laws of the country. If you delete this file, delete the flag, coat of arms and other symbols of the country because they fall under the same category BY LAW.
Please next time educate yourself about these things before making any requests and decisions. --Z1KA (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EDIT: Note that, although the author is alive, he has no copyright over the work. His name is only mentioned as the composer of the piece and nothing more. The Country, Bosnia and Herzegovina, has full rights over the work, and it is not subject to copyright law because it is a symbol of that country. All participants of the public competition for the Selection of the National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina were told that if their work is selected, the copyright is transferred from them to the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Z1KA (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I agree with @Z1KA there is no ground for deleting national anthem Panassko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panassko (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The monument was completed in 1922 by Mario Sarto (1885–1955). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2026.
Keep File:Monumento Caduti CodigoroSarto.JPG is a postcard presumably from 1922, so it would be in the public domain already because of publication. --RAN (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright the photographer of the postcard had, might be expired. The copyright of the piece of art doesn't expire quicker just because it is visible on a postcard. According to this page on the official website of the municipality where this monument is standing, the artist is Mario Sarto (1885-1955). So these files should be removed and on January 1st 2026 they can be restored. - Robotje (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least the way I see this is that the estate of the architect would have to sue the postcard publisher or original photographer for copyright infringement, which clearly isn't going to happen due to how old the postcard is. But it's free of copyright in the United States since it was published before 1922 and that's really the only thing that matters since we don't ultimately who published and photographed it or where it was published to begin with. If it was published outside of Italy then there's no grounds to delete it. I don't think it would set a good precedent if every historical photograph or image of a postcard of "X monument in Y country" was deleted simply because we assume it was originally published in said country regardless of the evidence. There's plenty of postcards of objects in the United States that would be copyrighted if they were published there, but they were published in Canada and Visa versa. Same goes for ones published in Europe. So it's not as simple as saying "well, this monument is in Italy and it's copyrighted" so this postcard of it from 1905 must be to. There's obviously more to the equation then that. Like what country the product was actually published in, if the photograph had been published in the country of origin before that, was the photographer a citizen of the country where they took the image or not, Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Na prośbę sfotografowanego aktora / At the request of the photographed actor Eduardschnack (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Andy Dingley: Most of the files nom-ed are works that are either in US or France which both do not have any FOP for sculptures. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you've already removed one (in Switzerland). As noted already, scatter-gun deletion requests are a big time-sink for other editors. Are they expected to check that every deletion was in a country (and yes, USA and France are restrictive, see COM:FoP) where the DR is valid? The onus should be firmly on the nominator to check that their requests are correct beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Milord la Chamarre Mummer Philly.JPG according to the Smithsonian Siris which records all text on the sculpture, there is no copyright notice on the sculpture. Since is was installed (published) in 1974 in the US while the notice requirement was still in effect, the sculpture is public domain. Smallbones (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DELETED: but two sculptures in countries with freedom of panorama (Portugal and Switzerland) are kept. Taivo (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)}}Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
@Racconish as for File:Dubuffet Group of Four Trees 1972 NYC.jpg, it is a photograph of an outdoor sculpture installed in a public location in New York before 1977 which means it should be considered in public domain per Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, specifically "Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies." Ppt91 (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fyi, I changed the notice in the file to reflect the public domain per what I stated above. Thanks. Ppt91 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually not so sure. The account uploaded 3 photos Paul Huntley, now deceased, likely actually took, and that I can't immediately find elsewhere. It's worth looking more into before we delete a (possibly) fairly unique contributor's uploads. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I contacted the person who runs Paul Huntley's Instagram now that he is dead. He does not believe Paul Huntley uploaded the images. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Marcha Real don't have an offical lyrics. This is a purposed by Miguel Ángel Gómez Sedano relatively unknown outside Spain itself. ชาวไทย (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While some works of state and local governments in the United States are public domain, most states do not release their works to the public domain. One such state that does not grant their works to the public domain, Montana, is the state whose county sheriff's office creatd this work. I am likewise unable to find any broad waiver of copyright on the website of the sherrif's department. The custom license makes reference to this being a "public record", but (as established in County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate) that a work is a "public record" does not automatically grant it to the public domain. And, in fact, Montana's public records law only states that of every person has a right to examine and obtain a copy of any public information of this state with exceptions that certain records not be released. This is not sufficient (compare New York's law, which likewise requires that state and local governments make available for public inspection and copying all records except in a handful of special cases, and was deemed to not be a waiver of copyright). As such, in light of COM:PRP, this file should be deleted for lacking evidence of a suitable free license from the copyright holder. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 03:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I object to deletion of this photo. I helped develop this article to GA status, and the photo was a part of the article at the time of its GA review, and it helps tell the story of a part of his political career. Even if this public mugshot photo wasn’t a government-created public record, it is unlikely that this mugshot photo would be ruled to be sufficiently creative to quality for copyright protection under United States federal law. It's a simple headshot photo of Gianforte standing in front of a cinderblock wall at a county detention center or jail. The Gallatin County Montana Sheriff's Office released this photo to the public and it was widely published in mainstream, fact-checked newspapers of record, such as USA Today as found here, for example: [14]. - Critical Chris 12:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this instance, the image could be retained on en-wiki with a fair use justification; however, fair use isn't allowed for images held on Commons. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment@Critical Chris: The article could be widely celebrated as the best article on Wikipedia ever, and it would still be zero excuse for Commons to keep an image that was not established to be free licensed. None of what you said addresses the issue that this image is listed for. See Commons:Licensing. (Note that en.Wikipedia allows for limited "fair use" of non-free media; Commons cannot.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Ukraine.
This is another case where a FOP-related deletion request that does not provide essential information. The current building which is depicted in the nominated photographs appears to follow the overall design of a former church which was designed by the architect Konstantin Ton (Константина Тона) (1794–1881), consecrated in 1886 and later blown up in 1931 (see uk:Преображенський собор (Донецьк) for details). Construction of the new church began in 1997. This means that we have a problem only in those cases where the photographs depict an element of the new church which significantly diverts from the original church. Some of the nominated photographs show just the construction site with the building in a very early state like File:Настя Федоренко. Донецк. Увидеть и полюбить. 166.jpg. They are to be excluded as the depicted object is in a state which is below COM:TOO. The artwork appears to be new, hence photos depicting the mosaics like File:Мозайки собора Лев.Вост.фасад.JPG should be deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with @NickK, especially: "This request needs to split into the one covering original design by K. Ton and the one covering 1990s changes." (punctuation added)
This complex and varied bulk DR should be rejected and the Nominator may resubmit some files with more information in order to avoid: "... another case where a FOP-related deletion request that does not provide essential information." (per @AFBorchert) -- Ooligan (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete For images of the modern design. Keep For the others. Either that or ping when or if the DR is split up and I'll just vote the same way in both of them. Although I rather just do it here while this open in the meantime. It's not like the closing administrator can't exclude images of the older church or whatever when they close this. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and even if I did get the fire department's permission, I would probably need their governing agencies' permission, and then their governing agencies' permission for that, so it would be too confusing and they probably wouldn't know what to do anyway. So I guess it should be deleted. Jidanni (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, if it somehow is still legal, it would be great if it could be saved from deletion. Jidanni (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but it seems to be above the TOO in the United Kingdom. I don't see anything indicating it was produced in the U.S. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:5CCB:50E9:EE4:E848 06:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No FoP for 3D works in Norway, artist Nils Aas died in 2004 A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is not a picture of art per se, but a picture of a building environment, as used here: nl:Hogeschool Telemark. Being an public art manager at the county council myself, I am aware of the norwegian laws in this matter. There are surely some photos in Category:Nils Aas that might be violating norwegian copyright law. However, pictures like this one (and this and that one) does IMHO not violate copyright laws. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. The status is in the middle of the shot and takes up a good partition of it. So the claim that it's just a picture of the building seems rather far fetched. Especially considering the angle of the shot doesn't even allow people to see the building in any way that matters to begin with. Maybe I'd buy it if the image actually showed the whole building and not just one side of it at an extreme angle though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Saurabhsaha as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1: Clear copyright violation Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as an image from 1880 should be already in the public domain. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A version of this photo appears in Photographic Album of Old Dhaka (আলোকচিত্রে সেকালের ঢাকা) (page 35) published by the Bangladesh National Museum. There's no information about the photographer (as is the case with most of the images in the book), but the caption confirms the photo is from the 1880s. The back cover of the book notes that originals of all but four of the images in it are held by the museum, which received most of them in 1991 to help preserve them. The introduction doesn't state anything about these photos being seen for the first time. It notes that many of them belonged to the time of Nawab Salimullah (d. 1915) and Nawab Ahsanullah (d. 1901), both of whom were avid photographers. This review talks a little more about the history of the photos in the book. The first edition of that book was published in 2003, but given that there are multiple versions of the image found online with different resolutions and tones from what's in the book, it seems unlikely that it was first published only 20 years ago. {{PD-Bangladesh}} should apply. —Tcr25 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Even if the image is from Facebook, it falls under {{PD-Bangladesh}}, and therefore it should be kept after changing the file description. Saurabhsaha (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Old photos, DW of photos etc. All flickrwashed. 0 followers, 0 following. Some of these are found here https://pionerasdelaciencia.senacyt.gob.pa/ and marked (c) at the bottom
The "marked (c) at the bottom" is website boilerplate that covers any novel text. Republishing historical images does not transfer the copyright, or restart the copyright clock. Someone writing in Spanish should use the "contact" button on the website, and clarify the status of post-1973 images and the original caricatures. --RAN (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The older ones are PD-Panama and PD-Cuba. --RAN (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I think the hand drawn ones should be deleted, since I cannot find an attributed creator, and we should assume the Flickr account is not from the creator, unless proven so. See: https://pionerasdelaciencia.senacyt.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/posterImagen-1.jpg , the source of the hand drawn ones. If the creator is releasing under a CC license, we need a VRT to confirm from Pioneras de la Ciencia. All the material is copyrighted to the organization that is releasing the images. We should get a VRT from the illustrator to see if she consented to the CC release. --RAN (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickrwashing. We need confirmation that this flickr account belongs to Proyecto Pioneras de la Ciencia and are freely licensed. https://pionerasdelaciencia.senacyt.gob.pa/ clearly states (c) at the bottom. 0 followers, 0 following
Keep I am going to add VK the ones that fit PD-Panama or the exif data releases them under CC. Panama uses 50 years from creation. I will switch them to PD-Panama. Some are contemporary and appear to be properly released as CC, see for example: File:Mairim Solís.jpg and others read: "This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution "Free Cultural Work"" in the exif data. --RAN (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I am going to add VK to those having no exif data showing a CC license and newer than the 1973 cutoff. Others can do the same. --RAN (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the uploader can show that the website got permission to republish the post-1973 images from the creators, they can submit a VRT. We accept "no known restrictions" licenses from reliable sources, for instance Flickr Commons uses the license from member archives. If the artist released the original artwork under a creative commons license, the website can file a VRT and they can stay. Someone writing in Spanish should use the "contact" button on the website, and clarify the status of post-1973 images and the original caricatures. I have contacted the uploaders and they have not responded, and I have written the Flickr account and they have not responded. If they respond in the future the images can be restored. --RAN (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image seems not to be covered by the stated license. The file page claims that the author is ヨメミ V-AR チューバー -萌実- ("Moemi & Yomemi Channel" when seen from the English language interface). I don't think that is true because different copyright holders are involved in the video. From what I can see, the Moemi & Yomemi YouTube channel has the copyright the eponymous characters, but has no authority to release the character artwork of Tsukino Mito. They merely hosted and published a show with the latter character appearing as a guest. It's reasonable to assume there is agreement between them to allow that, but we don't know if a third party can use the depiction under a free license.
The question above has been addressed. There is no standing argument against nomination as far as I can see. whym (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unused penis image, already blacklisted for vandalism Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Unlike most random penis pics we get, this is seems properly lit and in focus. It has been on Commons since 2009. Misuse by third parties is not a reason for deletion from Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Tehonk as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: url has copyright notice: http://istanbulkadinmuzesi.org/
Subject was born in 1902 and died in 1943, and subject appears to be in their twenties so this appears to be a 1920s Turkish photograph. Would need more information on the actual photographer to keep. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Appears to be PD-Turkey and Tineye found no one attributed as the creator. --RAN (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete We don't know if the photographer died before 1952 or later. It could be much later hence it's not PD-Turkey. Obviously it was not "own work" also. Tehonk (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file is a copyright violation because this media is a logo or a derivative work thereof, which are always presumed to be copyrighted unless they are too simple to be copyrightable. Unless licensed under a free license, copyrighted logos are not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. Saurabhsaha (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment
The follow file should be deleted as same reason
This file via C-SPAN is a recording of an event by the National Press Club, not a U.S. government publication. Hence, not public domain. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos interiors Noorderhaven 5 and 7, Groningen, the Netherlands, for RCE-2023-09[edit]
Mass deletion request for 55 (=12 + 43) images from 2 Categories:
RCE was threatened legally by the present owner of the property depicted on the listed 55 interior photographs to remove these images from their own online public image database, and to remove online donated copies thereof on Wikimedia Commons. RCE mailed me as their former Wikimedian in Residence, and has indeed removed the original 55 images from their online public database.
So reasons for deletion:
Courtesy deletion for image donor RCE under legal threat, and
Privacy deletion for the present owner of the depicted interiors, also for risk of burglary etc.
Question Are any of these photos COM:INUSE? I'm not going to look at all of them to determine that. If any are in use, they cannot be deleted. Otherwise, we could consider a courtesy deletion request, and I wouldn't automatically oppose that, but I don't see how the decision we make is relevant to legal threats against another party. If we keep the images, they nevertheless did due diligence by requesting deletion. As for the attitude of a new owner of the property who didn't own it when the photos were taken, how is that of any relevance? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course they can be deleted if they happen to be in use, but i didn't find an example of usage. This seems to be irrelevant to the case of courtesy and privacy deletions, right? We are dealing with RCE, not directly with an owner, who however indeed has privacy rights. RCE is the original copyright owner. So Ikan Kekek prefers at the minimum a courtesy deletion, Hansmuller (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't prefer a courtesy deletion: I said I wouldn't automatically oppose it, but i definitely would if any photos were in use. But I don't see how the current owner of a historic house has privacy rights over these photos, and I also don't like the idea of letting real-world threats to a third party that seem illegitimate drive decisions here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek Thanks for your reaction. Isn't it reasonable that an owner can exercise privacy rights over interior depiction of property? The copyright of the photo is with RCE, we should respect their policy decisions including a rare request for a few deletions, especially when they have been generous with their enormous donations. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the question in your second sentence: No, I don't think it's reasonable. I don't see how preexisting pictures of empty rooms are a threat to the privacy of a new owner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images show valuable ornaments, and after all the interiors are private space. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek Can you support courtesy deletion? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I won't vote for deletion. My comments stand and can be considered by the closing admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep don't give in to the threat of frivolous lawsuits. All the images show the interior during renovation, how is that increasing the risk of a break in? Also @Wutsje: might know the local situation and might feel like writing an article about these two houses that used to be one (Streisand effect). Multichill (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a serious matter not to be treated recklessly. We don't give in to frivolous lawsuits, as the Wikimedia Foundation is not indicted at all. We have to respond to RCE. A courtesy deletion should be wise here, on a total donation of hundreds of thousands of images transferred by your excellent BotMultichillT. We are not in a position to judge the pros and cons of the publication by RCE in view of their conservation of cultural heritage in collaboration with private owners. The credibility of Wikimedia Commons as a recipient of donations is jeopardised if we don't delete in response to a serious request. It would be really bad policy and the end of our large acquisitions, you will agree with that. Hansmuller (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a tad confused.. and worried about impact. What does the current building owner have for type of claim over these pretty old images (1990 [33 years ago] and 2007 [16 years ago]) ? Why is RCE NOT letting this go to court ? As a courtesy ? Why, their responsibility is with the monuments, not the occupants feelings. Before they know it all current occupants of monuments start requesting deletion of interior images. It seems like a dangerous precedent to set..... Can we never show monumental interiors that have current occupants going forward ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a precedent: it is the other way around. Over the past ten year, a few hunderd images out on hundreds of thousands of RCE donated images have been deleted at their request in three cases by User:BasvB. Of course RCE knows better than we what is their responsibility - and when to go court or not! They wouldn't ask us if they could avoid it, these are sensitive policy matters. The impact of NOT deleting is the problem, losing the trust of a large donor. So we again should follow this important donor in its own policies, as it has itself removed the images first from its own public database. Hansmuller (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheDJ Can you support courtesy deletion? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, that means we shouldn’t trust large parts of the entire collection of RCE. We are legally telling people they can reuse these images in any way, but apparently there is a pattern where the RCE has not properly taking care of tracking which interior ahots have permission of publication ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NEW INFORMATION @Ikan Kekek @Multichill @TheDJ : In a phonecall RCE informed me, that these images were erroneously put publically online and donated to Wikimedia Commons by them. The owner was promised non-disclosure, so has good reason to protest. Hansmuller (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were put online 10 years ago. When did the new owner purchase the property? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were these images actually actively donated/uploaded by RCE to Commons, or harvested from their own image repo by MultiChillBotT on MulitChill's own initiative? If I understand it correctly, the images have been 'erroneously' online on the RCE site under a CC license for 10 years, until they were recently deleted by the request of the new owner? That's a pretty long time during which the error on their own site could have been corrected by RCE and adapt the license to disallow Wiki-reuse.
An interesting legal question: to what extent do public photos of interiors of Dutch national monuments affect the privacy of its (transient, private) owners. I assume that the buyer of a national monument is aware that owning such building does bring a certain level of publicness/openness, including images in public databases.
At these same time I can understand the position of the RCE and the concerns regarding any future donations by them (and the related trust issues) that Hansmuller is raising. OlafJanssen (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still see many of the listed images on the own site of the RCE... and still with the CC-BY license... example.. OlafJanssen (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I'd love to see this go to court considering the images are from the previous owner and are still being listed on RCE's own website. I find it hard to believe that the owner of a property has any say in what the former owner does with images of the building that were taken during their occupancy of the building. Like there's no way that if I took a shot of the inside of my apartment that a new tenant could me on privacy grounds if I uploaded said images to the internet. Especially if it was done before they even moved in, but probably not afterword either. Anyway, the law suite aside, I don't think it's worth deleting images just because a donor ask's us to. That just seems like extortion. What's next, people who donate to the WMF asking us to delete unflattering images of their family members as a "curtesy"? Come on. A lot of these images are good quality and clearly serve an educational purpose. One option though might be stripping them of any identifying information. It's not like the images have to be connected to specific addresses. Really, they probably shouldn't be anyway. So I say think just stripping the addresses from the descriptions is a good compromise between doing nothing or outright deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Adamant1,
There is confusion - see the NEW INFORMATION above:
RCE had promised non-disclosure of these photographs to the owner
RCE made a mistake letting them be uploaded all the same, unknowingly breaking its promise
I requested a courtesy deletion to correct the mistake made by RCE.
The images have in January been removed from RCE's own public website, they said. Perhaps they are mistaken there...
It seems you didn't consider the latest information.
It is important for the donor those images are removed.
Keeping the images here is damaging to Dutch cultural policy, their interest is larger dan Wikimedia's
So it would be unfair and unreasonable to foolhardy keep them.
Please reconsider your decision, now with all the information. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I read everything. I just disagree that the images should be deleted based on the preferences of the new owners of the property ten years later. Especially considering like OlafJanssen pointed out the images haven't been deleted from RCE's own website. It's ridiculous to request we remove images that they are still hosting on their own site. Not that I'd support the images being deleted if they were removed from RCE's site, but still. We can't bend to random requests like this anyway. Censoring images just because a random donor requested it 10 after the fact just sets a bad precedent. Sorry. I don't think you understand or care about the precedent something like this going through would set when it comes to people wanting images they donate deleted. The project would be totally worthless if everyone could request deletion of their uploads at a whim multiple years after they uploaded the images. That's on the donors and the RCE to begin with for not being fully educated on how Commons and CC-BY licensing works. Even if we were to delete the images CC-BY licenses are irrevocable. So it wouldn't matter since someone could just re-upload the images or share them somewhere else. As a side to that, I still think the best (and really the only) option here is to delete the identifying information from the descriptions. That should more then adequate if this is really about privacy. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 - I agree that RCE should neatly remove images from their own database FIRST before they request us to do so!! (I'm sorry, i thought you were the concluding admin :-)) But then it is customary practice to fairly grant a rare good faith Courtesy Deletion, if RCE made a honest mistake, it is as simple as that. We do not wish to complicate conservation policy of monuments and its credibility anywhere. Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek @Multichill @TheDJ @OlafJanssen @Adamant1 RCE INFORMED ME THAT BY 16/09/2023 ALL REMAINING INTERIOR IMAGES FOR NOORDERHAVEN 5 EN 7, GRONINGEN, WILL BE REMOVED FROM THEIR PUBLIC WEBSITE.
Thank you, with apologies for the confusion, Hansmuller (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hansmuller: Questions: Do you represent RCE? If not, have they made any sort of formal request to Commons here? Or are you just taking it upon yourself to carry their water? - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a typical object of park and gardening art, which is not under copyright restriction. Alexander Novikov (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Garden art is not protected by copyright? --A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Originally tagged speedy by Silent Wind of Doom with the rationale: "Images of sports uniforms have been ruled fair use as per this discussion."
The images appear to be original works, but derivative of the actual uniforms worn by the players. Some of these uniform designs appear to consist solely of common property shapes (regular clothing and simple geometry), colors, and text. Others may have more complicated designs and should be considered for deletion.
Huh. Deletion requests look so different on Commons than the main site.
I was notified about a discussion happening there about my uniform images. A recent (at the time) U.S. Supreme Court decision, namely on the case Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the design elements of a uniform are subject to copyright. As such, the designs of these uniforms are under copyright by their teams, their leagues, and the various manufacturers, whether it be Majestic, Reebok, or New Era.
The discussion came to the consensus of properly licensing uniform images as non-free sports uniforms with rationale and to remove them from Commons. As someone disrupted the ordered file names for the uniforms, and to be more precise, I reuploaded the files under new names, properly licensed them, and tagged the Commons images for deletion as per the discussion ruling them non-free. The ones that weren't moved have already been speedy deleted under request of creator. --Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Silent Wind of Doom: The decision about Commons images has to be made on Commons, as this wiki is autonomous. It may be more expedient to standardize and host local copies on English Wikipedia as fair use. However on Commons, we should follow the Supreme Court's ruling and apply the test to each image: "[A] feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated." The court did not address whether they met the threshold of originality, so we can evaluate these in the manner of simple vs. complex logos. Guanaco (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Silent Wind of Doom, you seem to misunderstand how copyright works. For a picture of a uniform, there are two copyrights:
The copyright of the design of the uniform. However, per COM:TOO, some minimal originality is required, and if the design is too simple, then the design is not protected by copyright and so pictures of those designs can be posted to Commons and shouldn't be listed as unfree on English Wikipedia. The designs listed in this deletion request look very simple, although it could be debated that a few of them maybe are sufficiently complex.
The copyright of the picture itself. The person who makes a drawing of a uniform needs to choose a free licence for his contribution to the image. This is the case even if the design of the uniform is copyrighted, and images which are uploaded to English Wikipedia without a free licence chosen by the artist get deleted per w:WP:FREER. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept: none of the uniforms here strike me as above the COM:TOO. Just fancy text, plain colors and a stripe or two. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Why was my speedy deletion request under criterion G7 rejected? I don't appreciate you creating such additional work for our fellow users and administrators. Please speedy delete them as requested and take them out of this deletion request. Nemo 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete, COM:CSD #G7 as Nemo_bis requested it on behalf of the bot AnankeBot (talk·contribs). If specific images deemed free, then undeletion can be requested in the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by BrunoBernardino as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: <G7>
The limit has been way past 7 days, not eligible for speedy.
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --JuTa 11:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl
This file was initially tagged by Kontrollstellekundl as Speedy (sla) and the most recent rationale was: Outdated maps of districts of Styria, Fake SVGs by Kontrollstelle Kundl
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.
Delete:File:DSCN3220 - Davey2010.jpg >> Better image here - The vehicle is missing its fleet number so I have no idea what the registration is and the sunlight in this image has unfortunately ruined the image.
Delete:File:DSCN3224 - Davey2010.jpg >> Better image here - Tried cropping the red bus but it's too blurry - I have plenty of images showing the background buildings too.
Delete:File:DSCN3232 - Davey2010.jpg >> Better image here - Image is too blurry however I've captured this model from different angles
Delete:File:DSCN3243 - Davey2010.jpg >> Better image here - Image is too blurry when cropped however I've captured this model from different angles and have captured the road too.
Delete:File:DSCN3247 - Davey2010.jpg >> Better image here showing the same or similar vehicle with the defunct poster on the top of the bus - Plenty of images showing the back of this vehicle model
Delete:File:DSCN3250 - Davey2010.jpg >> Ever so slightly better image here - The writing on the vehicle is readable whereas the one here the blueness is too bright making the writing on the bus unreadable.
Deleted: per nomination. Kept 3 as requested. --Minoraxtalk 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files nominated as speedy delete by Sturm
This file was initially tagged by Sturm as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: No inside pictures are / were allowed.
Per COM:FOP Brazil this should be fine, definitely no speedy deletion case.
Delete I was personally in charge of this photowalk. Although we were allowed to photograph, we were asked, a posteriori, that the photos were not uploaded to Commons. Among all other participants, we agreed not to upload these pictures. Sturm (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as above. I have uploaded most of the images and we have agreed to delete them at the request of church's maintainers. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIOWho, me? 00:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Aren't we past the courtesy takedown period, at this point we have to rely on copyright and FOP laws. I see nothing that would violate privacy, I see images of floor tiles and stairs, and walls. I think the church should file an official takedown notice and explain why these images should be hidden from view. That way we have the name of an official from the church, and not possibly some random parishioner complaining about privacy, that does not represent the view of church council. I would assume most churches would want a visual inventory of their interiors in case of theft, vandalism, or catastrophic destruction. --RAN (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I also attended to this event and I have heard about the conversation with the Father responsable for the church. He was emphatic about not publishing the photos of the interior of the church. Here is the thing: the Father contacted us with this request after the photowalk; in the meantime, some pictures were uploaded. Moreover, as much as I know about the scenario of cultural heritage in Brazil (I have studied the issue for more than 10 years now), most churches in rural areas do not disseminate their interiors and their collections because these buildings are settled in the middle of nowhere and have no security systems neither watchmen. The cases of robbery, fire and other vandalism are too many in Brazil. We must avoid wikis to be the reason for other losses... Sintegrity (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. We should not support a discourteous lie without a more compelling reason than just to host photos of a church interior. Being given a tour on the condition of not publishing the photos is something we should respect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand all your arguments but if we start deleting these files in this case we would go away from the strict rule to only delete files for copyright or privacy reasons. This would open the gates for censorship of files. We even have files where we lost a court case Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. In this and other cases we just hide the original uploader but keep the files. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm shocked those images aren't being hidden, pending the results of an appeal. As for this, the analogy I'd give is that we often grant courtesy deletions to uploaders well beyond the official period when they are allowed to reconsider their uploads on Creative Commons licensing. Let's hide these photos as a courtesy deletion for the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader request well after 7 days, all unused. To be clear, I am not the uploader, I just converted to DR after the uploader tagged for speedy deletion.
Keep Why would we want to delete beautiful PD flower pictures? Some of these images are quite good and potentially usable as thumbnails in articles. If you'd like to request the deletion of specific images you think are not useful, please do that, but I definitely oppose the wholesale deletion of all of these images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
Noting here that I converted these from speedy deletion nominations by Omphalographer as I felt that COM:CSD#G1 didn't apply to any of them, and no speedy criterion applied to most of them. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of these files are Wikipedia pages printed to PDF, then uploaded to Commons. My take is that they're "redundant content [...] used for testing" (CSD G1) - they're redundant to the Wikipedia pages they were printed from, and they were most likely created as a result of the user messing around with the "download as PDF" and "upload file" sidebar links, rather than as a deliberate process. I can certainly send these to DR in the future if that'd be preferred. Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted: per nomination, discussion. --Rosenzweigτ 07:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Converted from speedy deletion requests. These are all a few-month-old 20px by 20px images, requested for deletion by the author, and in use on template pages created by the author. These logos are so low-resolution to prevent their educational use, and are therefore out of COM:SCOPE, so they should be deleted.
Hi. I'm not familiar with Commons all too well, so I didn't realize there was a time limit to G7. I simply want these audio clips to be deleted because the "Mujawwad" recitations are in use and these audio clips are not avaliable on any page (therefore serving no purpose). -Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not being currently in use is not a deletion reason. Atcovi, I assume you uploaded these clips because the recitation is of high quality. Do you now think it is not of high quality? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I just believed the Mujawwad recitations were better to use rather than the Murattal recitations due to the Tajweeed employed. But if not in use & my desire for these clips to be deleted is not a valid reason, then I have no problem revoking my request and leaving them to be. -Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the more freely-available good examples of recitation we have, the better. However, you always have the right to request courtesy deletions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany a work only qualifies for FOP if it "is intended to remain in the public place for a long, mostly indefinite, period of time." This statue was clearly placed there as part of the event going on at the time. As is evidenced by the fact that it has a non-permanent base and is placed on a random brick in the middle of the sidewalk. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany only works that are permanently placed qualify for FOP. This status clearly wasn't meant to be on display for a indefinite amount of time since it's on wheels. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perche ho fatto errore scrivendo castello di Piombino. Invece di Populonia, comune di Piombino. E poi caricato di nuovo Mykola Pokalyuk (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Taichi as LogoYann (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Efectivamente se trata del logo de la empresa "Grupo La República pubblicaciones SA, si me puedes apoyar agregando las etiquetas de para que mi contribución a la comunidad se valide, ya que este fue tomado de la misma web de la empresa. Peter Montero RL (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Es lo que hice pero otro usuario revertió mis cambios dos veces, me podrías apoyar con eso. Peter Montero RL (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody reverted you there, but I added PD-textlogo for you. Yann (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Picture from the internet, not own work Leokand (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question@Leokand: Can you help by pointing to where on the internet this came from? I've tried reverse image searching on Tineye and google images, and I'm not finding any matches to non-Wikimedia sites. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 19:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Italy seems to have a high Threshold of originality, it might discussed for each of the listed image whether the depicted item is or is not above TOO-Italy. --Túrelio (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't think that helps in these cases, and unfortunately, I believe all these images will have to be deleted as above that threshold. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not own works. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. You also have to fix the author, source, date, and license.
Would you like the copyright holder to email you directly? Or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Thank you. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note, that I have fixed in the files the author, date... Homerethegreat (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is something I generated with Midjourney. I further edited the image in my Canva account and the emojis included are from their elements. According to Canva's section on content licences and commercial use, I'd be free to use their materials for commercial purposes, so I figured a non-commercial purpose would be just as fine. If an ultimate decision-maker here disagrees with my interpretation, OK. I'm just responding! Canva also say if you’re the creator of an original design, you’re also its copyright holder. But if you used third-party content (e.g. stock media from the Canva library) in your design, your ownership is subject to those third-party rights," but again, I am not claiming ownership, this Wiki image is released as a public domain design. GH Images (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue here would lie in the emoji. Canva states that your work is subject to 3rd party rights. You are releasing your work as public domain, because you are the copyright holder. Under Canva's license agreement, which the emojis in this image are subject to, they state that you are not allowed to "remove any notice of copyright, trade-mark or other proprietary right from any Content or Canva Design". These emojis seem to violate that part of the agreement since you are releasing the entire work under a CC0 waiver. The options are to return to Canva and find other emojis under a CC0 waiver that they have already put into the system, or to try out another source like OpenMoji which is a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. This would limit you to sharing it under the same terms. But would still allow you to openly share them.
But in this case I believe this image has to be deleted. DeleteMonkeyBBGB (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at it, it seems like the Twemoji's are CC-BY-4.0 license. So Canva is utilizing those, but not properly listing it it seems. Yes the vomit emoji is in Twemoji's list, but I don't see the other three. Would still recommend re-doing and re-uploading. Still delete this current image. Thanks for the clarity on Twemoji source :) MonkeyBBGB (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use. Under Commons licensing policy, files must be published under at least one license which permits unrestricted commercial use. The file will be deleted without notice unless it is relicensed or multi-licensed in accordance with the Commons licensing policy. Benjamin Ceci (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The photo was originally licensed under CC-BY-SA according the "Flickr License History". Since CC licenses are not revocable, the preceding license is still valid. {{Flickr-change-of-license}} added. Larryasou (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not PD-Pakistan. East Pakistan is today's Bangladesh, Bangladeshi law applies, the work is still in copyright in Bangladesh until 2031 and in the US until 2066. -Mehedi Abedin 14:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mehediabedin The photo is dated 7 March 1971. Bangladesh was fully liberated on 16 December 1971. Its declaration of independence was on 26 March 1971. Other countries began to recognize Bangladesh in December 1971, with Bhutan and India being the first to recognize Bangladesh on 6 December. So PD-Pakistan clearly does apply on 7 March 1971. This photo is from his speech on 7 March 1971, which was in the final days of a united Pakistan. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Please close this nomination because the date falls within the period of a united Pakistan (and hence falls under PD-Pakistan), when East and West Pakistan were together. The photo is from 7 March 1971, which was in the final days of a united Pakistan. 7 March 1971 is considered a Pakistani period by both Pakistan and Bangladesh. Moreover, Bangladesh became effectively independent on 16 December 1971 after Pakistan surrendered.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't understand the point. The timeline doesn't matter here. The matter is the current country. The copyright law of the current country will apply here. Mehedi Abedin 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we have examples for this. See here and here. Even I uploaded historical photos without knowing that and for this some of my uploaded photos removed from Commons. That's how it works. Mehedi Abedin 12:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are basically claiming that Bangladesh was never part of Pakistan. Your nomination is politically-motivated as usual. Bangladeshi law does not apply retrospectively. Its called the non-retroactivity principle. Mehediabedin is not a legal or historical expert by any means. Under the Bangladesh Copyright Act, this photograph will not fall under such a category because it's not an artistic work depicting a painting or cinema. Its a simple photograph which was taken pre-Bangladesh and its copyright has expired. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, let me clear things:
Am I basically claiming that Bangladesh was never part of Pakistan? - No, we are talking about copyright law and its implementation in commons, not history. I can see it is you who trying to make the nomination the topic of controversy to distract from the nomination process.
Your nomination is politically-motivated as usual. - An unjust accusation or so called "claim" without valid reason. Remember that not all Bangladeshi photographs under PD-Pakistan wasn’t nominated for deletion by me. There were many users who knows the fact that photos from Pakistan period is under PD-Bangladesh. And they nominated many of these photos for deletion.
Bangladeshi law does not apply retrospectively. Its called the non-retroactivity principle. Mehediabedin is not a legal or historical expert by any means. - Well tell that to administrators who deleted many Bangladeshi photographs licensed under PD-Pakistan. I am not expert, but they did the work and that's how Wikimedia commons work.
Under the Bangladesh Copyright Act, this photograph will not fall under such a category because it's not an artistic work depicting a painting or cinema. - Well that was only an example. There I provided another example where the photo was deleted. And we can find many examples.
Its a simple photograph which was taken pre-Bangladesh and its copyright has expired. - And again you didn't understand the point. The photo was taken in East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh. And that's why copyright of Bangladesh will be applicable here.
There is a possibility that after clearing this point you will not still understand and make bassless accusations against me like that time you made in English Wikipedia. But still okay for me. Mehedi Abedin 13:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sure you understand that Wikimedia policy relies on local law. Bangladeshi law will not apply retrospectively to this photograph because this is not an artistic work or cinematic work. Under the Bangladesh Copyright Act 2000, copyright will extend to artistic and cinematic work only. In this case, this is a non-artistic, non-cinematic photograph on 7 March 1971 which falls under PD-Pakistan. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not talking about cinematic work. We are talking about a photograph which falls under Bangladeshi law. See here to see how the copyright law apply for the photo. And unfortunately it doesn't fall under PD-Pakistan. And for the same reason many non-fictional works under PD-Pakistan were removed from commons. For another example, see this ongoing deletion nomination (not nominated by me). And there are many examples where photos were removed. Mehedi Abedin 06:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bangladesh Copyright Act 2000 is not retroactive. Hence, only PD-Pakistan applies. Your other examples have different conditions. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well let's see if the administrators agree with your point. Mehedi Abedin 09:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
wrong date (he died in 2011). where is the photo from? Xocolatl (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Bolivia is a 50 year from creation or being made public jurisdiction. --RAN (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted: per nomination. The uploader did not give sufficient evidence that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence, per COM:EVID. In this case it is not shown when the image has been published for the first time. Therefore the file has to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undeleted by Yann after the UDR discussion most likely due to misunderstanding: there is no evidence in the discussion (nor in the undeletion rationale) that the image should be considered a collective work. Copyright term for other photos is independent on creation date. Ankry (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete We need to know when this was published as we don't have evidence this was a collective work. Abzeronow (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the license reads: "collective audiovisual or photographic work", I think people are reading it as: "collective audiovisual or collective photographic work". I have never heard of a "collective photographic work", one person chooses when to press the shutter button, and that person is the creator. I have never seen a copyright jurisdiction declare a single photographic image as a collective work. But I have seen "collective audiovisual" works, where a photomontage has a dozen images, each from a different photographer. We use photomontages here in the WikiUniverse, and we require that each creator be acknowledged. See:Category:Montages --RAN (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM: Bolivia says "Economic rights in collective audiovisual and photographic works, phonograms, broadcasting programs and computer or computing programs, shall last 50 years starting from their publication (emphasis mine), exhibition, fixation, transmission and utilization, as appropriate, or, if they have not been published, since their creation" Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RAN has a very good point. There is no such thing as "collective photography". So this should be read as photographic work or collective audiovisual. Yann (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A "photographic work and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)" (emphasis mine). --RAN (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please present evidence that this was created before 1946 and unpublished past 1995 or that this was published before 1946, because we also need evidence this is public domain in the US, which the UDR did not resolve. Abzeronow (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need a proof of publication. As mentioned before, photographic works get into public domain 50 years after publication or creation, whatever date is the latest. Guillermo Kenning Voss is not more than 30 here, so this is from 1947 or before. Yann (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every image prior to an exif date and gps stamp has information estimated from clues in the images, we have half a dozen images of him at various dates including his wedding. In the image he appears about age 30. I am not seeing any significant evidence presented that the age estimate is wrong. Perhaps if you presented a reliable source dating the image differently, it could supersede our own estimate. For instance if the image came from his passport, we would have an exact date. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is really complicated. First, the date. The image is dated to the end of the 1930s on several web sites, for example "Kenning a fines de los años treinta" here, so 1939 would be the year to base any calculations on.
As for Bolivia's copyright law, I looked at the original text in Spanish, and it appears that the English translation is somewhat confusing or even misleading, at least it is missing a comma. Per article 19 of the law, the 50 year term from publication/creation is valid for "las obras colectivas, audiovisuales y fotográficas, los fonogramas, los programas de radiodifusión y los programas de ordenador o computación" (collective works, audiovisual works, photographic works, phonograms, broadcasting programs and computer or computing programs). So there is this 50 year term for any photographic works, regardless of author. How that plays out in this case depends on the date of first publication. If in1939 (or not before 1990), the photo would be in the PD in Bolivia, and the URAA would not have restored its US copyright. If first published at a later date (before 1990), URAA restoration might have taken place, or it might even still be protected in Bolivia. We don't know the photograph's publication history, and we also don't really know what is considered "publication" in Bolivia besides the obvious ways of printed books / newspapers etc.
To make matters even more confusing, Bolivia is a member of the Andean Community, which has a common copyright jurisdiction. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Andean Community#Threshold of originality, the Andean Court ruled that "A simple photograph that does not meet the requirement of originality cannot be considered a photographic work and is consequently not protected by copyright." The case was about Peru I think, but it should be applicable to Bolivia as well. So simple photographs (as opposed to photographic works) are not protected by copyright. COM:TOO Andean Community notes that "An example of simple photographs is a simple portrait or taken in automatic booths." Is this a simple portrait as interpreted by courts in the Andean Community? I cannot really tell, I'd need examples to compare this with.
Since there are clearly (too) many unknowns here, we should probably go with {{PD-old-assumed}} and wait until 2060 unless we can find out more facts that enable us to come to another decision. --Rosenzweigτ 07:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
rechten zijn in bezit van Mirjam Pol. Aangezien ik haar PR/Marketing verzorg ben ik, namens Mirjam Pol, gerechtigd deze beelden te gebruiken. Sabine weghorst (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In dat geval moet je niet op de website zetten dat niets mag worden overgenomen door derden. Je zult dan een licentie moeten plaatsen die gelijk is aan de licentie van Commons. Thieu1972 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kan je mij dat uitleggen? Het beeldmateriaal komt uit haar eigen bestand maar staat inderdaad ook op haar website maar daar is het niet vanaf gehaald.
Mirjam Pol heeft de rechten van dit beeldmateriaal (dat ook op haar website staat) afgekocht om vrij van rechten te mogen gebruiken. In haar algemene voorwaarden op de website staat: “Het is niet toegestaan beeld- of tekstmateriaal te gebruiken of te kopiëren”.
Aangezien het haar eigen beelden zijn mag ze deze toch zelf wel gebruiken voor bijvoorbeeld publicatie op wikipedia? Sabine weghorst (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: In overleg met Mirjam Pol hebben we besloten dat we de twee beelden die wij nu hebben geplaatst (en die nog niet door jullie zijn goedgekeurd) willen verwijderen en daarvoor in de plaats twee andere beelden willen plaatsen op haar wikipedia-pagina. Sabine weghorst (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bedenk je je wel dat je door plaatsing van dit soort foto's op Commons het ook toestaat dat ik de foto's commercieel hergebruik en op mokken en t-shirts kan afdrukken? Plaatsing op Commons betekent namelijk vrijgave voor alles en iedereen, inclusief commercieel gebruik.
Los daarvan: op basis van een gebruikersaccount die zegt dat alles in orde is, zal nooit worden gezegd 'ok, dan is het goed'. Je zult moeten met bewijzen moeten komen. Daar bestaat een procedure voor. Maar doe gewoon het makkelijkste dat er is: maak zelf een foto van haar, en plaats die alleen hier. Of: kijk eens hier, voor een uitleg over de mogelijkheden. Want uiteraard is een foto van Pol zeer gewenst. Thieu1972 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oke, het is allemaal dus wat gecompliceerder dan gedacht. Ik begrijp de situatie nu beter. Dank voor de uitleg. Graag willen we (Mirjam en ikzelf) alleen de update van de tekst en de wedstrijdresultaten plaatsen zonder beeldmateriaal. Dat is mogelijk, toch?
Op een later tijdstip bekijken we welk beeldmateriaal daarbij geplaatst kan worden. Sabine weghorst (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De tekst aanpassen kan altijd. Alleen was de tekst die je tot nu toe hebt geplaatst, ook niet erg geschikt: veel te subjectief, niet zakelijk genoeg, geen afstand. Daarom raden we ook altijd af om iets te schrijven over een onderwerp waarbij je (financieel, emotioneel, juridisch) betrokken bent. Het gaat vrijwel altijd mis. Thieu1972 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ik ga de tekst aanpassen zoals ook de persberichten met meer afstand, zonder emoties en zonder quotes. Kan ik in de laatste versie het fotomateriaal weghalen en de tekst aanpassen? Dan kan het kader met de wedstrijdresultaten behouden blijven? Sabine weghorst (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goedemorgen, ik heb een nieuwe bewerking uitgevoerd op de pagina. Hoe lang duurt het voordat deze goedgekeurd wordt? Sabine weghorst (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
rechten zijn in bezit van Mirjam Pol. Aangezien ik haar PR/Marketing verzorg ben ik, namens Mirjam Pol, gerechtigd deze beelden te gebruiken. Sabine weghorst (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Flickr page is supposedly for the subject, and the EXIF data reveals photographer as "manu suarez @la diapo". Needs VRT from Manu Suarez in my opinion as the subject is not the copyright holder. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hola, el autor de la foto es el titular de la cuenta de Flickr que cuenta con la licencia necesaria para ser utilizada en Wikimedia Commons, desde el fomento en que la fotografía se subió a su Flickr, y desde ahí se utilizó en Wikimedia. No veo el sentido del borrado cuando la foto cumple con la normativa para estar en Wikimedia Commons. Un cordial saludo, Hard (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Municipality of Jabonga does not seem to place all their content in public domain in accordance with the exemption of copyright rule for government works in R.A. 8293 (IP Code). Although this is sourced from the municipality's Facebook page, that Facebook page is linked to their website, which seems to be created by hired or contractual employees and do not use the ".gov" domain (rather, their official website is found in Wordpress). There is no indication of public domain statement on the site. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 00:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentCOM:TOO Thailand is described as low, but is this really over it? Is it a "creative expression of an original idea of its author"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previously tagged "no permission" by EugeneZelenko. The uploader replied on their talk page to indicate that some of the photos were taken by them, but no one responded to the uploader. Converting to DR to give them a chance to explain the authorship of these photos.
This file was initially tagged by Nathan B2 as no permission (No permission since). Unknown date, but likely PD-Brazil-Photo? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A key part of this image is the painting by a living artist. Fails {{FOP-France}}. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As clearly taken with collaboration of the artist, the photographer could ask Weinachter for a specific release? Davidships (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely a fine idea. DMacks (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour,
L'artiste Lucas Weinachter a donné son accord au photographe d'utiliser cette photo ainsi qu'a la personne qui s'occupe de son nom sur wikipedia de l'utiliser.
This file was initially tagged by Imonoz as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: I uploaded this image 10+ years ago, but it's not my 'own work' and it's probably not free to use. Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. @Imonoz, are there more of your uploads of "that kind"? -- Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio, it's good that you asked. I've checked my early uploading history to see if there's more work labeled as my own when it's not, but couldn't find any. However, I suspect that these two are uploaded with an incorrect license, or not free to use at all: Battle of Kliszów (map 1) and Battle of Kliszów (map 2) - I can't access the source, but the license might be incorrect since both images seem quite recent to me. They should perhaps be deleted. Imonoz (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I don't know. They don't like that old to me, but I must've thought so at the time of uploading them (without making sure). So as far as who owns the work, the license or if it's even free to use, I'm not sure. Although, I noticed that the same images have been uploaded again, being used in Swedish Wikipedia for the Battle of Kliszow article; File:Slaget vid Kliszów 1702 Slagordning.png and File:Slaget vid Kliszów 1702 Slagets Gång.png, with the same archived source under CC-BY-SA-4.0. These have, however, seemingly been slightly modified (some Polish text replaced with Swedish). It's fine to ping me at every reply, to remind me of this discussion. Imonoz (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Pentachlorphenol as Copyvio (copyvio) Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as our upload has far higher resolution than the external hit[16].-- Túrelio (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photo explicitly copyrighted. "Die aufgezeigten Bilder stammen von den abgebildeten Personen selbst und sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Nicht personenbezogene Bilder wurden von Martin Werner und Madita Fischer fotografiert. Jegliche Verwendung der Bilder ist untersagt." --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the source video is indeed published under free licence, the clip is either from ATV (Q434505) or MTV1 (Hungary) (Q288964) (based on the microphones), thus the party is unlikely the owner of the copyright. Bencemac (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
press photo and previously published under a non free license, missing permission (via COM:VRTS) Wdwd (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
press photo and previously published under a non free license, missing permission (via COM:VRTS) Wdwd (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Mattesák as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: nahrání lepší verzeYann (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! The photographs were taken with the consent of the community and the pastor of this church, who are aware and agree on the concepts of free knowledge and the use of free licenses. Additionally, some of the marked photographs are of the interior of the church and not of the stained glass windows themselves. Following the categories Category:Stained glass windows in Switzerland and Category:Stained glass windows in Zürich, I don't think there is such a copyright violation. Igallards7 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright holder needs to consent by emailing COM:VRT. I think the stained glass maker would hold the copyright, not the pastor, and not the congregation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But at least in the case of the second photo (File:Martin-Luther-Kirche Zürich - 002.jpg), it should be possible to cover up the stained glass windows digitally (for example, with a light blue filling), and in this modified form the image could be kept even if the consent of the glassmaker is not available.-- Kliojünger (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the rest of the interior out of copyright? As the church was built in 1958, I would think not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The architect of the church (and apparently also the designer of the windows) was Franz Steinbrüchel for who I haven't found yet an obituary but several google hits. Per FOP Switzerland, the interior of buildings is not in Public Domain. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by IvanOS as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader's request, actually not flag of HNK Hajduk Split, should be replaced by original File:600px Azzurro e Bianco con Cerchio blu con quadrati.png G7 does not apply; file currently in use GPSLeo (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This file does not represent flag of HNK Hajduk Split. --IvanOS (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It just needed to be cropped, we keep both file types. A png has less compression and a jpg makes better thumbnails. --RAN (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the photographer nor the subject consented to this publication 193.138.218.212 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please explain why? The uploader has uploaded other photos from the same camera, so based on all the evidence we currently have, it looks like they did take the photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i know the photographer, and i am the subject, and i do not consent to this being publicized. remove it please 141.98.255.149 07:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the photographer did not upload the photo, they may file a DMCA take-down request. However, they may need to explain, how did the uploader get access to this photo without their permission. Ankry (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject of this photo, which is quite clearly of a private nature, did not consent to you publishing his face and name. Burden of proof is not on him, it's on you. Can you produce evidence that the subject has approved you publishing his face and name? 31.170.22.24 09:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
T&S is now involved, we are waiting for this DR to conclude. Bencemac (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been informed on multiple occasions that this picture is taken in a private setting and on private property and is thus private and has been published without consent. You are liable for damages. 185.65.134.227 10:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal attacks against volunteers are not accepted here. If you continue your unjustified attacks against Bencemac, your further requests may be ignored. Ankry (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What personal attack are you referring to? Is informing you of your legal trespasses a personal attack in your opinion? But unlawfully and without consent, publishing a private photo containing names isn't? 31.170.22.24 09:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete per COM:F8 as a duplicate of File:Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.jpg. in my opinion, there is no need for more than 1 file, and this one is more recent, so I'd say delete unless there's a damn good argument to keep both . To closing admin: Please leave redirect to the former. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs] 21:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't redirect from one file format to another (PNG to JPEG or vice versa). There is no issue keeping the same image in 2 different file formats. Yann (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: It's just confusing and unnecessary to have 2 of the same file, in my opinion there should be only one.
I'd tend to vote delete and agree with QuickQuokka – as far as I can see there is no difference in file-quality between those two images. I don't know why the latter has such a large file-size, maybe that's just jpg compression (I'd also like to know if people do scans for files hidden in images via steganography which can be done easily). Additional files for another filetype should be avoided (e.g. because it can clutter pages and duplicates things etc), instead it would be better if any higher-quality image was uploaded as a new version at the original upload with an exception being tif and xfc files.
However, when you switch back and forth between tabs showing these two images you can see how the png version has implemented some blurring smoothing effect. Hence, it may be worth keeping both images in this case (at least as long such a smoothing effect can't be autorendered like the smaller "Other resolutions".) The file-size still seems too large.
PNG and JPEG formats do not work in the same way. Mediawiki applies a sharpening effect to JPEG files, but not to PNG ones. I have no special opinion about keeping or deleting this version, but we shouldn't create a redirect. Yann (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: But MediaWiki bases this based on the MIME type right? (If it doesn't, it probably should)
So it would still render as a JPEG even if the file ended in .PNG.
No. PNG thumbnails are rendered as PNG. I don't know if there is a policy about this, but this is an obvious technical issue. Yann (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Even if the file ends in .png, it will render as a JPEG if the MIME type is image/jpeg (or at least it should). File extensions don't actually mean anything for the most part, just human readability. You could rename the file to Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.txt, and it's still a JPEG regardless. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs] 01:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is obviously misleading. I expect to find the same file type on the redirect and on the destination file. Yann (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Forget about the redirect, let's steer back to deletion.
I don't really see a reason to have 2 of it, it's just confusing. I don't think it really matters much if the image has smoothing effects or not. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs] 07:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep One major difference between PNG and JPEG is that JPEG is a lossy format. For Commons' purposes, it's preferable to also have a PNG version for archival purposes, such as having a lossless source to base edits off of (editing a JPEG multiple times can lead to generational loss as each revision loses more data). For things like photographs, a JPEG alternative can also be useful for display purposes, since, as mentioned, the MediaWiki thumbnailer applies sharpening to these. I don't know the provenance of these two variants under discussion, so don't know if the PNG comes from somewhere official or was converted from a lossy source, but the uploader of the PNG notes: "this one is slightly less sharp but the other has what might be sharpening mask artifacts", so there is a subtle difference between the two and JPEG compression artifacts, if present, would be considered a defect. Opencooper (talk)
Keep das sind keine Duplikate, die Bilder unterscheiden sich stark. Eine PNG kann nie ein Ersatz eines fotoähnlichen Bildes sein, für sowas ist PNG ungeeignet. --Ralf Roletschek 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have doubts that this is original work Steinninn ♨ 21:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The uploader (User:Allgau) contributed a number of other maps, and was a prolific editor on plwiki up through last year; I see no reason to doubt that this map was their own work. Omphalographer (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obvious copyvio, this is the signature of another person from a document not of the uploader. No encyclopedic use. Orphan. JFHJr (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Infrared photography according to category, and I think it's intentionally out of focus as an artistic technique, but we'll see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is presumably Google Chrome, but even if we disregard COM:DM and COM:TOO it's visually indistinguishable from the open-source w:Chromium (web browser). Only remaining copyrighted element are the icons in the bookmarks bar which is surely COM:DM. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:SCREENSHOTS says: "Google Chrome itself is non-free because its official binaries are subject to a non-free Google Chrome Terms of Service which overrides the open source terms of its base source code"
Yes, icons could be COM:DM but I don't think you can say that for the browser interface itself when the majority of the image is the screenshot of the browser, which is the case for these images.
COM:SCREENSHOTS is wrong on this matter. There is no element of the Chrome user interface, as visible on screen, which was not released under an open-source license. The fact that some non-visible parts of the software (like the Widevine video plugin) might be non-free has no bearing on the license status of the content visible in these images. Omphalographer (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someoneinsomeplace is obiously a sockpuppet. The only purpose of this account is to start a crusade against software screenshots. This is not a meaningful way to participate in our project. Speedy keep-- Chaddy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is actually a problem. But then we should start a new deletion request instead of feeding this sockpuppet and with a proper reason. -- Chaddy (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: I think they fall under COM:DM. These Zoom profile pictures were not handpicked by the screenshot-taken but rather arbitrarily selected by the Zoom software, akin to taking a photo of a crowd at a protest. If a picture of a crowd had ~16 people holding up copyrighted posters, surely that's DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The sockpuppet accusation and thing about logos aside, interface elements can copyrighted and at least a few of these images contain preparatory software. For instance Zoom and Microsoft Office. Or maybe it's Google's office suite. I can't really tell, but it doesn't really matter because both are preparatory. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean "proprietary"?
It doesn't matter if the software is proprietary or freely licenced. What matters it how much individuality the specific UI design shows. -- Chaddy (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BMRR: Can you confirm whether you were the original photographer of these files? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the original photographer of the "NIAX 404 at Waterville Yard" photo. Shot with a Nikon N2002 film camera with Kodak EliteChrome ExtraColor slide film. The "NIAX 407 at Medina" photo was given to me by someone who asked me to upload it on his behalf, but that was 20 years ago and I no longer have his contact information, so unfortunately I have no way of getting in touch with him to obtain proper documentation or permission. I was just a baby Wikipedian back then and didn't know what I know now. BMRR (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noticed that {{Grandfathered old file}} only covers up to January 2006, which means these were uploaded after the cut-off date. Ixfd64 (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no permission Krd 01:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After discussion in ticket:2023080810005673 it could not been achieved up to now who is the creator of the recording, what is the copyright status of the performed music, and which kind of permission was achieved from the performers of the music. --Krd 01:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C'est la photo authentique de Mme. Sofika Morcka. Je la certifie et je peux le défendre. Si vous l'enlevez c'est Wikimedia qui sera appauvri. Faites comme vous voulez. Une biographie c'est mieux avec la photo. Adriando (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adriando: Désolé, mon français n'est pas très bon. Personne ne doute que c'est Mme Morcka. Mais le problème est que ce n’est pas votre photo, vous n’en possédez pas les droits d’auteur. Vous ne pouvez donc pas le télécharger ici. Mais vous pouvez probablement télécharger une photo directement dans la section albanaise de Wikipédia, sur la base des critères d'utilisation équitable (fair use). Vous devriez interroger les administrateurs de votre section à ce sujet: sq:Wikipedia:Administratorët. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 81.41.175.237 as no permission (no permission). 1930s photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"PD-UK-unknown" is the correct license. --RAN (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete: The URAA restoration may be applicable, this work from the 1930s was clearly published after 1928. 81.41.175.237 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 81.41.175.237 as no permission (no permission). 1920s-30s photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep PD-UK-unknown is correct license. --RAN (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The image is available from the U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph collection NH 697 Berengaria without any notice of copyright. The version uploaded includes an "NHHC 697" mark, indicating this is the same source, although a higher resolution version should be uploaded. The collection notes: "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." That said, I'd be okay deleting this version; the higher resolution version from NHHC is already in Commmons at File:RMS Berengaria US Navy.jpg. Tcr25 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wagner Group logo is copyright and COM:FOP is only for buildings in Russia. In this image I do not see any buildings, just cars, signs, chairs and people. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ːWho is registred this copyright? I highly doubt there is a legal owner of this emblem. ̴̴RG72 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wagner itself, and the logo has been removed several times because its copyvioJoaquinazo (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|Support per nom and the fact said logo was removed several times off commonsJoaquinazo (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I just want to draw attention to the reality: "Wagner" is not a legal entity, it is just a media name. This emblem is not registered. Thus, you are trying to protect the unregistered mark of a non-existent organization. In Russia, this and other similar images are used widely and freely, no one claims rights to them. RG72 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect, the customs of people in the nation of Russia are immaterial to the policies and guidelines of Commons. Please see COM:L for details. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ˑThis is not about the customs of Russian residents, but about global practice. Here is an examples from The Guardianː 1, 2. RG72 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps this legal purism is a really interesting game. The only pity is that in the real world (which our wiki projects are meant to reflect) no one plays this game. RG72 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are more than welcome to upload it to a local wiki to whose policies it would conform. It's not able to be kept at Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not about local characteristics or traditions. The point is that no one in the world plays this strange game and pretends that they need to protect the non-existent copyright of a non-existent organization. The emblem of PMC "Wagner" is freely published by all world media: BBC, ABC, DW, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Newsweek etc. One of two things: either the world's largest media outlets do not have a single qualified lawyer, or vice versa - their lawyers do not play the game, which for some reason continues on Wikimedia. RG72 (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't see that this image is CC-Attribution. https://worldsciencescholars.com/terms-and-conditions-3/ says that images from the website may not be modified, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, transmitted, or sold in any form or by any means in whole or in part without our prior written permission except you may download and print Materials for non-commercial uses that are not competitive with or derogatory to us, provided that you keep all copyright or other proprietary notices intact, do not alter such Materials, and do not further reproduce, publish or distribute such Materials which is incompatible with Commons on multiple points. Belbury (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
photo from the 1940s, copyright status can’t be established from the provided source, not own work and not cc Polarlys (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source of the [File:Kõige auväärsem Friedrich V. Lustig, Läti buddhistlik peapiiskop.png]
This is a very old photo. Copyright in very unlikely a problem. Editorq35 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct file name: [File:Friedrich Voldemar Lustig – Ashin Ananda and Karl Tõnisson – Kārlis Tennisons – Vend Vahindra in Thailand.jpg] Editorq35 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Polarlys In many countries, including Estonia, copyright protection typically lasts for the lifetime of the creator (the photographer in this case) plus 70 years after their death. If the photographer of the 1928 photo passed away in 1962, the photo would likely be in the public domain in Estonia because more than 70 years have passed since the photographer's death. Editorq35 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ZandDev One thinks that both template In category|PD-Thailand and PD-Thailand are correct in this context. Editorq35 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Editorq35: The template {{In category}} "provides a way to show which categories a template categorizes in" (as stated in its doc page). You have previously copied the wikicode of the template instead of simply calling (using) it. ZandDev (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has a CC license on a cinematographer’s Vimeo account, questionable if the license is valid since footage rights generally belong to studios, not individual contributors. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture quality was so bad that I replaced it. Gksyy (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gksyy: you mean you have uploaded a better picture of this guy instead of this one? I cannot find it. In general Commons prefer having low quality image to having none. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The newspaper credits the photo as "arhivă personală", implying the photo was provided by the subject to the newspaper. It looks like all the photos uploaded by Eirina Film (talk·contribs) are related to Mega, and "Eirina Film" appears to be the name of Mega's production company. Erina Film is noted on ro:Ciprian Mega's page on ro-wiki as a having a possible conflict of interest regarding Mega.) If the photos are the work of an Eirina Film employee or contractor who has assigned rights to the company, it would seem they are in order. Perhaps a COM:VRT/CONSENT would be required? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly, a declaration of consent is required. Donarius (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the subject's own Flickr account, unclear who the actual photographer is, PD claim not supported Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This same user has also uploaded another image which I suggested to be removed as I suspect it is not his/her own work. I don't think this picture is either. Luurankosoturi (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Gråbergs Gråa Sång as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No sign at either of the provided sources this is "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" Per age and origin, not fit for Template:PD-old-assumed either. Old photo, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. For all I know, the photographer may have been dead long enough, but I have no source on that, so I'm currently at delete. Still won't be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International if kept, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photograph is old, and the photographer's identity is unknown, which doesn't appear to be a problem. It has been freely uploaded in numerous online locations. Please refer to the file source. It appears to be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions for which Creative Commons license should be applied?" Editorq35 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of of them, since licensing can only be done by the copyright holder, usually the photographer. If it can be shown the photographer died a timely death c. 1950, we can use it as PD, otherwise we wait until 2048. "Valuable addition to Wikipedia" doesn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CC0 states: "The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of their rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law." When did that happen? The person is not you, because you have no rights to waive on this photo, you didn't take it. I thinkTemplate:PD-old-70-expired may work here, but I'm not sure, I'd assume there'd be a more specific one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Editorq35: : You can't add a {{cc-zero}} license to a work you copied from the internet and you have no idea who it originally created. Please stop changing anything in the licensing just to make it "somehow fit". --Polarlys (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete While this may be PD in Latvia and Estonia, it was not PD on the URAA date, so it still has a US copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Polarlys @Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Jameslwoodward@King of Hearts@PolarlysSo, every picture on Wikipedia that has an unknown author must be removed? Am I correct? One thinks that is the whole point: to find ways to keep works on Wikipedia. Let's find ways to keep photos on Wikipedia so more people can see them. (Side point: Perhaps Wikipedia should do something similar to X, where Wikipedia should defend people to keep content on Wikipedia.) Editorq35 (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content. There is content that can't be added here because of rules and laws, and that's how it is. Commons will follow these rules and laws because it wishes to remain online. This may not be what you hoped, but if you want to edit Commons, you need to adapt to it. And there are plenty of correctly uploaded pictures here with an unknown author, like File:Marlowe-Portrait-1585.jpg. The rules boil down to "Most pictures you happen to find online can't be added to Commons because copyright." But people have their own cameras and PD does apply when it applies. There are also some orgs that make some of their photos available with "ok" cc licenses.
I don't know if Jameslwoodward is correct here, but he's done a heck of a lot more stuff on Commons than I have, so I'll assume his understanding is better than mine. These rules are pretty complex in the details, but it's the world we live in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, it appears your 2. is a drawing, with an artist signature in the lower right corner. So, assuming your date is right, it's too young, unless it can be showed that the artist died young. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa SångYou are right on this point that it is a drawing: [File:Karl Tõnisson—Karlis Tenisson—Brother Vahindra.jpg]
The artist can not be verified so it is unknown and anon.. Difficult to read the name there. But I can read there 1928.
@Jameslwoodward it is not clear which of the pictures you mean here. Not sure if you are correct here. Is there some other law?
1. [File:Karl Tõnisson—Karlis Tennison—Brother Vahindra.png] Was made 1928.
2. [File:Karl Tõnisson—Karlis Tenisson—Brother Vahindra.jpg] Was made 1928.
3. [File:Friedrich Voldemar Lustig – Ashin Ananda and Karl Tõnisson – Kārlis Tennisons – Vend Vahindra in Thailand.jpg] Was made 1940-49.
Other point is that more strict Buddhist monks and nuns stay out of all economic activity to which copyright is applied. Editorq35 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems pretty clear he meant the picture this page is meant to discuss. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic for this discussion, but the artist of the drawing is A. Jurich [19] p, 91. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great find.
"Even in this period, Tennison had postcards and possibly also leaflet-like minor publications printed to show off his personality. The best known postcard of Tennison which depicts the “uncovered physique and beauty” of Tennison on 13 photos and a central portrait is held in the Cultural History Archives at the Estonian Literary Museum (see Talts 2003: 1424). The same set of photos is printed on the first page of his book Mina ja minu jüngrid usume nõnda. A postcard with a painted portrait of Tennison (by painter A. Jurich) dated to 1928 can be found in the personal collection of Erik Arro. This postcard has also been printed in Tennison’s book Tulevane Pan-Baltoonia Ilmariik… (Vend Vahindra 1928: 2). Other postcards featuring his portraits from this period and with the same photo caption in content and form are known (one, for example, donated to the autor by Eedo Jõesaar, see Fig. 2)" p 91. https://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol38/talts.pdf
👏 I guess it's possible he's also the photographer of this pic, but I can't prove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep "Many countries use such a copyright term of 70 years. A notable exception is the U.S. Due to historical circumstances, the United States has more complex rules:
Works published before 1928 are public domain.
For works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication, and is therefore currently expired unless the owner filed for renewal during the window between 27 and 28 years after publication." From: Commons:Licensing
It was created in 1940-1949. It is PD in USA since 1977.
Which means they are PD. Seems so.
For sake of clarity: They are all PD in Estonia, Latvia and Thailand. Editorq35 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, sorry, you do not understand the US rules. For works which did not have a US copyright before the URAA date, 1/1/1996 in this case, any work created before 1929 that was not PD in the country of origin on the URAA date has a URAA copyright in the US which lasts 95 years and ends on January 1 following the 95th year. So a 1928 work has a URAA copyright in the US until 1/1/2024. A 1940 work has a URAA US copyright until 1/1/2036. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Commons follows both Estonian (in this case) and US rules, whichever is "worse". I've said it before, copyright rules are a pain in the ass. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Pd in Estonia is life + 70 years.Thailand's copyright law has a duration of 50 years.
I would disagree here because the rules here is not clear at all. There is room for interpretation here.
Works created or published on January 1, 1928, or any date before that, are generally considered as having entered the public domain. There is change that this work was created on January 1, 1928. Editorq35 (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, but it seems it wasn't at the URAA date (laws change), which apparently matters here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Works created or published on January 1, 1928, or any date before that, are generally considered as having entered the public domain." That is not correct. Works published (not "created or published") before (not "on or before") January 1, 1928 are in the Public Domain in the United States (not everywhere, unless the US is the country of origin). . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyrighted logo of a sports organization incorrectly uploaded to the Commons with a free license. This should be deleted and replaced by a local upload to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. 65.95.133.202 16:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Jimfbleak as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The uploader is Janice Leah Poss, user Janicelp. She is not Elizaveta Dvorakk or Dr Auga
Converting DR, missing permission is not a valid reason for speedy (=immediate) deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would love to put it up as Ulrike gave me permission to use it. It was taken by one of her friends. They are both in Germany, so I can hardly tale a pic of her myself. Is there anything we can do to keep this up? I understand the policy--that's why I credited the photographer, which I thought would be OK. Janicelp (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To benefit from the Free Art License, you only need to mention the following elements on your work:
[Name of the author, title, date of the work. When applicable, names of authors of the common work and, if possible, where to find the originals].
Copyleft: This is a free work, you can copy, distribute, and modify it under the terms of the Free Art License https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
– Why to use the Free Art License?
1.To give the greatest number of people access to your work.
2.To allow it to be distributed freely.
3.To allow it to evolve by allowing its copy, distribution, and transformation by others.
4.So that you benefit from the resources of a work when it is under the Free Art License: to be able to copy, distribute or transform it freely.
5.But also, because the Free Art License offers a legal framework to disallow any misappropriation. It is forbidden to take hold of your work and bypass the creative process for one’s exclusive possession.
– When to use the Free Art License?
Any time you want to benefit and make others benefit from the right to copy, distribute and transform creative works without any exclusive appropriation, you should use the Free Art License. You can for example use it for scientific, artistic or educational projects. Janicelp (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Secretlondon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: it's a model of a tube station. No freedom of panorama and clearly copyrighted by the model makerOxyman (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This really is not clear "it's a model of a tube station" hence the creator of the tube station would be the copyright holder... but there is fop for structures in the UK. Oxyman (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know there is fop for structures - but this is not permanently mounted in a public place. Making a paper model involves artistic talent, it's different from a 1:1 reproduction - it's an impression. I actually think most of Category:Models of London Underground stations are similar, sadly. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image from Blue Origin, not own work by uploader. Similar images are available in the Blue Origin gallery and there is no mention of CC on the website. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paul Ensor, with support from Canon New Zealand Community Sponsorship Programme
Does not appear to be the work of Oregon State University and there's no evidence that the photographer has released the image from copyright. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have similar questions about other images from this Flickrstream, including
Dubious claim of own work as a larger version could be found at other sites (example) prior to the upload to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photograph has no real source, and it's almost certainly protected by copyright since it would be a circa-1940s photograph from the UK. This file was transferred from English Wikipedia, where it had been uploaded back in 2008 by the user Clever hans (contribs show inactivity since 2009) under a bare claim that it was "self-made". It's undated, and English Wikipedia's caption given at G. E. M. Anscombe simply notes it depicts her "as a young woman". Anscombe was born in 1919, so without further information it's extremely dubious that the uploader was there to have personally taken this photograph circa the 1940s.
Based on the image's low resolution and tight composition, the image was probably cropped from a bigger photograph, perhaps a group photograph given Anscombe's rightwardly fixed gaze. Unfortunately I couldn't trace any source info, as all the other uses of the photograph I could find on the web via reverse image search engines appeared after its Wikipedia upload and provide no further information. Blz 2049 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The cutoff for PD-UK is 1953. --RAN (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. Clearly COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : Sortie du faisceau Saint-Gervais et pont Flaubert à Rouen"Le pont Flaubert n'est pas le sujet principal de la photo du fichier ", et figure seulement comme :arrière plan obligé. Sa représentation ne porte donc pas atteinte au droit de l'architecte sur son oeuvre. Si une interprétation excessivement extensive de la loi sur la propriété intellectuelle provoquait la suppression de ce fichier, la photo du sujet principal (un faisceau de rails faisant partie des voies du port de Rouen rive droite) serait publiée à nouveau, mais avec un titre différent, et recadrée sans son fond accessoire. Mouliric
Почему дубликат, если он был загружен раньше? Для чего вы его загрузили? FlorianH76 (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FlorianH76, дело в том, что я сейчас занимаюсь загрузкой фотографий с сайта Госдумы, сделанных до начала 2010-х годов и несущие потенциальную ценность. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Так и удаляйте свою загрузку на быстром удалении. Этот файл был загружен раньше вашего. FlorianH76 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Telford as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G2 – Verschieberest. As original uploader is Traktor600 and redirect creator is LR0725, the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion and I allow regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The redirect was created by moving File:New Holland Mähdrescher.jpg to File:Claas Lexion 740.jpg; in German we call this a Verschieberest, sorry for not knowing the English expression. Reason for moving was obvious misidentification – Claas has nothing to do with New Holland. Therefore this is a useless redirect and candidate for speedy deletion. --Telford (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Die Schöpfungshöhe des ausgestellten Gegenstandes scheint mir zu gering zu sein, als dass der Skulpteur seine Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung des Fotos geben müsste. Es ist die Nachbildung eines Kloßes in vergrößertem Maßstab, und der Urheber solcher Klöße ist wahrscheinlich schon mehr als 70 Jahre tot. Sollte der Skulpteur der Nachbildung aber trotzdem gefragt werden, wird er sich sehr wundern. -- Spurzem (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das dürfte ein Werk des Handwerks sein, also ein Museummitarbeiter bzw. Dekorateur hat diese Kugel geschaffen und eine übergroße Gabel angebracht. Was daran Kunst sein soll erschließt sich mir nicht. Was soll an dieser Pappmacheekugel Kunst sein? --AxelHH (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credit said Photo TASS. The copyright terms of Kremlin said Photo taken by RIA Novosti/TASS News Agency are excluded from the CC license. A1Cafel (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Credit said Photo TASS. The copyright terms of Kremlin said Photo taken by RIA Novosti/TASS News Agency are excluded from the CC license. A1Cafel (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
France has a p.m.a. of 70 years, should enter PD in France by 2033 and the USA by 2058 (due to COM:URAA) A1Cafel (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
France has a p.m.a. of 70 years, should enter PD in France by 2029 and in USA by 2054 (due to COM:URAA) A1Cafel (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
France has a p.m.a. of 70 years, should enter PD in France by 2036 and in USA by 2061 (due to COM:URAA) A1Cafel (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I almost always try to make my rawest version of the photo available so that if someone wants to go back to that in processing it differently, it is available to them. A little bit after this, I started doing it by overwriting on the same filename (hadn't yet thought of doing it that way at the time). If someone wants to somehow combine these in the history of a single filename I have no objection, but it shouldn't be lost. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El gráfico es incorrecto. Nunca existieron reyes de Cataluña. Tanto a Renato de Anjou como Pedro de Portugal la Generalidad de Cataluña les ofreció la Corona de Aragón, y como tal gobernaron.
El hecho de que la rebelión tuviera más éxito en Cataluña no es razón para que fueran sólo reyes de Cataluña.
En cuanto a los otros monaras que presentan una diferente numeración entre Aragón y Cataluña, esto también es incorrecto puesto que Cataluña nunca fue un reino y los monarcas sólo serían condes de Barcelona, que no lleva numeración. Faor Saaken (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La troupe ne souhaite pas apparaître sur Wikimedia. Merci de bien vouloir supprimer la page TribalP74 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No valid reason for deletion. Uploaded 8 years ago. --Achim55 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep 8-year-old image taken in a public place and released under an irrevocable license. I mean no disrespect to the group but we can’t delete quality images under the above circumstances unless they’re somehow egregious violations of basic dignity, which this clearly isn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact is that the wallpaper on these wallpapers is probably not part of AOSP, but, for example, part of the firmware from the manufacturer. However, some of the screenshots may have ended up here by mistake. Wrote via Google Translate, sorry for the mistakes --Артём 13327 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Asclepias as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The photo is not under free license at the source. The photographer Élie Kagan died in 1999. Converting to a DR for easier undeletion. Undelete in 2070 Abzeronow (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This photograph has been uploaded on La Contemporaine under the reference KAG/01220/N/A01. It's like the french website Gallica. The file can be shared if we credite the author. PierreConan (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That applies only to the works that are already in the public domain by expiration of their copyright, in the section "Pour les œuvres appartenant au domaine public" of the terms of use. The works that are still in copyright cannot be reused unless permission is requested and obtained from the copyright holder. See the section "Pour les œuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur" in the terms of use. The works of Élie Kagan are described as in copyright. See the "conditions d'utilisation" in the section "Kagan, Élie" of the specific notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the uploader's own work, this is an historical picture. Also does not depict the claimed subject. CaradoWindows (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep All fixed, PD-Afghanistan, the image is Nadir Khan, Lord Protector of Kabul
it makes no sense to keep a one-pixel white map. Either delete, or restore the first version; I think the creator wishes deletion because they overwrote the original map this way. Enyavar (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to incorporate en:w:File:Emojipedia logo.png, which contains a non-trivial book with a smiley that's correctly treated as non-free on EnWiki. This logo is a COM:DW thereof; it incorporates the book and smiley with a text description, and that book and smiley design is incorporated in a greater-than-de minimis manner. As such, in light of COM:PRP, this should be deleted as the derivative of a non-free work. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you just blurry the images instead? The giant pixels is a huge eyesore and makes the image near useless Trade (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep with revision deletion of the initial non-free version. The copyright issues have been rectified. Anon126 (✉⚒) 14:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No source given for image, and tagged as 'own work' for a commercial logo. Nate•(chatter) 21:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, simply fix the issue yourself. Maybe you would like re-upload the image and update the NickRewind Wikipedia page yourself with the correct sources and tags yourself. Which would be great. User:EricEgo2012 22:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The onus is on you to have the proper source for the image and to properly credit it, because I don't know where it came from, nor are we here to clean up messes when you improperly upload images. If you can't do that, don't upload images to Commons; this isn't Fandom or your personal OneDrive. Nate•(chatter) 23:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Book backcover. The username suggest the uploader is the author of the book, but it is not clear he is also the illustrator. We need a COM:VRT ticket. Günther Frager (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Files incorrectly declared as "ineligible for copyright" and clearly taken from various printed sources with no evidence that these are the uploader's own work. (Indeed, supplied info has the typical copyvio sparseness- description "acting", source "subject"). Even if images were obtained from Robert Trotter, that doesn't mean that uploader has permission from original photographer.
The book is the Swedish translation of the book Red Star Over Chine published by Askild and Karnekull in 1971. This cover is therefore still protected in its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image was uploaded by User:Puff41 shortly after they admitted to uploading a similar copyrighted image to English Wikipedia. The inconsistent quality of this image strongly suggests that it is not the user's own work. The line drawings are highly detailed, but the background appears to have been erased with a selection tool, leaving a lot of residual white areas around the lines. The lines making up the front view are noticably smoother than the other views, leading me to believe it was sourced from a different image than the other views. - ZLEAT\C 23:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The metadata doesn't allow you to tell whether it's a personal photo or a cropped copy of an original, non-rights-free image. Regards -- Adri08 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Derivative work of (likely) post-1991 photograph of Studio Harcourt. Therefore not free as only photographs published prior to 1991 are free. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. If needed I can provide a blurred version. Regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Therapyisgood as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I'm quite concerned this is a copyright violation. No source is listed and no proof is listed that this is public domain. Additionally the facility he escaped from Chester County Prison and the copyright on the camera footage would presumably lie with the state per en:Copyright_status_of_works_by_subnational_governments_of_the_United_States#Pennsylvania. Surveillance camera footage, should be disscussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any "intellectual property" that is created or managed by a government and placed publicly on the internet becomes public domain, without the need to cite its origin as in this case it is literally something public to the public.
Let's assume that a file or digital information is the domain of the Government/State, then it is in the public domain, as the government is public, there is no government intellectual property, if this existed then it would be impossible for Wikipedia to continue because even a text would be " intellectual property of the Government/State". LOSBY2 (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any "intellectual property" that is created or managed by a government and placed publicly on the internet becomes public domain - this is not generally true. It is largely true of the US federal government, but it is not true of all US state governments, or in other countries. Omphalographer (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this conversation is focusing on the right topic, this should be more of a Threshold of Originality debate rather than a Government Copyright debate as that is the rationale used by the uploader. Had the video been taken by an officer at the Chester County Prison, then the State of Pennsylvania would have been able to claim copyright on it. However, this is the work of a non-human security camera with no original authorship that a human could claim onto. It is legal prescedent in the United States (Naruto v. Slater) that only works created by human beings would be eligible for copyright. More details about this exact subject (copyright on photographs taken by pre-positioned recording devices) can be found on the relevant Wikipedia page. Best regards :) NAADAAN (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts, @LOSBY2, @Omphalographer, The video ends showing the "WRTV ABC" logo. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRTV page. That video may be copyrighted by them, if they obtained permission or paid for the video. That is one potential copyright concern about permission to use the ABC affiliate's video. The other issue is there any license for this video by the Chester County Prison? Otherwise VRT will be needed. -- Ooligan (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obtaining permission, or even paying for a video in most case, doesn't inherently mean a transfer of copyright is done. Most other news outlets who published the video credited the Chester County Prison, not the ABC afilliate. I don't deem any license or VRT to be needed since there was no human author behind the photograph. NAADAAN (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unlikely to be own work (small file size, low resolution, missing EXIF data), user with a lot of false-claim own work uploads Polarlys (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
only the portrait were not my work other than that all were my work i took those photos from my phone and also some from my dads phone Narayanan Iyengar This is my work i visited Srirangam several times this is an image taken standing on top of the roof before the gopuram i have a side view of the image too. (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it is my work and i never posted this photo ! 178.23.32.177 12:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Violation de Copyright - La personne ayant uploadé l'image n'est pas le photographe ayant pris cette photo. L'image n'est pas libre de droits et ne peut pas apparaître ici sans le consentement de son auteur, merci de bien vouloir la supprimer. MistG (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only US, Poland, Uzbekistan, Cameroon have 100 seats in their Senates. None of them have PPI, PSA, PL... parties. Fantasy diagram, out of project scope. Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SpaceX photos are not Cc-by-sa 4.0, and there is no indication that this photo was released under this license. Artem.G (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. SpaceX no longer releases images under a blanket CC license. — Huntster (t@c) 03:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proof the underlying artwork is freely licensed. Probable copyvio. QuickQuokka[talk • contribs] 13:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Any individual image is de minimus, I can't even confirm if the images are correct for the ones that are labeled. --RAN (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Each photo used for the artwork is from a different origin and period, so there's clearly no consistent licensing for each subparts of this artworl.
Não vejo problema em usar a imagem no Wikimedia já que sou fotografa oficial da Diocese de Marília e que a foto é de minha autoria, assim como as fotos do clero e paróquias.
US copyright was restored by the URAA in 1996 as Australian copyright did not expire until 2005. Undelete in 2050. Felix QW (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The copyright for the image expired prior to the URAA date, restoration is for expiration after the URAA date. --RAN (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the URAA restoration date for Australia January 1st, 1996? Or am I missing something? Felix QW (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anonymous images entered the public domain in Australia if published prior to 1 January 1955 which, is in itself, prior to 1996. In URAA signatory countries when a work entered the public domain after 1996, the United States restored the copyright to 95 years after publication, with no claw back provision. So if a country has a copyright term of 70 years, that has to expire prior to 1996 to be pd in the USA. --RAN (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong, a photograph from Australia had to be in the public domain on January 1, 1996 in order to be public domain in the US. Australia was 50 years PMA until copyright was extended in 2004, became effective in 2005. This photograph only became public domain in Australia in 2005. Abzeronow (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't a post mortem (pma) issue: PD="Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1 January 1955" 1954 is prior to 1955 and 1955 is prior to 1996. You are applying the post mortem rule (year of death + 50 years + 1) to an anonymous image. You cannot apply the post mortem rule to an anonymous image, and there was no claw back from the public domain in 1996. The US restored copyright to images that enter the public domain after the signing of the agreement. Otherwise every image by a URAA signatory would default to a 1928 publication date in the USA, and we would have to delete a large chunk of Commons. --RAN (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really sorry, but I am still confused. Wasn't the Australian copyright term for anonymous images 50 years from publication, making 1954 + 50 = 2005 > 1996 and therefore leading to URAA restoration?
US copyright was restored by the URAA in 1996 as Australian copyright did not expire until 2003. Undelete in 2048. Felix QW (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The copyright for the image expired prior to the URAA date, restoration is for expiration after the URAA date. --RAN (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the URAA restoration date for Australia January 1st, 1996? Or am I missing something? Felix QW (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm no mathematician, but isn't 1954 prior to 1996 by 42 years? The copyright rule is: PD="Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1 January 1955". There is no claw back in Australian copyright law. The USA restored copyright in the USA for images that entered the public domain after the signing of the law, not prior to the signing. You are thinking of post mortem rules, that are 50 years after the death of the creator. If those 50 years are after 1996, the United States restored copyrights. Anything that was in the public domain, remained in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
US copyright was restored by the URAA in 1996 as Australian copyright did not expire until 2003. Undelete in 2048. Felix QW (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
US copyright was restored by the URAA in 1996 as Australian copyright did not expire until 2003. Undelete in 2048. Felix QW (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative workYann (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Bestagon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Appears to be taken from here, no indication that uploader is photographerYann (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took this image of Saildrone Explorer SD 1075 during the vehicle's deployment in October 2021. It originally had a NASA logo under the solar panel on the wing, which I removed with Photoshop for more general use. I put it in Wikipedia to illustrate the company page. Jennvirskus (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not OK, but this is not the source. Our copy is bigger with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Yann, I am new to this so what whatever you think is the best step works for me. Appreciate your hard work. 3Media07 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Privacy by the author. As the author, Irequest for the image to be deleted. Mikenjau (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest to crop the image instead of deleting it. What do you think, @Mikenjau? Jcornelius (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A crop could work. To keep all of the ferry in the picture, a very small part of the woman would have to remain in the photo, but such a small part of her that she wouldn't be recognizable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had this already deleted, but User:Yannrecommended a regular DR (“There is no proof that this is a copyvio. Our copy is bigger and has EXIF data.”). On the external website the file is attributed to „Jack Behan“. --Polarlys (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The file here appears to be a derivative work from an image in this publication which is a CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Oddly, both papers are from the same authors, but it makes one wonder about the licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I uploaded this image, I didn't properly understand how copyright applies to photos of murals and art exhibits Memorywrker (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I uploaded this image, I didn't properly understand how copyright applies to photos of murals and art exhibits Memorywrker (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Are you nominating both of the pages for deletion for the same reason, or is there a third? In any case, the logo is on-topic per w:Televisão Independente and looks to be below COM:TOO Portugal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Are you nominating both of the pages for deletion for the same reason, or is there a third? In any case, the logo is on-topic per w:Televisão Independente and looks to be below COM:TOO Portugal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably copyright violation: description says that JP Swirko is the maker; not Erik de Vree. So it is NOT own work. Erik Wannee (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This image would certainly still have been in copyright in both Bangladesh and Pakistan at the URAA restoration date in 1996, so it will be copyrighted in the US until 2050. Felix QW (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to URAA restorations (its Pakistani copyright expired only in 2006), this image will be in copyright in the US until 2052. Felix QW (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was taken by Martín Sgut (1951-2010) and published simultaneously in the US and Argentina in May 1982. However, the author never consented the publications and sued several newspapers and news agencies in 1984 [21]. Apparently, he won the trial in a New York court and was awarded $20,000 in damages [22]. That means that his copyright was recognized in the US since 1984-1987 (I don't know the exact duration of the trial). The work as indicated in the files is in the public domain in Argentina. (publication + 25 years), but it is still copyrighted in the US (life + 70 years). Notice that the US doesn't apply the shorter term rule. We can undelete these images in 2081.
I'm completely aware of it. {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be used for images uploaded before 1 March 2012. File:ARA Belgrano 1982.PNG, for example, was uploaded in 2014. The template was created to mark old uploads that could potentially have their copyright restored at URAA time. Before that date URAA retored copyrights were ignored, but it changed once the US Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged URAA restoration was constitutional. After that event mass deletion was ruled out, but individual, well formed DR are possible for old files. Our licensing policy still requires files to have a free license or be in the public domain in both its country of origin and the US. In this particular case, I'm arguing that the US gave copyright protection to this image in the 1980s, so it is not even a URAA-related case. Günther Frager (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible copyvio: The name of the author is different from the one on the picture on the top right CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was taken in Argentina in 1985. The source is a random blog and it is not enough to justify it has a free license. The photo is sold by Reuters [23] and that should be enough to delete this image following COM:PCP. To keep this image we need to ensure it has a free license. Günther Frager (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El gráfico es incorrecto. Nunca existieron reyes de Cataluña. Tanto a Renato de Anjou como Pedro de Portugal la Generalidad de Cataluña les ofreció la Corona de Aragón, y como tal gobernaron.
El hecho de que la rebelión tuviera más éxito en Cataluña no es razón para que fueran sólo reyes de Cataluña.
En cuanto a los otros monaras que presentan una diferente numeración entre Aragón y Cataluña, esto también es incorrecto puesto que Cataluña nunca fue un reino y los monarcas sólo serían condes de Barcelona, que no lleva numeración. Faor Saaken (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason : The metadata doesn't allow you to tell whether it's a personal photo or a cropped copy of an original, non-rights-free image. Adri08 (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No metadata tells us that! You could use this argument on any photo. To delete, we need concrete, actionable information about copyright infringement. --RAN (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a recent showcase tomb, and this type of original work requires authorization from its creator. The photo may only be taken for personal use and not posted under a free license. Sincerely .-- Adri08 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The copyrighted artwork is a problem since there's no FOP in Italy. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There's no actual evidence of copyright violation (not having metadata is not enough to justify deletion, we assume good faith). Furthermore the artwork above the coffin is clearly COM:de minimis because the subject is the tomb itself. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statue was completed in 1963 by Gheorghe D. Anghel (1904–1966). There is no freedom of panorama in Romania. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2037.
Hi A1Cafel, I suppose you already checked the statue is not listed on the WLM authorized monuments list (the Romanian Atheneum is). I cannot find this list quickly right now. Thank you --Camelia (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Janhrach as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: The level of TOO in Slovakia is uncertain, so we should assume everything even slightly creative is copyrighted. Janhrach (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I have written notes to other deletion nominations of files by Gateshebe to discuss general topics, such as TOO in Slovakia, in this nomination. Comments addressing whether specific files pass TOO should go to their nominations. Janhrach (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Janhrach as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Janhrach as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Janhrach as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Janhrach as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F6. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentTewie2, who shot this photo and when did the photographer die? Sorry for the morbid-sounding question, but this is a very old photo and might be in the public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point and not morbid at all. This PR photo was taken sometime in the early to mid 1930s by Renato Toppo. I wish I could say the exact year, but we don't know -- since Clara's official recital debut (Town Hall, NYC) was in October 1934, we assume this was taken just prior to or just after that first concert for PR purposes. As far as I know, Public Domain kicks in after 95 years for work that was copyrighted and renewed so I would guess it will become public domain in the next few years... Tewie2 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a professional publicity image and the copyright belonged to the photographer, Ranato Toppo. Archiving historical photos does not transfer the copyright to the archive, nor does it restart the copyright clock. To be eligible for a US copyright the image needed to be registered for a copyright, then have that copyright renewed 28 years later. This was in force up to 1989 with a temporary respite from 1965 to 1977. I cannot find any image of "Clara Rockmore" or anyone named "Rockmore", in either the copyright registration database or the copyright renewal database. The same for any images by Ranato Toppo. The expense would have outweighed any potential gain, that is why it is rare to see individual images copyrighted, even the Associated Press did not register/renew images. 75% of all eligible books did not renew copyrights because copyright holders were no longer alive, or were not aware of their legal obligations, and the works entered the public domain. I could see claiming that an image was never seen by the public, if these were personal family snapshots donated to the archive by the creator. We have several examples of collections that were never made public because we have a provenance from creation to the present time, for example the Bain Collection and others at the Library of Congress. Even if we went by the European Union rules of copyright, the copyright expired because the creator died more than 70 years ago. --RAN (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Italy.
Question @Patafisik The file pages don't include the WLM template. Is the permission valid for the monument and even outside of the event? Ruthven(msg) 14:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per the comments by JWilz12345 and I in the DR that has been linked to by Patafisik. Mainly the Wiki Loves Monuments authorization is non-legally binding in the United States, if even in Italy since the copyright lapses back to the artist after 20 years anyway and this was created in 1988. So it's questionable that MiBAC could give authorization to take the photographs in the first place. Although even if it did, these images where not taken in collaboration with Wiki Loves Monuments or are covered by the authorization. Nor is there any evidence that the authorization extends to every image taken of said building in perpetuity, even if they were taken by people who have nothing to do with Wiki Loves Monuments or the authorization. Otherwise the images would have to be licensed with Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer and taken as part of the Wiki Loves Monuments project, which none of these images qualify under. Random users can't just use the agreement between MiBAC and Wiki Loves Monuments as an excuse to upload otherwise copyrighted images though. It's clearly an agreement between MiBAC and Wiki Loves Monuments for the purposes of the project, not a general license that allows everyone to take pictures of the monuments regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As usual, Adamant seems to struggle with the landscape of italian institutions, firstly claiming that a (not existent) federal authority should authorize these photos, then requiring that local mayors authorize photos of state's monuments. Here he seems to require an authorization from the national ministry for a monument that is property of the archidiocese of Bologna (Catholic Church). I hope that now he won't start to require an authorization from the Pope. Anyway, as you can see here the owner of the monument authorized its reproduction in 2016 with a license CC-BY-SA 4.0 in perpetuity for WLM initiatives. Unfortunately the authorization in this case does not seem generic enough to cover non-WLM photos. So it should be clarified if the photos were made within a WLM initiative or not.--Friniate (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More just that I don't see an agreement for this photographs by the archidiocese of Bologna or really anyone else. So in absence of that I assume the person who took the photographs would need to go through whatever government authority deals with copyright law in Italy to be able legally photograph the monument. Be that a local mayors office or the federal government, or archidiocese of Bolognabut. I could really care less because it's a mute point either way since, again, there is no permission for these photographs regardless of what institution it is. Whatever helps you cope since your clearly having a difficult time with this whole thing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and here it comes the personal attack, as expected. Friniate (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your the one who repeatedly responded to my votes by accusing me of trolling and I'm personally attacking you? Right. I swear people on here love to intimidate other users while acting like their the victim . Maybe don't repeatedly accuse someone of trolling if you can't handle them saying it looks like your having a hard time dealing with this lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per article 107 of the it:Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, the Italian ministry (of culture or similar I assume), the regions and "other public territorial bodies" (is a Catholic diocese even a "public territorial body" in Italy?) can authorize reproductions of these monuments etc., but they still need to respect copyright: "1. Il Ministero, le regioni e gli altri enti pubblici territoriali possono consentire la riproduzione nonche' l'uso strumentale e precario dei beni culturali che abbiano in consegna, fatte salve le disposizioni di cui al comma 2 e quelle in materia di diritto d'autore." which translates to "1. The Ministry, regions and other public territorial bodies may allow the reproduction as well as the appropriate and temporary use of cultural property that they have in their custody, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and those relating to copyright." Also, isn't that authorization just for "Wiki Loves Monuments" 2016? These files don't appear to have been uploaded as part of that contest. --Rosenzweigτ 11:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per [24], "Gli enti pubblici territoriali sono quelli previsti dalla Costituzione, cioè gli enti territoriali che, in base all’art. 114 della Costituzione, costituiscono la Repubblica Italiana: i Comuni, le Province, le Città metropolitane, le Regioni." So the public territorial bodies are regions, provinces, metropolitan cities and municipalities. I don't see Catholic dioceses listed there. --Rosenzweigτ 11:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but if the diocese says that it's the holder of the copyright and gives us an authorization, then it would be ok according to every legislation. The real problem here is that the authorization is valid only for WLM 2016 and the foto was uploaded (apparently) otuside the contest. Friniate (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But where do they say that they are the holder of the copyright for this grave monument? Or the holder of the copyright for anything really? All I've seen is this authorization PDF, and I don't see any claim in there that they hold copyrights to anything. --Rosenzweigτ 14:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Considerato che l'Arcidiocesi di Bologna ha nel proprio patrimonio le seguenti emergenze storico/artistiche e paesaggistiche" (engl. more or less "Given that the Arcidiocese of Bologna owns the following monuments") "autorizza la possibilità di fotografare le proprie emergenze storico-artistiche e paesaggistiche inserite nella lista di cui sopra" (engl. "authorizes the possibility to take photos of its monuments listed above"). Friniate (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That says nothing about copyrights, just that they have or own several monuments. Owning a work of art does not necessarily mean I also own the copyrights. If I buy a painting by Picasso, I own the painting, but not the copyright of the painting. And frankly I even doubt that the diocese actually owns this monument on what looks like a family grave. --Rosenzweigτ 14:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but they are conceding the rights to publish images of the graveyard, so why should I believe that they are lying and that they in fact do not have this right? As for the fact that the Church may not own the monument you are right though. Anyway it could not be uploaded even if the authorization was valid for the monument, so this discussion seems rather academical :-) Friniate (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giving someone a permission is not "lying". They may simply not know better, or they may not care. --Rosenzweigτ 18:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Luxembourg.
Hi, I just had a call with the artist Bettina Sabbatini. In the next weeks I should meet her. She will give us permission to use these photos of her artworks for Wikipedia.
Sultan Edijingo(talk) 13:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Не нужен и что бы не вылазил в поиске гугла С. Якубов (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Я автор и правообладатель, файл не нужен и мешает в поиске гугл. С. Якубов (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{subst:delete2|image=File:Музей, Альберт Рафиев.jpg|reason=Я автор и правообладатель, файл не нужен и мешает в поиске гугл.}} ~~~~ С. Якубов (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
No proof that this is the uploader's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Bijay chaurasia as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: out of commons scopeStorkk (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploaded with incorrect upload summary. Not the author's own work as they have stated in their upload summary. Expressive101 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : this is targeted edit 1 . Nomination must be go through deletions policy.(note: There is no any dublicate of this image)
Offensichtlich Fehllizenzierung durch den Hochklader, der behauptet der Urheber des Fotos zu sein. Laut Bildschreibung auf de:Benutzer:HaskoWitte/Bernhard Karl ist Urheber jedoch "privat". Lutheraner (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Die Urheberangabe in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wurde inzwischen auf den Namen des hochladers geändert Lutheraner (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was quite a bit of copying from the journal article at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.08.018 on en.wiki. The source article is not released under a compatible license. The images were uploaded by the same person, and are likely from the same journal article. Since they were likely previously published, I think it's prudent to get a VRT ticket for these images. The uploader is not the sole author of the paper, and it's not clear who created the images.
All of these images were taken by myself, or in the case of the Gifberg Pass image taken with my camera by a colleague. I created the Chase 2015.jpg, adapting it here from the version that was published in 2012 for simplicity, but according to the Elsevier copyright rules I would still have permission to reuse the original version.
It is important to note that the text and images submitted are from a pre-review version of the article, which I am repost where and as I like. Of course I understand that Wikipedia may have particular rules in this regard, and we must ensure that they are adhered to. I have written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to flag and resolve these issues.
Please let me know if you have any further/continuing concerns.
On File:Nikahnama-jinah.png, how do we determine what Pakistani rules on handwriting are? COM:TOO Pakistan is a red link. But is that really handwriting and not printed content? It's in use in multiple articles, so it would be good to save it if we can. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Эта карта неоднократно выставлялась на удаление и удалялась из вики из-за его явного несоответствия с реальными границами Терской области [25], [26], [27]. Фальшивость данной карты неоднократно доказывалось на форуме и аргументы приведенные в них много раз признавались админами Википедии. Более того данная карта нарушает авторское право Цуциева с чьей книги она была скопирована и изменена. Но этот файл до сих пор висит на сайте. Вернее он заново был добавлен. Просьба к Вам User:Finnrind (или к иному админу) как раннее рассмотревшему данный вопрос еще раз рассмотреть запрос.
This map was repeatedly put up for deletion and removed from the wiki due to its obvious discrepancy with the real borders of the Terek region [28], [29], [30]. The falsity of this map has been repeatedly proven on the forum and the arguments presented in them have been recognized many times by Wikipedia administrators. Moreover, this map violates the copyright of Tsutsiev, from whose book it was copied and modified [31]. But this file is still hanging on the site. Or rather, it was added again. We ask you User:Túrelio, User:Finnrind (or another admin), as the one who previously considered this issue, to consider the request again.(talk) Flandria12 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: despite the same year (1862), the first map you provided is literally the map where Ingush and Ossetian okrugs don't (yet) exist (Military-Ossetian Okrug ceased to exist in 1862 after which, in the same year, Ingush and Ossetian okrugs emerged as shown in the map), i. e. before their foundation -- Anceran's map is depicting the time when Ingush and Ossetian okrugs were founded!; second map and third map are from 1878, again, Ingush and Ossetian okrugs don't exist (in 1871 they were merged into a single okrug -- the Vladikavkaz okrug) and this doesn't prove your claimed "inaccuracy" of the map. Also, you didn't show how this map violates copyright of Tsutsiev. The map itself is accurate and finds proof in the maps of 1864 and 1869. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no freedom of panorama in Monaco. The bust here is apparently the same as or identical to the bust in this article, unveiled in the 20th century (no specific year provided in the article) and authored by sculptor Paul Belmondo who died in 1982. Even if it falls out of copyright in Monaco, this is a sculptural work in a no-FOP country, and so the U.S. copyright rule needs to take into account (95+1 years after publication), so this photo should not be restored until U.S. copyright expires (per compliance to COM:URAA). Earlier undeletion is possible if Monaco introduces unrestricted freedom of panorama similar to Belgium's (not France's). JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 23:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This strange sculpture is apparently absent in the October 2010 imagery of Google Street View, which means it may have been installed between October 2010 and September 2013 (the date of the image in the metadata). Assumed copyrighted, and there is no freedom of panorama in Monaco for free publications and uses of copyrighted works in public space. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Sri Lanka.
Hello,The point seems compelling.If we don’t find any other solution, let it be. I would prefer however that we find copyright owners, and ask them if they would be kind enough to release the original work under appropriate compatible license.I think that for a memorial like this one, chance are good that permission will be granted, as the goal of such a structure is not to generate revenue stream, and diffusion of photo of the monument in educative projects like Wikimedia ones is completely aligned with the aim of preserving memory.Has anyone suggestion on how to handle this? Psychoslave (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychoslave you should ask the copyright holder (typically the sculptor / artist of the work) to grant permission or clearance to the publications of these images of their work under the free / commercial licensing here on Commons. COM:VRTS provides the information / instructions on how to do this. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No FoP in France. The fountain was completed in 2006, and the sculptor is unlikely to be dead for 70 years A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep While there is no Freedom of panorama in France, the Code de la propriété Intellectuelle (Code of intellectual property) regulate the use picture of architectural works in a non commercial way in article L122-5: (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000044365551/)
"Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire :
[...]
11° Les reproductions et représentations d'œuvres architecturales et de sculptures, placées en permanence sur la voie publique, réalisées par des personnes physiques, à l'exclusion de tout usage à caractère commercial."
Translated in English:
"If the works has been presented to the public, the author cannot forbide:
[...]
11° Reproduction and representation of architecrutal works and sculptures, placed permanently on public street, realized by physical person, excluding all commercial usage."
Thus i'm opposed to their deletion. Neoronor (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, per COM:L, non-commercial use was not allowed on Commons, that's why French FOP exemption in not OK. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. As they say, Commons doesn't allow for images that can't be used commercially. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No FoP in France, artist Georges Chauvel died in 1962 A1Cafel (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bonjour d'après cette source, le sculpteur est Léon Morice (je n'ai pas sa date de décès sauf après 1947) et l'architecte est Ruault. Qui possède les droits ? l'architecte de la statue ou le sculpteur ? ou les deux ? Quelle est votre source que l'artiste ayant droit serait Georges Chauve ? Mith (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{copyvio|source=https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2014/02/Kumbunbur_Creek_Australia}} StellarHalo (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion. In view of the ESA licensing tag on it, I think it is improper not to have a discussion about just who holds the copyright and what the laws are regarding that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:StellarHalo's remark in the Commons:Featured picture candidates thread about this file was: "As the ESA page indicates, this image was captured by the South Korean satellite KOMPSAT 2 and so, the copyright is shared with the Korea Aerospace Research Institute." OK, so that means that we cannot host it because? That doesn't seem like a speedy deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I don't assume there's something wrong with your reasoning, but I definitely don't think a speedy deletion without discussion was the way to go. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteHere an example on ESA website where the free license is clearly stated. In the case that we are considering, a free license cannot be assumed, sorry. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The files are various aerial photographs taken by Makis Theodorou in 2023, which can be verified through watermark and EXIF documentation. Although the uploader claims that there exists a permission from the photographer to freely license under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, merely stating there is a free permission statement from the third-party creator is no longer available per COM:GOF (and clearly the nominated files are not old files before 2007-01-01). Therefore, a permission email must be sent to VRT for verifying Theodorou's permission.
Currently contacting the author to ask for a written permission to VRT. Dido3 (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dido3: Thanks. VRT volunteers are currently processing the ticket. Once the permission is verified, I'm ready to withdraw the deletion request.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@廣九直通車: Most of the images uploaded have been deleted although a written permission by the author Makis Theodorou has been sent to the VRT. Will you please elaborate to resolve the issue and possible restore the images deleted? Best regards, Dido3 (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlikely under free licese: false creation date - the author lived 1906-1982; no evidence that the source book is under the CC license Ankry (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely under free licese: false creation date - the author lived 1906-1982; no evidence that the source book is under the CC license Ankry (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploader ist not the author of the picture Les Meloures (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would allow the image to be uploaded? If written consent was given? Or does verbal count? Should the person themselves upload it?
I have reached out to the author and have let them know about this issue and they believe that it is fine to be uploaded and wants to take part in this discussion. AlexTheEmperorPenguin (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I took the picture, the image is allowed to be on Wikimedia Commons, It has no copyright or anything attached to it. It is a picture I took of myself. But I do not want to get involved in editing or creating wikipedia pages. I was contacted by a person who wanted to create a page about my Party and myself and I handed over information and sources to said person, aka to Alex.
If need be I may be able to reupload the image myself.
I have now created an Account just to be able to clarify this situation. None of my political images, those wehre I wear a blue tie, are copyrighted or owned by a single person, they belong to everyone. If need be we can be contacted under info@partei.lu Jeff Cigrand (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
also crop file:Kuzunvi.jpg Depicted person died in 1928 or earlier, so the photo is not own work. Real source, real author and real license are needed. Source country Azerbaijan demands 70 years from death. No evidence of anonymous work, no publication data. That way we must delete the photo. Taivo (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Das Bild ist für die Verwendung in einem Wikipedia-Artikel irrelevant, und im Übrigen ungeeignet. Paddy2674 (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Nonsensical and irrelevant deletion reason. First of all, it's untrue, but secondly, Commons does not exist only as a repository of images used in Wikipedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Das Bild ist für die Verwendung in einem Wikipedia-Artikel irrelevant, und im Übrigen ungeeignet. Außerdem enthält das Bild Werbung für alkoholische Getränke, die ich für die Wikipedia nicht geeignet finde. --Paddy2674 (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bitte diese Bild dringend löschen. Herzlichen Dank.
Please delete this picture. Thank you. @ Paddy2674 (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrelevante Werbung für Alkohol und Glücksspiel. Ich habe das Foto versehentlich gemacht und veröffentlicht. Paddy2674 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Nonsense. The only possible issue would be copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Storye book as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: This is not a true or genuine reproduction of the original signature (compare details of the original jpg, linked below). This svg is misleading, and should not have been created including straight lines where original lines were subtly curved, and looking as if it were written by a modern person with a school felt pen. The original jpg may not be neat and tidy to look at, but it is genuine, and gives some indication of the hand of the writer. This svg version looks more like a fake signature on modern commercial packagaging,Yann (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me, I am not sure if the line was meant to be included, or if it was the line to show where to sign. If Storye_book can do a better job, then add their version so we can compare. --RAN (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Signature of T.H. Sparshott, taken from the 1911 England Census. This image on the right is a greyscale copy, photographed by me. The line is indeed the line to show where to sign. Greyscale is a better way to reproduce this type of signature, because it reveals the variation in pressure.
But what really worries me about the svg version is the loss of some of the curves. for example, it misses out the subtle curve at the top of the "r"; that curve is barely visible, but it is what makes it an "r" in debased copperplate. The svg also makes a straight line on the first upstroke of the "p". All lines created in debased copperplate by an experienced writer are curved. This is because the heel of the hand and the knuckle joints of the fingers work like pivots, so that when the fingers move the pen, they describe a partial arc. This is why the svg looks like a forgery.
The svg also misses out the thickened element of the initial curl of the letter "T". That is a tiny decorative element, which is what turns the autograph into a signature - because it is a sign that you recognise the autograph by. Also, this is the signature of a 19th and early 20th-century writer, and they all used dip pens or fountain pens in those days - mostly dip pens. The light but sensitive use of the nib pen (which would blot or break if pressed fairly hard and evenly) shows clearly in the jpg photograph, but is completely lost in the svg.
What worries me most of all is not the fact that the svg was created, but how it was then used. A tag was put on the jpg, saying that the svg should always be used, but not the jpg - why? And why was it used to replace the more genuine jpg, in the article about the writer? (diff). The reason why I want the svg deleted is to prevent others from replacing the genuine copy of the signature with the fake version, which appears to have been written with a modern felt tip pen, which did not exist in 1911. That article is a historical article, and the greyscale signature is very much a part of that history. The subject of that history, Reverend Sparshott, had a strong personality, emanating passionate invective against Catholics from the pulpit. He was also a missionary in Africa, and the actions of missionaries in that continent are today being questioned. So his personality may be questioned. It is therefore worth supplying a signature which is capable of analysis by an expert, should they wish to do so. So why prevent any expert from doing that by supplying a fake signature in this case? Storye book (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Gyrofrog as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploaded as "Source: Own work"; the same artwork appears on the cover of a book published three years earlier (https://a.co/d/9Aaz2Nu). That leaves aside the question of the painting itself, which is likely too old to possibly be one's "own work."Yann (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep, perhaps Patrick should find the OTRS volunteers before opening the DR. --A1Cafel (talk
) 02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1Cafel: Each person its job, please: you should tell us, you are the uploader after all. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Any evidence that they are photos by an employee of the Office of the Speaker as part of that person’s official duties. Besides uploader states Nancy Pelosi as creator but she ios obviously not.
Keep, this is an "an official Twitter (social media) account of the Speaker". No matter it is a selfie or not, the image is still in PD. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info false author info: the images does not seem to be selfies. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Pending further information. You cannot simply take a photo from an official twitter account, or even from a .gov website or an official government report unless you can demonstrate that the photo was the work of a US federal employee and taking that photo was part of their official duties. At the very least, this normally requires some form of clear attribution. GMGtalk 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ridiculous. If it is the case, then all images from Twitter/Facebook/Instagram of the US Government have to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we don't know who took the picture, then we don't know whether they are public domain. This image was posted the same day on the Facebook page for Gavin Newsome. Was it taken by a staffer for Pelosi, a staffer for Newsome, an employee of the Democratic party (not a government employee at all) or any other person present at the governor's association conference taking place at the time? If the photographer was actually associated with either Pelosi or Newsome, were they a paid employee or were they an unpaid intern? Unpaid interns are not employees and their works are not public domain. Unless we know who took the picture we have no way of knowing whether the image is public domain.
Pelosi (or more likely some intern or low-level staffer) has apparently posted hundreds (thousands?) of images on her twitter account, and there is no guarantee that she understands copyright law, or has thoroughly inspected the nature of the image with regard to it's copyright status. Government websites and social media accounts regularly post content either under fair use, or (like 90% of people on the internet) without regard to copyright whatsoever. Because of that merely appearing in one of these outlets is not sufficient to determine the copyright status of the work. GMGtalk 13:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unpaid interns working for Congress should fall under PD-USGov. It's still a work for hire, paid or not, I'm pretty sure -- it is part of duties ordered by the employer. I think my best look at that question is here, where agency law still applies to volunteers. (I think Congress is about to make sure that interns get paid going forward, anyways.) All of these photos are of people visiting Washington, where the Congressional staffers are most likely to be present. People operating official Twitter accounts for senators or representatives should have a reasonably clear idea of copyright. It would make sense that such a photo would be supplied to the visiting California governor (and would be PD-CAGov if taken by his staffers anyways). Yes, it's always theoretically possible that someone else took such a photo, but those do not seem to be reasonable doubts, and the usual assumption by publishing on official government sites is that such works are treated as PD-USGov even if it was not technically that way prior. I would certainly treat elements being published on official Twitter accounts the same thing as being published on their governmental website. If there is a strong indication that a particular photo was taken by someone else, please nominate that one individually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to volunteers, Community for Creative Non-Violence specifically examining copyright, stated that among the reasons Reid was not considered an employee (and retained the copyright to his work) was because the organization did not pay his payroll taxes, provide any benefits, or contribute to unemployment insurance, and in fact, the court simply presumed method of payment as one of the essential determining factors in defining employment (not whether he was paid, but how he was paid).
Regardless, the onus is not on me to provide a strong indication that it was taken by someone else; the onus is on the uploader to demonstrate the content is in the public domain. Whether it was published on this Twitter account simply has no bearing on US copyright law any more than the person depicted does. The only thing US copyright law cares about it who created the work. If someone wants to demonstrate that this image is public domain, then they should email Pelosi's office and ask who the creator was. Otherwise, the only way we keep it is by simply throwing COM:PCP out the window. GMGtalk 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That specific court case says that agency law determines "employee", and Reid was determined to be an independent contractor instead of employee by that definition. Agency law however says that:
(a) an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work, and
(b) the fact that work is performed gratuitously does not relieve a principal of liability.
So it is not the lack of payment that determines employee, but other conditions. The court case primarily said, Reid engages in a skilled occupation; supplied his own tools; worked in Baltimore without daily supervision from Washington; was retained for a relatively short period of time; had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work in order to meet his deadline; and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants. In other words, it depends on how much control the employer has over them; it is a distinction between "employee" and "independent contractor". Congressional interns are not independent contractors, as the employer has as much control over their activities as paid employees. Reid was paid, but in the manner of a contractor, not employee. COM:PCP is for *signficant* doubts, not just theoretical possibilities. These do not qualify, in my opinion. We allow claims of "own work" all the time, even though those are similarly not proven. For a DR, someone needs to supply a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The significant doubt is that we do not know who the author is and we regularly delete modern works where the author is unknown. Posting on the twitter account merely tells us who the author might be and who might be able to tell us. GMGtalk 16:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, just completely disagree. Stuff posted to congressional websites is presumed to be PD-USGov all the time. We do not need to identify the photographer's name in every case. For works where we don't even know the source of initial publication, absolutely unknown authors create significant doubts. Not the case here. Where we do know the place of initial publication, and no author is named, that is then "anonymous" and different laws can apply which we then use. For PD-USGov, the distinction is irrelevant. If it's overwhelmingly likely to be done by a staffer (paid or otherwise), that is generally enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That part of PCP is for a completely different situation than this. Again, that policy is for significant doubts as to copyright status. We don't require the actual employee name on every PD-USGov upload we have -- by your logic we should delete them if we don't. We don't require that "own work" uploads identify who they are -- user accounts are just as anonymous, and the "own work" claim is assumed there. If further information comes up -- such as the existence of an "own work" photo elsewhere on the net (and especially with a differently-named author), or (in this case) the appearance of the photo elsewhere which would indicate it was not PD-USGov, then we nominate then. But we have to make some assumptions on nearly every upload. Stuff like this is far more likely to be OK than an "own work" upload, and at that point it's not worth forcing uploader to come up with unreasonable detail. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a matter of course, yes, content tagged as PD-USGov needs to have sufficient information about authorship to determine that it was the work of a US government employee. Ideally, that is done like this (U.S. Navy photo by Erik Hildebrandt/Released) or this (Image credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA) or this (Air Force Staff Sgt. Jordan Castelan). If you don't have this information then you do not know the copyright status of the work and merely taking it from a government website is not a guarantee of authorship. GMGtalk 18:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep for me. The official Twitter accounts are generally done by staff, i.e. employees of the government. The photos in question above look to be of the type made by staffers. A claim of "Nancy Pelosi" of author is really just claiming it came from her staff, realistically. While it's theoretically possible for these to be photos taken from outside sources, I don't think that rises to a reasonable doubt per COM:PRP at least for the ones above. We would not have any issue if they were published to a .gov website, and I don't see why official Flickr accounts would have a different assumption. If some aspect of the photo makes it more likely it came from a non-USGov source, that could be reason to question the license, but all of the above look to be situations where her staffers would be present. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second Carl Lindberg's points. These five photos were taken with phones by someone that is most probably the staff. A challenge is possible only if for example it is shown to be (almost) identical to a non-staff person's photo. Or for example https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1159919184127692800 is obviously not a work of Pelosi's staff.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've cluttered up this DR enough already, but if someone reuses this in their book or website, I have serious doubts that "probably staff" is going to give them much comfort if they get threatened with a lawsuit. GMGtalk 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same goes for any "own work" upload, which is far more likely to be a problem than this. As Commons:General disclaimer basically says, nothing here is guaranteed so re-users should look at the evidence provided and determine their own comfort level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
@A1Cafel: May you explain what {{PD-India}} has to do with British pictures? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were a bunch of photographers standing around making photos of that scene. So each different photo can have its own copyright status, depending on where it was first published (probably which company the photographer worked for) and the like. Some of those may have been first published in India (or some other country who had correspondents there taking pictures), and some may have been simultaneously published in many countries. So, we need to track down sources, and unfortunately some of these are all over the net. Many are probably PD today, but some are probably not.
The first one above can be found here, with a credit of "J Gaiger" of the Topical Press Agency, whose archives were bought by Getty. That looks like a raw source version. So, probably first published in the UK, and with a named author it's not PD-UK-unknown meaning we would need to know the death date. That was discussed a decade ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg and was deleted due to lack of information. Maybe we could find more info now, but it would seem as though Getty would indeed hold the copyright if it still exists, and it's not just a PD picture that Getty is claiming ownership of (which does happen).
The second one, yes it's on Getty here. They claim a source of "Daily Herald Archive/SSPL". There is another copy here with a claimed copyright owner of "Camera Press". It's been on covers of books too. There is an SSPL source here, where they say the source is a gelatin print. So they are likely claiming copyright ownership because they own a print that was distributed in 1931. If anything, they can only claim copyrights on that particular scan, and probably valid in the UK at most (if even there). But, not sure who the source of the original print was. If it was anonymous UK, then it's PD-UK-unknown today. If it was also simultaneously published in the U.S., it would avoid the URAA as well (if not, it would be Not-PD-US-URAA until 2027). Sure feels like most of the world is treating it as PD, but not sure we know the true source either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted: based on the analysis by Carl. In the second case the PCP applies due to the uncertainty. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
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.
Kept: per User:A1Cafel comment above. --P 1 9 9✉ 13:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep UK government Twitter channels become archived at the end of the year at nationalarchives.gov.uk, when they become explicitly OGL3. See webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk for this one. You could argue that the link to to the number10.gov.uk website on the Twitter author page, which website also explicitly has the OGL 3.0 license, is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite possibly not, though you know the contents will definitely become OGL at the end of the year, so it's arguing over technicalities and timing. If the same content is on the website then it's definitely fine, but unsure if it was on the website when uploaded. It would be helpful if they mentioned a licensing statement on the Twitter author page, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Are we sure the music in the background is freely licensed? I agree that it would appear to be under the OGL, but I don't think the U.K. government can extinguish the copyright of a music recording just by placing an excerpt in a video that they then post to social media. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 01:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you're right. it seems to be the first 40s of "Music Of Filmmaker - My Lord - Song by Yarin Primak" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjQOI_2Anfs . i didnt watch the video beyond a few seconds initially.
difficult to isolate and remove the music. muting it renders the video useless. Delete.
the footage of bojo speaking is from house of commons, though. so it's actually possible to find those raw footage. RZuo (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I hate giving an answer to this because I am against deleting South African images on Commons for FOP reasons as the law in South Africa is in the process of changing to include a FOP copyright exception. If I had to give an answer it would be... maybe, bridges might (but if so then perhaps not always) also exceed COM:TOO. I have a vague recollection of photographs of South African bridges on Commons having being deleted in the past. That's why copyright exceptions tend to use the term "public works" dropping the term "art" or some other word that might imply creativity so as to be as broad as possible. Also because the law recognizes that it is not a good judge of what is "art" or not but instead tries to use tests for novelty in patents and creativity (or "sweat of the brow" intellectual work that does not plagiarize) for copyright. However, it must be noted that many bridges, it can be convincingly argued, are effectively simple objects consisting of geometric shapes. In this interpretation bridges that do not have a decorative facade would not be copyrightable but ones with such a facade would be. The same would be true of buildings. I can get a legal opinion on this later this week as I am no IP law scholar. Then I can give a better answer. Either way I can see this falling into a gray area.--Discott (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Always the same problem with A1Cafel using Flickr2Commons without due diligence. He has been told so many times to avoid creating duplicates, which is in fact very easy: stay away from Flickr2Commons, use the Upload Wizard instead. @Jmabel: this raises again the question of the usefulness of F2C (see [32]). --Edelseider (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If they are duplicates, they can be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it very seriously and have raised it multiple times in the past. There is only so much you can do when the designer of this tool doesn't fix it. F2C is responsible for millions of duplicates that have appeared and been deleted here over the years. It's also very helpful when it is used properly. Edelseider (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hiratsuka Unichi (w:en:Un'ichi Hiratsuka) died in in 1997; even in life+50 nations, Unichi's works are still in copyright. (Japan was life+50 and switched to life+70; see {{PD-Japan}}.) There's a little confusion on the author; the author field in the template says the author is Fukazawa Sakuichi, but both the filename and EXIF data mention him, and the English Wikipedia page mentions he did 12 images in this series.
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.
Sumio Kawakami (w:en:Chosei Kawakami) died in in 1972; as per {{PD-Japan}}, Japan is life+70 for his works. There's a little confusion on the author; the author field in the template says the author is Fukazawa Sakuichi, but both the filename and EXIF data mention him, and the English Wikipedia page displays an image from this series. There were more than had the name Fukazawa Sakuichi incorrectly, but were apparently PD-JP & -US.
WMC is not a soapbox and this has no educational use Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It has educational use by illustrating how a) a failed message on Twitter looks like which is not among its many screenshots b) helping illustrate what a disrupted communication online can look like. Also it's by definition within scope. Hundreds of images of porn have no realistic educational use but I'm fine that they are kept, I propose though that actual educational media is not censored / deleted for no good reason instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop talking about porn. Nobody else is obsessing over this here but you. Your argument is perfectly reasonable otherwise, don’t bog it down with w:wp:othercrap arguments Dronebogus (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Seems in scope. I question however if "own work" is correct license. Is the message from Twitter PD-Text, or too long to qualify? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: Which of these logos are you saying are above TOO in the U.S.? Energy Star logo is public domain (it's from the EPA), and we've hosted File:Intel logo (2006-2020).svg for over a decade and File:ATI Radeon HD 4770 Graphics Card-top view-2.jpg even longer, so I'm guessing the only possible issue would be the Windows logo. We do host File:Unofficial fan made Windows 7 logo variant.svg, so unless you think that also should be deleted, some pretty minor editing could bring that one logo below the threshold. But maybe you think otherwise, please be specific so we can see what would need to be retouched. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Core i5 and ATI radeon stickers meet TOO, they are not simple and flat. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does the Windows 7 logo, I also believe all listed files should be deleted because they are personal files with little educational value. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discuss one issue at a time, please. I disagree that these are personal files without sufficient educational value. I also disagree that the Windows 7 logo is above COM:TOO US. The most complex logo is Intel's, and if that's been determined to be below COM:TOO US, all of these logos are fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although Poland tends to set its threshold of originality low, it appears as though logos of political parties in Poland are considered public information per II SAB/Wa 714/15, and are thus ineligible for copyright. HapHaxion(talk / contribs) 19:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this image should stay because it's on WECP-LD5. BMarGlines (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is not an accurate depiction of the symbol of the division. The shape is correct, but the colours are not. The correct colours are shown on File:24th Waffen Division of the SS vehicle symbol.png Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the emblem of the division. The two sources that show the emblem are black and white line drawings. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not a valid reason to keep an inaccurate representation of a symbol. Wherever the inaccurate ones are used, they can be replaced by the one that is correct, which is the one currently in use on en WP, ie File:24th Waffen Division of the SS vehicle symbol.png. Why would we keep inaccurate representations for which there is not a reliable source? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek, are you suggesting that I have to replace all the incorrect ones in use with the correct one before the incorrect ones can be deleted? That would never end, because of course all the "experts" will insist they are right, and I cannot interact with them in their home WP language. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're just another one of the "experts" from our position. At Commons, we tend to leave it to the Wikipedias if there's disagreement, instead of deleting files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to link the reliable sources, but OK. Ikan Kekek could sharpen up their repartee though. No attempt to explain, just a peremptory dismissal. I've been editing en WP for over a decade and uploading images to Commons all that time, and have never come across such a rude response. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry the response seems rude, but it's instead dismissive because COM:INUSE and COM:NPOV do not allow for the deletion of files that are in use based on disputes or even accurate claims about content. Read those links, and you'll understand why these kinds of deletion requests are wastes of time. And there are always lots of them, wasting lots of time. The fact that you don't like or would rather ignore the links I've given you doesn't mean I gave you no explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is not an accurate depiction of the symbol of the division. The shape is correct, but the colours are not. The correct colours are shown on File:24th Waffen Division of the SS vehicle symbol.png Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not what the reliable sources ay the emblem looked like. The sources show the reverse of this, ie white background and white inside the symbol, with black outline of the shape. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keepCOM:INUSE You are wasting time. Files in use cannot be deleted because of claims of inaccuracy, however valid. Don't request deletion a third time for the same reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said elsewhere, COM:INUSE doesn't say that, and in any case that is complete bonkers. So, someone can make something up, someone else can find it on commons and use in some obscure language WP, and it can never be deleted, even though it is complete nonsense? The net result of that is that it will get used more and more, and editors swap in the incorrect version because they like the vibe of it, or whatever. Doesn't commons apply the need for content to be verifiable? Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read COM:NPOV. What's nonsense is trying to get files that are in use on other wikis deleted on Commons for reasons of content. It can't be done. I'm sorry; you appear to have good motivations, but we just don't do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is not an accurate depiction of the symbol of the division. The shape is correct, but the colours are not. The correct colours are shown on File:24th Waffen Division of the SS vehicle symbol.png Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep In use all over the place. Don't nominate images for deletion on this kind of basis, especially when they're COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not what the reliable sources ay the emblem looked like. The sources show the reverse of this, ie white background and white inside the symbol, with black outline of the shape. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keepCOM:INUSE You are wasting time. Files in use cannot be deleted because of claims of inaccuracy, however valid. Don't request deletion a third time for the same reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? COM:INUSE doesn't say that. So, a completely inaccurate symbol must remain on WP because some WP is currently using it? That is completely bonkers. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"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." If that's not good enough for you, read COM:NPOV. We can't delete these files, period. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The background image is specific to Google Pixel phones rather than a part of Android Open Source Project. Larryasou (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Larryasou as Dw no source since (dw no source since): The wallpaper is proprietary to ZTE and should be blurred out. Larryasou (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the logo of the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (Wikidata:Q11886867), so it is probably not own work by the uploader. However, as the logo may be eligible for {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-FinlandGov}}, I am not nominating the file for speedy deletion. Apalsolat • c 12:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC) –– (typo fix) Apalsolat • c 12:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freely licensed picture cropped to an award statue which wouldn't be covered by the Creative Commons license. Award was started in the 2000s so statue may still be in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no reliable source, possible fabrication Piastu (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - Obscenity is not a reason for deletion so long as the content is legal in the US. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not a valid reason to delete and image is in scope. A new account and starts by searching nudity and sexuality related images because they are obscene? Either this is a sock of someone or a moral crusader that cant even understand the irony of someone that only sees one type of image and calls them obscene. Tm (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although sexual intercourse in scope, this image is in low quality and unused, and can be replaced by many alternatives in the category A1Cafel (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep We don't aggressively prune any other types of images. This one was uploaded eight years ago; we should assume that it was in use at some point (or is in use on some Mediawiki wiki that uses Commons images) and deleting it will hurt the history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete being old isn’t an excuse to keep low quality unused images. Nudity and sexuality are aggressively pruned to keep exhibitionism and vandalism to a minimum Dronebogus (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepKept before! no better reasoning provided --Zenwort (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as the uploader, Larryasou seems correct. I'm not an iOS user (except for an older test phone I had when working with the Wikimedia apps) and didn't realize the background here was the iOS standard wallpaper, which I would indeed assume is copyrighted when I did the uploads for the team. These screenshots would probably need to be redone with a monochrome wallpaper or a similar solution. Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No big deal. Will you be able to create new screenshots using solid color background, like File:IOS Wikipedia app notifications screenshot...? If yes, please just upload them over the original, administrators will delete only old version. (P.S. Sorry for late reply, I forgot to subscribe to this page and nearly forgot the matter.) 0x0a (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Nomination applies to originally-uploaded version only, not the cropped version that replaces it where the background is likely de minimis). Reason:- Excessive inclusion of background whose content is non-free and cannot be justified as de minimis. Ubcule (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It is not an exact duplicate, one has the original sepia tone, and the other has been reduced to black and white. The sepia version also gives us the whole cover prior to the crop. We are not saving space, they do not get deleted, just hidden. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, and you have been told this by more than one editor, YOU can not declare OTHER PEOPLE'S pics CC anything. The COPYRIGHTHOLDER, usually the photographer, can do that, and that's not you. If it's not PD in the US AND country of origin, you can not put pics like these on Commons, buddhists or not. Annoying rule, sure. See Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain if you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep PD-Myanmar. I agree the cc license is not correct, slightly modifying the clipping to straighten the text does not transfer the copyright. The image looks like he was about 40 years old, and it was republished in 1969. His biography states that "[He] migrated to Southeast Asia in 1931, living first in Thailand and then, from 1949, in Burma, which remained their last home." --RAN (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, my understanding is that it fails "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).", and per source the image is from 1969 (afaict with google translate. That would make image-Lustig late 50s, which seems possible to me).
Unless this is considered per the PD-Myanmar template "applied art", whatever that is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not quite sure if the CC license is totally wrong here because it is now a 'new' work. One might say not very different from the original. However, it is nonetheless a new work, which would make it releasable under CC.
Let's not get sectarian here. Buddhist teachings are non-sectarian. This is very much a side point.
Scan of existing photo, needs essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. And not notable - no article in any wp, nor in WD. P 1 9 9✉ 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickr washing. This photo is not work of 'Daniel Molydenum' or in the Public Domian. Original photo can be found on the stock site Alamy taken by Robert Quinlan here. Tineye reverse search shows that the photo has been on Alamy since atleast August 2021 (likely much longer), while the photo was uploaded to Flickr in June 2022. Also, the Flickr uploader states in their about section "Most images are not mine...". The cropped photo should also be deleted - File:World Trade Center (WTC) aerial view from helicopter (2000-08-18) (cropped).jpg. PascalHD (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this photo should be deleted accordingly. --Aaron106 (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Was your statement of authorship and license false when you uploaded this? Image is in use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete then. --194.9.27.69 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose This file represents the insignia of a Ukrainian military unit, this representation is therefore excluded from Copyright according to Ukrainian law (online on the official website of the Ukrainian government here => [1] ) which therefore places this file in the public domain, regardless of the means used to reproduce it.
Keep for the File:Busto de Carlos Thays.jpg, which has a {{CC-AR-GCBA}} license. – Fma12 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Imanluk. The process will now run its course. Even if this file is deleted in the meantime, the process will resinstate it if and when they are satisfied with what you have provided. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Question Garden art is not protected by copyright? --A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Ticket:2023112210011203 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This is really complicated. First, the date. The image is dated to the end of the 1930s on several web sites, for example "Kenning a fines de los años treinta" here, so 1939 would be the year to base any calculations on.
Speedy delete per COM:F8 as a duplicate of File:Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.jpg. in my opinion, there is no need for more than 1 file, and this one is more recent, so I'd say delete unless there's a damn good argument to keep both . To closing admin: Please leave redirect to the former. QuickQuokka [talk • contribs] 21:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy keep -- Chaddy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Done Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg/220px-Signature_of_Reverend_Thomas_Henry_Sparshott_(1b).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_10_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_02.jpg){kind=link}
_-_03.jpg){kind=link}
_-_04.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.jpeg){kind=link}
_DSC08205.jpg){kind=link}
_Vertretung_des_Landes_Bremen_beim_Bund.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1862.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
(3._Version).svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![1.18.32 File:"نشر التغييرات".jpg](#File:"نشر_التغييرات".jpg){kind=link}
![1.18.33 File:"مُلخص التعديل".png](#File:"مُلخص_التعديل".png){kind=link}
![1.18.34 File:"قارن بين النسختين المختارتين".png](#File:"قارن_بين_النسختين_المختارتين".png){kind=link}
_aerial_view_from_helicopter_(2000-08-18).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_op_het_Merdeka-plein,_Henk_van_Rinsum,_1980.jpg){kind=link}
_op_het_Merdeka-plein_TMnr_20018020.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Jakarta.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Jakarta_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(14578652850)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(14578652850)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(14578652850).jpg){kind=link}
_(14765040902).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(19180764558).jpg){kind=link}
_(20642977188).jpg){kind=link}
_(20200171548).jpg){kind=link}
_(19767446803).jpg){kind=link}
_(20394528411).jpg){kind=link}
_(20379582232).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362168056).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362211196).jpg){kind=link}
_(20379783492).jpg){kind=link}
_(20379794902).jpg){kind=link}
_(20200401708).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362140036).jpg){kind=link}
_(20200078498).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388379655).jpg){kind=link}
_(20201723779).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362207876).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388449115).jpg){kind=link}
_(20200463568).jpg){kind=link}
_(20201427869).jpg){kind=link}
_(20201744379).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388459815).jpg){kind=link}
_(20379483092).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388454885).jpg){kind=link}
_(19765721604).jpg){kind=link}
_(20394313801).jpg){kind=link}
_(19765786354).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362202476).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362103746).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388075175).jpg){kind=link}
_(20362134456).jpg){kind=link}
_(20201774749).jpg){kind=link}
_(20200331850).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388484655).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388069715).jpg){kind=link}
_(20201757309).jpg){kind=link}
_(20388409425).jpg){kind=link}
_(20387897421).jpg){kind=link}
_(20193693370).jpg){kind=link}
_(19559710558).jpg){kind=link}
_(19125206284).jpg){kind=link}
_(19559694328).jpg){kind=link}
_10_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_10_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_21_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(19740934552).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560115868).jpg){kind=link}
_(19721957636).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561687279).jpg){kind=link}
_(19125582714).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561550149).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560236160).jpg){kind=link}
_(19753018681).jpg){kind=link}
_(19722085696).jpg){kind=link}
_(19740926272).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560242940).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561558959).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560307908).jpg){kind=link}
_(19127267593).jpg){kind=link}
_(19125685084).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(19748174185).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561547529).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560140918).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561543059).jpg){kind=link}
_(19741026632).jpg){kind=link}
_(19561716649).jpg){kind=link}
_(19748229695).jpg){kind=link}
_(19741080832).jpg){kind=link}
_(19560186320).jpg){kind=link}
_(19740961152).jpg){kind=link}
_(18228834098).jpg){kind=link}
_(18228853258).jpg){kind=link}
_(17793973454).jpg){kind=link}
_(19723732494).jpg){kind=link}
_(20337756192).jpg){kind=link}
_(20352651891).jpg){kind=link}
_(19723871564).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(20337599862).jpg){kind=link}
_(20337938782).jpg){kind=link}
_(20159445549).jpg){kind=link}
_(19725221213).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(19723447444).jpg){kind=link}
_(20319852736).jpg){kind=link}
_(20346613885).jpg){kind=link}
_(20352555021).jpg){kind=link}
_(18395178286).jpg){kind=link}
_(18423283501).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_02.jpg){kind=link}
_-_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_03.jpg){kind=link}
_-_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_04.jpg){kind=link}
_-_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Sabzanov.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.jpeg){kind=link}
_logo.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Архитектура._01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_Chatham_Bus_Station,_19_December_2017.jpg){kind=link}
,_31_October_2018_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Waterfront_Way_(Chatham_Bus_Station),_19_December_2017.jpg){kind=link}
,_31_October_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Chatham_Bus_Station,_17_January_2018.jpg){kind=link}
,_Chatham_Bus_Station,_17_January_2018_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_rear_view.jpg){kind=link}
_front_view.jpg){kind=link}
_front_view.jpg){kind=link}
_rear_view.jpg){kind=link}
_CRDi_(India)_rear_view.jpg){kind=link}
_CRDi_(India)_front_view.jpg){kind=link}
_DSC08205.jpg){kind=link}
_DSC08205.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Vertretung_des_Landes_Bremen_beim_Bund.jpg){kind=link}
_Vertretung_des_Landes_Bremen_beim_Bund.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_15.jpg){kind=link}
_4.jpg){kind=link}
23_Map.jpg){kind=link}
24_Map.jpg){kind=link}
40.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=800565113#File%3AGuillermo_Kenning_Voss%2C_de_la_falange_boliviana.png){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(LOC)_(38899501530).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_02.png){kind=link}
_03.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_-_2023-06-17_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_2023-06-17_-_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Duminica_Floriilor._Aprilie_2019.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1862.png){kind=link}
_1862.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
(3._Version).svg){kind=link}
(3._Version).svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(3._Version).svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_aerial_view_from_helicopter_(2000-08-18).jpg){kind=link}
_aerial_view_from_helicopter_(2000-08-18).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_aerial_view_from_helicopter_(2000-08-18)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
