Commons:Deletion requests/2023/11/16

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
15 November 2023
17 November 2023
Deletion requests on 16 November 2023

November 16[edit]

File:Trezzano sul Naviglio - chiesa di Santa Gianna Beretta Molla.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and although I couldn't find any information about who the architect of this building is, they clearly haven't been dead for 70 years yet since it was built in 2014. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date. Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Concert posters of Germany[edit]

There's zero evidence these posters are the uploaders own work and they are probably copyrighted in the mean. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Straßenplakat gegen Oberbillwerder in Hamburg-Lohbrügge.jpg[edit]

Per COM:POSTER posters are copyrighted due to being non-permanent works. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FOP in Germany is applicable. It is permanent since the purpose is "permanent" for the lifetime of the poster (see: Dreyer in Heidelberger Kommentar Urheberrecht, 4. Auflage 2018, § 59 Rn. 17.
Hinnerk11 (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a poster but a permanent sign. The new quarter of Oberbillwerder in Hamburg is still in planning stage, as it has been since 2016. Not a single ditch has been dug. It will be many more years before the quarter is built, if ever. And the local opposition (NIMBYism) has formed to fight it. These signs adorn many hedges, buildings etc. And they are here to stay.
The original poster is without a clue about local context. Ignore. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your claiming I'm the one who doesn't have a clue about local context, yet your the one who put the image in a category for political posters to begin with. Otherwise why did you put the image in Category:Political posters of Germany when you uploaded it if that's not what it is? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because there was no Category:Political signs of Germany. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd buy that if not for the bad faithed way you treated me over this, but at this point it really just seems like an excuse to keep the image from being deleted. The difference between a sign and a poster is superficial at best anyway. At least it is in this case. Otherwise you could argue all posters are signs because they use gestures to convey information or some nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record: I live in Hamburg, speak the language and have written the article de:Oberbillwerder long before this ignoramus made his way through this and that category, just because he feels like it. To destroy other people's work whilst being ignorant about local context and history is despicable. --Minderbinder (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come on, it's ridiculous to drag me through the dirt because of something that was your mistake. are you really that thinned skinned? It's one image that you added the category for Political posters of Germany to in the first place. All I have to go off of is the information other people provide when they upload the images and it seems like a poster based on the information you added to the file. It's ridiculous to drag me through the dirt because of something that was your mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since a picture of a poster as well as a sign is perfectly legal according to german law, it's easy to see who made the mistake.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where does German law say that images of posters are perfectly legal? I know that's at least what the guidelines say and images of them are deleted as COPYVIO all the time. Nor do I think it warrants the condencending, insulting tone anyway. But regardless, there's nothing in the law or guidelines saying posters aren't copyrightable. Otherwise be my guest and I'd be happy to retract this. I'm not going to do that if the response is just a string of more insults though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've mentioned the legal source at the top of the page. Feel free to ask for more. I haven't insulted you, so refrain from any aggressive comments in my direction.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about insulting responses in general, not specifically anything you said. Regardless, I looked through the link you provided earlier and unless I'm missing something it doesn't seem to say what your claiming it does. So can you maybe cite the exact part of the law that says photographs of posters are legal in Germany? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sign was placed at the location in public space (by the roadside) with the intent that it should remain there until the construction of the new Stadtteil Oberbillwerder is either defeated in the courts or by a political decision, or until the project goes ahead. Either way, many years, an indefinite time period. ("bleibend" per § 59 UrHG, see discussion of permanent in FOP Germany.) The material of the sign does not matter, though it is laminated material, which can last a long time. So it is covered by FOP. I invite Adamant1 to either read up on German copyright law (you know, there are actual books in German on this), or to visit the location in Hamburg to check out whether the sign is still there. Send us a picture, please. --Minderbinder (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I invite Adamant1 to either read up on German copyright law or to visit the location in Hamburg How you do know I haven't? Regardless, you know as well as do that the standard here isn't that people don't have to be from the country, speak the language, or visit the location where the photograph was taken in order to have an opinion. So why not cut the xenophobic nonsense and just quote where the law says it's legal to take photographs of posters in Germany? It should be easy to do if that's what the law says. Certainly there'd be no need for me to visit there or read German language books. Like no one needs to do either one to know the copyright status of signatures in Germany for instance. They could just cite Urheberrechtsgesetz Paragraph 2(2) instead of making this about the other person's nationality or some other xenophobic nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ich antworte mal auf deutsch, da jemand der Bücher, wie den Heidelberger Kommentar, sinnerfassend lesen kann, offensichtlich einen fast muttersprachliches Verständnis der Sprache hat. Ich habe dir in meinem ersten Beitrag die relevante Stelle im einschlägigen juristischen Kommentar genannt. Du behauptest, dass dort nicht steht, was ich behaupte, erwähnst aber die Möglichkeit, dass du etwas übersehen hättest. Könntest du präzisieren, warum du eine gegenteilige Auffassung aus dieser Textstelle herausliest und wer mit juristischer Kompetenz deine teilt.--Hinnerk11 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you specify why you read a contrary opinion from this passage and who with legal competence shares yours? No, because I asked you the question to begin with based on your claim that the law says it's legal to photograph posters in Germany. You can't just say the law says something and then put it on the other person to prove it doesn't say what your claiming. It's not my job to make your argument for you. Nor can I prove a negative anyway even if it was. Your the one saying the law says it's legal to photograph posters in Germany. So again, where does the law say that and can you cite a quote from the passage your getting the opinion from? Otherwise there isn't really anything else to discuss here. At least not on my end. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Der Benutzer hat die gewünschte Antwort bekommen. Wenn er sie nicht verstehen kann oder will, ist das sein Problem. Wie ich oben schrieb: Ignorieren. Das ist einer drei Schritte beim Umgang mit trollhaftem Verhalten. —Minderbinder (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Farinet berlin.jpg[edit]

Per COM:POSTER posters are copyrighted due to being non-permanent works. So this image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Niels-Olsen.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, not an own work PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Ciencias Económicas UES - Logo.png[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas UES - Logo.png[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Medicina UES - Logo.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Ciencias y Humanidades UES - Logo.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Odontología UES - Logo.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Química y Farmacia UES - Logo.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Ingeniería y Arquitectura UES - Logo.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Facultad de Jurisprudencia y Ciencias Sociales UES - Logo.png[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Autoridades de la UES - 2023-2027.jpg[edit]

no proof of Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license at listed source PizzaKing13 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Calendars of China and its subcategories[edit]

These files contain too many artworks to be considered {{De minimis}} --痛Designism (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K 2.png[edit]

Out of scope: unused web site screenshot. Omphalographer (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Nationalmuseum Katar.jpg[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Qatar A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Then delete it. Frankee 67 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:2023.10.26 DC Street, Washington, DC USA 299 57154 (53288210854).jpg[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

keep, Commons:De minimis, the main focus is on the "Free Gaza" text and not on the art. Regardless, the poster takes up only a small part of the image. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main focus is definitely the poster, and I think the poster is above COM:TOO US--A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:DSC 7442 (14550450797).jpg[edit]

Falsche Angabe des Ortes, Objekt ist NICHT in Peggys Cove, sondern am Hafen in Halifax/Kanada Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Not a reason for deletion, just change the category. --Rosenzweig τ 09:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep I've updated the categories. Mindmatrix 12:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Doctorow backup gesamt download.pdf[edit]

Licensed under incompatible cc-by-nc-nd/2.0/de/: [1] → [2], screenshot. Komarof (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete – Not a case of debate but clearly a license that is not WMC-compatible and thus this sadly needs to be deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nails-plan.webp[edit]

Fake "unknown author" claim, this is clearly signed by Vasilyev Victor Georgievich (1906-1954), so not free until 2029. Komarof (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Klenovik.jpg[edit]

https://www.obcina-skocjan.si/TermsAndConditions: Vse vsebine storitev spletnega mesta so avtorsko pravno zaščitene kot individualna stvaritev oz. kot podatkovna zbirka. Varstvo zajema zlasti podatke, besedila, multimedijske vsebine, programsko opremo ter HTML, java in flash izvorno kodo. Vsebine tega spletnega mesta je dovoljeno uporabljati zgolj za zasebne namene, če posamezen način uporabe ni prepovedan s temi pravili uporabe ali veljavno zakonodajo. Na vsaki reprodukciji mora biti kot vir navedena točna povezava do vira. ZimskoSonce (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David Longoria -Cannes 2019.jpg[edit]

Cropped from a bigger image https://ipluggers.com/davidlongoria - uploader claims to be jones who took the photo. I think we need VTRS to keep Gbawden (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Camp Naser Hejazi.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} talk 07:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Al Deira Hotel[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in the State of Palestine, see COM:FOP State of Palestine for details. According to w:en:Al Deira Hotel, the structure was built in 2000 and authored by architect Rashid Abdel Hamid. Commercial license permission from the architect is required.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Dalani.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} talk 08:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Local tourist attraction promo. Was. Now not in use. Wiki is not a hosting.

Bilderling (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 2.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 3.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 4.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 5.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 6.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 7.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018 8.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dehnamak Caravanserai2018.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. {{User|POS78}} talk 09:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Duda-Salehi meeting (2016-11-10(.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} talk 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cathérine Miville.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Rolf K. Wegst M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by N19Lu (talk · contribs)[edit]

Not own works, and no evidence of a free license or public domain.

Yann (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Although the source info needs to be fleshed out, these are old enough to be PD in Brazil and are/could be used in pt:Kleber Calou. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adeletron 3030: How old would they have to be to be PD in Brazil?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. Non-artistic photographs published before 1989 are {{PD-Brazil-Photo}}. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adeletron 3030: Could you please fix the source, date, author, and license? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:José Calazans Callou e Maria de Doçura Callou.jpg was the only image that returned a hit, and it’s from a Brazilian genealogy site: https://www.myheritage.com.br/site-164090501/familia-callou?popup=4%2C+0534971745&tr_id=m_6zwkppkgk0_pi2nwr5lfz#notificationPanelAnchor. I suspect the other photos are also scanned personal photos and behind the paywall.
I feel confident that they’re pre-1989 photos, but I can’t verify the source. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, forgot about File:José Kleber Callou (1967-1970).jpg, which appears to be a pre-1983 work of a state government, so I think it’s good to keep. I’ve ✓ Done my best to correct the source and license on the other ones that appear to be family photo scans. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:José Calazans Callou e Maria de Doçura Callou.jpg is probably from after 1989, so it is not in the public domain in USA (if I understand the rules correctly). Yann (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Abyssmegalo22 (talk · contribs)[edit]

fantasy diagrams, out of project scope

Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gimnasio-nacional-jose-adolfo-pineda-900x600.webp[edit]

Image lacks a convincing source, an absence made more dubious by the lack of an actual author. EdrianJustine (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:José Kleber Calou.jpg[edit]

Not own work, and no evidence of a free license or public domain.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep Now fixed, PD-Brazil-Photo. --RAN (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:72nd Miss Universe El Salvador.jpg[edit]

Dubious claim of ownership EdrianJustine (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ein alasad 1 photos.jpg[edit]

all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license {{User|POS78}} talk 10:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Andry Rajoelina.jpg[edit]

Très clairement une photo officielle Aréat (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The logo has obtained the copyright registration in its country of origin, China. Would need VRT permission from the copyright holder.

0x0a (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Valdek-logo.jpg[edit]

Logo of non-notable company, uploaded for advertizing. Komarof (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg[edit]

As Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel has never been in FBI custody, there's no reason to believe this—or any of the miscellaneous disparate photos used on his wanted poster—are the works of the FBI or US federal government. (FWIW, this looks most like a passport photo, the copyright of which would be vested in the photographer commissioned by Patel, and to which the FBI would've had ready access for their purposes.) Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is a w:WP:POINTY nomination, created because I randomly cited this image as one of many, many examples showing that FBI photos of suspects are PD-USGOV at Wikimedia -- in response, User has nominated the single image I cited, when their objection is actually to our policies that acknowledge FBI suspect photos may be reproduced under PD-USGOV. The intellectually honest move is to withdraw this nomination and replace it with a proposal to revise our longstanding policies. Feoffer (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    {{PD-USGov-FBI}} says, "This image or file is a work of a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." This isn't an FBI-created photo, as Patel has never been a suspect in federal custody to have had a booking photo taken. This is the FBI using a third party's photo under fair use, which is their prerogative, but we at Commons have to respect the original creator's copyright. Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're imagining a "right" that does not exist. Copyright means the US federal govt limits who can publish an image -- and that's ALL it means. So when the US federal Gov asserts its right to create and publish content for public distribution, copyright does not apply and it enters the public domain. You can't use copyright to limit the speech of a court or a congressional committee or a federal agency. Feoffer (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per nom and special:diff/822567412.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep {{PD-ineligible}} as booth picture. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Booth picture"? Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. If this isn't the FBI picture, then it is probably taken from his passport (or driving license). There is no photographer, therefore there is no copyright. Yann (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see anything at Template:PD-ineligible that relates to that, though? Firstly, I guess my question is, do photo-booth photos not receive copyright protection recognition on Commons? The composition of the photograph is still consciously and specifically undertaken by the photographee prior to the photos capture; the photographer is the subject, and it's just the shutter release that's been automated. Secondly, I've never seen a photo booth take driving or passport photos; it's always a person (government employee or contracted third party) who's working to make sure the composition is perfectly acceptable for the purpose. Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PD-ineligible is very generic and doesn't detail all situations. The point of ID pictures is that there is no creativity or originality involved, which is the basic requirement for copyright. Yann (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've seen lots of US driving license photos deleted because they're copyrighted: 2011, 2020, & 2022 for example, with Florida licenses being the exception thereto (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Atta.jpg). Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, IMO these deletions are a mistake. I would support undeletion. Yann (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Ruiaraujo1972 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Tridimensional images of books/codices taken from https://pemdatabase.eu/, with a very clear copyright notice: "© Portuguese Early Music Database (PEM), 2010-2023", as well as the information that the contents are licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, an unfree license: "PEM contents are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence." If that content is indeed being relicensed under a free license, COM:VTRS must be used to certify it.

The copyrighted database has also been massively imported from that website to Wikidata, which constitutes a violation of copyright in Portugal, so if a VTRS ticket is filled, it is strongly advised to include a CC0 license for the database, to avoid further problems.

Darwin Ahoy! 13:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1-Sommermorgen in Song-nih I (1984), Acryl auf Jute, 26 x 32 cm.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Nham-hee Völkel-Song M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Christos Tsogias-Razakov.png[edit]

Possible copyvio: Picture on the official website https://www.chrisraz.eu/bio CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ρεσιτάλ όμποε - vizthum1.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: Billboard for a concert CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Charles John Alexander Jarvis in 2023.jpg[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, but the photographer gave me explicit permission to share the image with the world. SRGBKN (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello SRGBKN, Thank you for your answer. In this case, as it is not your picture, it might be that you need to create an OTSR request as instructed on this page Commons:Volunteer Response Team. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Tülüküün oguzları (talk · contribs)[edit]

Promo. Was. Not in use now. Fake licence: a collection of both historical and modern images can't be own.

Bilderling (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Poor Professor.jpg[edit]

Irrelevant image compared with file name and explanation (story about a professor), or alleged theme of African "climate and weather". As such, a blurry random photo of a road with little educational value. Q0ywo (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Delete. Very low quality image of an unidentified subject with an unrelated filename and description. Marbletan (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Could be usable if we knew where this was, as categories, filenames and descriptions can be changed. But as it is, it does seem unusable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nyhgg.png[edit]

Duplication of File:Flag of Somalia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Praga - panoramio (159).jpg[edit]

Probable violation of the copyright of the image on the television Verbcatcher (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:C SEED 262.jpg[edit]

Probable copyright violation, published in news reports dated before the upload to Commons.[3][4] TinEye reportes other predated matches. Also, possible copyright violation of the image on the TV. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:CSEED201 unfolding.jpg[edit]

Probable copyright violation, appears to be a marketing image. Published in a news report dated before the upload to Commons.[5] TinEye reports other predated matches. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gebäude DWIt.jpg[edit]

possible copyvio, photographer is Philipp Scheffler, but this name is not mentioned in the discription, beside of this the permission is not clearly given Alabasterstein (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:18012023 Union - Belgrano-7677.jpg[edit]

Metadata credits Enzo Santos Barreiro, no evidence that the photographer has released copyright Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Native Americans.jpg[edit]

Not own work, published @ https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/opb/TLHH453A5ZFTRL2MMTKIMO4P3E.jpg. Also on https://www.opb.org/artsandlife/series/brokentreaties/oregon-tribes-oral-history-broken-treaties/. Source and license to be checked. Achim55 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Really looks like it would be a public domain image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak keep I concur with Ikan Kekek above. This very much looks like an alternate scan/crop of this image, which per Alamy is in the public domain. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Zoosphaerium darthvaderi holotype.png[edit]

Source is CC-by-NC-4.0, asserted upload here does not get to remove the NC clause Kevmin § 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a derivative work, and the originals' licenses are not SA; hence the derivative can be released without an NC clause. Zanahary (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images used in this work are still tagged specifically as NC, which is incompatible with Commons licensing rules. You as the derivitive maker do not get to remove the NC clause from the images, which is release creep--Kevmin § 15:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain how this works, then? What is a derivative work that does not use the images? Zanahary (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zanahary: you can make derivatives of the work, but you do not get to change to the license from the works used, specifically you MUST release your works as NC as well. NC mean no commercial use, which is incompatible with commons licensing rules, which allow commercial use with attribtion.--Kevmin § 17:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to what standards? Where can I read this? Zanahary (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Phoenix Mountain National Forest Park.jpg[edit]

The uploader is not the author. So the VRT permission from the author is needed. 0x0a (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:La gatta Iris in posa armonica.jpg[edit]

Original digital artwork by the uploader, out of scope Andrea Novello 18:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Il campo di applicazione del diritto d’autore (o Copyright).jpg[edit]

Original digital artwork by the uploader, out of scope Andrea Novello 18:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:PedestrianDetection.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:SCREENSHOT. In use. Maybe we can blur the image of the car to make the rest below COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:20 € Rechenmaschine - Bild- und Wertseite O FU.jpg[edit]

This file is a double copyvio: Not only is the 2023 coin copyrighted, but the photograph that was uploaded is also not the uploader's own work, but someone else's photograph taken from the web. The file should therefore be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 19:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have written permission from the Copyright owner (Bundesministerium der Finanzen) to upload the file to WP, so I think everything is OK. The Bundesministerium an I myself think that there is public interest in this. BTW there is also a stamp that has been issued on this occasion and I also have permission from the artist and the Bundesministerium as well to publish it in WP but was unable to do so. Any help is appreciated. --Klaeren (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Klaeren: To keep this file, what we need is a clear and documented permission by the author / rights holder to upload the files here under a free license so anybody can use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes (see Commons:Licensing). The author / rights holder (in this case: both of them, coin designer and photographer) must send these by e-mail (him- or herself, no forwarding). Details and e-mail address see COM:VRT/de. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Покровський собор - відкритий для парфіян (навіть під час війни) трикупольний храм, виконаний у стилі бароко.jpg[edit]

За бажанням оригінального автора, неякісна фотографія Eyulian (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Chocolate-dipped ice cream bars[edit]

COM:PACKAGING.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Appolo Ice-Cream Company[edit]

COM:PACKAGING.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kawattha - Canadian ice cream (52153585290).jpg[edit]

COM:PACKAGING. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Probably has to be deleted per nom, but a COM:De minimis argument could be made, in that this is an overview. All your other nominations below are excellent, thank you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dschinghis Khan band.jpg[edit]

This is a derivative work from an image taken from Dschinghis Khan 1979's album [6] (see more images). The Flickr account may have created the derivative, but by no means they hold the copyright of the original photo, still protected in Germany, its country of origin. Günther Frager (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Salmannew.jpg[edit]

Image is uploaded from Bollywood Hungama which has very specific conditions, one of which is that the image needs to be from a BH party/event, which are found in the parties-and-events part of their website. This is not from that section and does not meet the BH image criteria, hence does not have a compatible license. Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/11/16&oldid=824869685"