July

July 12

File:Ulaanbaatar.svg

Garuda elements are misrepresented, no reliable source. Saruul 04 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This images, and the other similar listed on this date, appear to be taken from https://www.fotw.info/flags/mn-city.html, which lists names of makers/designers and no free licensing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellywa (talk • contribs)

In use. Any evidence that CoA is not PD? --Krd 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mn coa ulaanbaatar.png

Garuda elements are misrepresented, source link is dead. Saruul 04 (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In use. Any evidence that CoA is not PD? --Krd 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

File:Megaswara FM Indramayu.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duta Swara Bojonegoro.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swara Bojonegoro Indah.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prima FM Bojonegoro.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio M9 92.0 FM Cepu.jpg

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:94.3 Bercahaya FM.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:98.7 Raka FM Cepu (Alternative Logo).png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-textlogo}} ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:909 AM Radio Blora Sakti.png

not own work as claimed but a protected logo from a tv company no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work but likely PD-textlogo. // Kakan spelar (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mazalové (26).jpg

Na fotografii jsem objektem a nesouhlasím s jejím zveřejněním. Jezerka88 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Byl na veřejné novinářské projekci. Svojí účastí souhlasil s focením. Simca 14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@SimcaCZE: I can hide the original version if you want. I'm not deleting the whole file though. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar grained.gif

Oscar trophies are still copyrighted. On the original photo it is clearly de minimis, but cropping is not OK. Günther Frager (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pre-1978 Oscar statues did not have a copyright notice, so the design is in the public domain per {{PD-US-no notice}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how it is inferred the statuette is pre-1978 as it was taken in the 2011 ceremony. Also, the US Copyright Office granted copyright protection in 1941 and it was held in court [1]. This court ruling is the one used in Category:Oscar statuettes to prevent uploads of images were the statuettes are not de minimis. Günther Frager (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KVUV (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio: The source does not indcate a creative commons, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there is a good chance the first two logos are below the threshold of originality in the Netherlands. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Виталий Болбас (talk · contribs)

com:complex logos.

RZuo (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[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 in Category:Minions

The photographers have not the right to publish photos of the Minions under a free licence without permission of Universal Studios!

Ras67 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[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 in Category:Minions 2

The photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

The focus of this photograph is a toy for which there is no evidence of copyright status, something that could be easily rectified by checking the label.

For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests:

Fæ (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:181020 스누퍼 롯데몰 김포공항점 팬싸인회 세빈 6.jpg. The Minion is not the subject of the photo, and if it's too large to be de minimis, picture can be cropped to exclude the Minion's eye. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep File:181020 스누퍼 롯데몰 김포공항점 팬싸인회 세빈 6.jpg. The toy is not the main subject of the photo and is positioned in such a way that it could not realistically be used to infringed on its copyright. It's why I uploaded it with the {{De minimis}} tag. ℯ xplicit 23:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree File:Balloon of Minion in front of Hakata Station.jpg to be deleted. Sorry for uploading this.--そらみみ (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, COM:TOYS, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikimedia Cuteness Association at Wikimania 2017, and plushies per COM:PLUSHIES. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Most of them per nomination. Kept the one per above. Even by my, admittedly rather strict, interpretation of de minimis that appears to fit the policy. --Majora (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[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 in Category:Minions 3

COM:DW of copyrighted characters.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blurring or cropping any of these would make them useless. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Taivo (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Minions 4

Derivative work of the Minions from the Despicable Me film series

Trade (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mostly de minimis and fanart images, which yes I can agree are very risky to upload, but are acceptable according to Commons policies. File:202312092233 IMG 5201.jpg is the only one here you have a valid point with however as it appears to be a direct picture of three copyrighted toys, but even it may need further discussion. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:AVBWU688 at Jordan, West Kowloon Station (20190320170144).jpg. COM:DM criterion 3 or 4. Plus there's quite a number of previous DRs which decided that photos of vehicles with copyrighted elements should not be deleted as a DW unless the photo is focused onto such a copyrighted element: Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8956 (aircraft) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Av1 (6107897658).jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SBS9815H.jpg. 沪A 05683D_S5A-0043 06:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the non-vehicles? Trade (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the non-vehicle ones per above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, except do keep - File:AVBWU688 at Jordan, West Kowloon Station (20190320170144).jpg as de minimis. -- Ooligan (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neelupoletik.jpg

from Internet. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikoaaltonen2021.jpg

different sources. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along with File:Nikoaaltonen.jpg--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adevarullogo.png

I'm not really sure whether the full on graphic depiction of a flying bird can be considered as "simple geometric shapes or text". 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There also doesn't appear to be a COM:TOO Romania, so who knows what their standards - if any - are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akademisches Sinfonieorchester in der Muffathalle.jpg

This file was initially tagged by %USER% as no permission D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously not a speedy delete. Seems almost certain to be another (at least claim of) own work by User:Vorzwickel; compare File:ASO Orchesterfoto 1920.png. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this. You turn my "permission requested" tag into a deletion nomination, and then, after nominating it for deletion, you say "keep"?
Neither do I get your comment "Permission for this file is obvious or is not required". Why wouldn't it be? German copyright law is applicable for this photo. Only a natural person can be copyright holder by that law, not a whole orchestra. So the claim that the whole orchestra is copyright holder is false. So, who is the author and copyright holder? --2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D066 12:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nomination (really by you), rather than a no-discussion uncontested/undiscussed deletion.

While a corporation may not be able to own a copyright under German law, that is not necessarily relevant. This image has the "own work" tag and thus the uploader has claimed it is his own work; the "author" field in a Commons information form is not of legal relevance; if the user uploaded it and really did create it, it is validly licensed. The CC licenses also allow for the licensor to provide for any attribution they'd like, and this does not need to match the name of the actual person who owns the copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that an orchestra cannot be the author of the photograph under German law. But it can be the entity designated to receive attribution pursuant to s 3(a)(1)(A)(i), 2nd alternative, of the CC-by-sa 4.0 license. I suppose the better way to denote this would be through the 'attribution' parameter of the {self|cc-by-sa} license tag further down the page, but that's not exactly something anyone can be expected to know. To me, it seems reasonably clear that the uploader is claiming the picture as their own work. I don't know if that's true or not but this discussion doesn't sound like there's any good reason to doubt it. If, say, the orchestra used the photograph elsewhere, perhaps even differently attributed, that may be reason enough to go through the Commons:Permission process, but based on what has (not) been brought up thus far, I would

Keep this. — Pajz (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

File:Crumbling Castle.mp3

This song is not in the public domain. The band's bandcamp page gives the licence as CC BY-ND 3.0. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic:

Keep. From the official King Gizzard website (archive link): "This album is FREE. Free as in, free. Free to download and if you wish, free to make copies. Make tapes, make CD’s, make records...We do not own this record. You do. Go forth, share, enjoy." Perhaps bandcamp won't allow one to license that way. They cannot walk back that licensing from 6+ years ago. See also Commons:Help desk/Archive/2019/01#Polygondwanaland, the original of which prompted my upload 5+ years ago. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mistake here might be the difference between releasing music for free/not charging a licensing fee for creating physical copies and releasing something into the public domain. Nowhere do they state that the music is released into the public domain. On their FAQ page, they ask for the music not to be uploaded to streaming cites and say "The licence only extends to physical copies of the music". Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic: Excuse me if I took "Free to download" captured 2017-11-24 19:55:30 (UTC) literally. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright holder can give their creation away for free without releasing it into the public domain (it’s quite common with ebooks). Some of KGLW’s statements on this have been confusing and even contradictory but I don’t see any evidence of it being PD. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band explicitly disclaimed ownership of this work ("We do not own this record. You do. Go forth, share, enjoy"), which is as close to a public domain dedication as it is possible to get without using the words "public domain". If they decided to use a more restrictive license when posting a copy of their work to Bandcamp, well, that has nothing to do with us. Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info, this is confusing:
It seems that the bands intention was to make this album free for any purpose, as opposed to the later "bootlegger" series of albums, which are released under a license wherein those making albums must send "some of" the copies to the band to sell on their online store (that's what the FAQ is about, not Polygondwanaland). The phrase "free as in free" alludes to the "free as in free speech not as in free beer" phrase, which seems to imply that Polygondwanaland is meant to be both gratis and libre. In a Twitter post, they (probably Stu) said that the album is free to be used in derivative works - "sync it. put it in there movie. [...] whatever they want.".

A complicating factor here is that at the time of release, King Gizzard likely did not technically own the copyright to the album. The album, rather, was at that time owned by their label Flightless Records.(owned by then-member Eric Moore, but legally distinct) In 2018, when "official" pressings were released, ATO stated on the packaging that Flightless owned the rights to the album and the recording, confirming this. King Gizzard's Bandcamp page was operated by Flightless as a subpage of their label account in 2017,(for more details on how all that works see this) so it was Flightless that confusingly set Crumbling Castle as CC BY-ND and the rest as all rights reserved.

When King Gizzard left Flightless in 2020, the rights to their albums passed to the copyright holding entity KGLW. This would seem to include Polygondwanaland, as KGLW released a musicassette of the album in 2023, and made no reference to licensing it from Flightless or whatever. In fact they make no explicit reference to copyright at all - just as Flightless didn't on their own pressings. So we have the rather confusing situation where the band states that they want people to use this album in whatever way they want, implying that the album is free to use for any purpose - the actual copyright holding entities (Flightless and the KGLW pseudolabel) saying nothing at all on the matter (other labels just saying that Flightless owns it) - and the Bandcamp having different licenses depending on track.

To clear this up I am going to send an email to the band's current label p(Doom), (which succeeded KGLW/Gizzverse) and if the album is actually free to use for any purpose ask them to send an email to the VRT. -Thespoondragon (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbott costello frankenstein.jpg

Uploaded as {{PD-US-no notice}} with the explanation "The item has no copyright markings on it as can be seen in the links above. At bottom left is Country of origin & production USA." What it actually says at the bottom left is "Copyrighted 1948 Universal Pictures Co. INC." hinnk (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campo Hobbit 1.jpg

This poster has no photo, thus {{PD-Italy}} cannot be used. Copyright for drawings / paintings is 70 years pma. Being created in 1977 it is still copyrighte. Günther Frager (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This license also applies to "reproductions of figurative art". What do you think that means?

Then pointing hand in the poster? How do you think it was prepared? Was it taken from a photograph, that was (heavily) processed to give the image we see here? In that case I don't think you should call it a drawing. Geo Swan (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: reproductions of figurative art means taking a photo of a painting. That is, if I take a picture of Mona Lisa, I cannot claim copyright on my photo. Regarding this poster, first it is not clear it was a photo, and even if it were, it was process to reduce it to shadow, it was arranged in several copies with several sized, on a contrasting background. That is a creative process and it is protected by copyright. Also, the only photographs that are protected by 20 years ppd are images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, artistic photographs have a longer protection. Günther Frager (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Солорио.jpg

If not used to depict tall youngsters, this file is out of scope. 186.173.149.62 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brief use of google, and google translate, reveals the "tall youngster" seems to be some kind of author. So, he would measure up to wikipedia's A7. In scope. Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of author? One that is in scope? How? 186.174.87.105 00:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 186.174.87.105, why are you jumping from IP address to IP address?
- As I noted in my reply at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ricardo_Martin_Almada.jpg I urged you to try harder to read and understand the replies people left for you.
  Images of an author who was notable enough to not be eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#A7 are in scope.
  You do not understand Commons policies. You do not understand the policies of the wikipedias the commons serves.
  You are unwilling or unable to understand the replies more experienced contributors have left for you.
  Don't you think the best thing you could do for the WMF commons, and its WMF companion projects would be to either, (1) stop nominating material for deletion, and stop weighing in with opinions on the deletion of material, until you have a better understanding of the projects' policies; or (2) actually make a real effort to read, and understand, the replies more experienced contributors leave for you? Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elsa Esnoult.jpg

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, taken from FB. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elsa Esnoult.jpg

Doesn't look like an own work. 186.173.149.62 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a larger or older version of this on Google Lens, but their other upload was deleted as a crop of an image from Facebook (cropping out the watermark), so I am disinclined to believe this is one work either. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, could you please clarify your meaning?

Are you asserting this image should be deleted because it has the same name as an earlier image, that was deleted because it was found to be a copyright violation of an image found on facebook?
Or are you asserting that this image and the earlier deleted image are the same?
Are you asserting you have reasons to suspect the two different userids that uploaded the two images are a single individual? Geo Swan (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, Sorry. The uploader of the current image also uploaded a second image, which was deleted as an obvious copyvio at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elsa Pleyel.jpg. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, File:Elsa Pleyel.jpg is the other image you referred to, and it undermined their credibility?
I'm afraid our nominator has strained their credibility, in my eyes. Thanks for the clarification. Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a crop from Facebook, where in the original photo there is a guitar beside her. Is this uploader an LTA? (I don't know what the feck it means but you guys use it for good and bad IPs without distinction when you feel like insulting them.)

186.172.206.145 13:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

186.172.206.145, for crying out loud. If you know the URL for a webpage where this image can be found, and its date precedes when this image was uploaded, then why the heck didn't you include that URL in your DR?

If you have the URL that shows this image is a copyright violation, you should have used speedy deletion, not a DR.

Fans take pictures at concerts. If all you are saying is that this image is similar to one you think you remember seeing on a facebook page, then, do us all a big favour, and stop initiating, or weighing in at, DR, until you understand what you are doing. Please. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[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.

Template:RPA

links to an english wikipedia policy. see also Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Civility where is the commons policy? tool for censorship Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No need for deletion: a) The existence of a link to en:wp isn't a sufficient reason for deletion, b) in use on some (archived) pages, c) Commons:Civility was a completely different case. --Achim (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of, the removal of attaks are not censorships. This templates has a valid usage area and simply becaus it does not have a link to a Commons page doesn't mean it should be deleted. The template text itself makes it pretty clear what it is all about. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- your selective use indicates we can have little confidence it will be used for incivility rather than to redact the speech you do not approve. show the attacks you want to redact. where is the policy to support the template. are we now going to institute policy on an ad hoc basis without a consensus? just slap a template on it? ridiculous - note to the closer - if you keep this you should expect i will be using it a lot for the adversive messages on talk pages. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no consensus for deletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RPA

This template was recently used by one editor to change another editor's comments. The second editor, predictably, got upset at this. The exchange made an already tense and messy conversation (that the two editors here were only ancillary to) worse. It feels like this is the intended use case - one editor changing another editor's comments - and I can't think of any situations where that wouldn't make a dispute worse. If something is a bad enough personal attack, an admin will remove it and revision delete that revision. For everything else, this just gets in the way and fans flames. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those who claim to be object of personal attack many times make more personal attacks than their adversaries. 186.173.149.62 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is totally pointless since admins can deal with uncivil comments if they feel like it. There's no valid reason for a normal user who isn't an admin to edit or remove things from other people's comments though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a user leaves a comment (perhaps in a DR) in good standing, but in the middle of it makes a personal attack which needs to be removed (and perhaps revdel'ed), the admin should not remove the entire comment. This would then be a good placemarker to use. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: I don't necessarily have an issue with it being used that way, but users shouldn't edit each others comments regardless and it's kind of redundant if only admins are using it to begin with. Otherwise they can just remove and revdel the personal attack instead of using the template to begin with. I have a serious issue with users editing each other comments based on their own personal opinions of what's an uncivil comment considering how over sensitive a lot of people on here are and the amount of drama farming that goes on though.

At that point I could add the template myself to The Squirrel Conspiracy's original comment saying "the second editor, predictably, got upset at this" because it sounds like he's saying I'm thin skinned for asking Trade not to edit my comments. How would that be at all helpful or useful to dealing with actual personal attacks though and not just comments being altered by users acting overwrought because their feelings were hurt by a particular comment? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the intent of "the second editor, predictably, got upset at this" was "of course the person whose comments were edited got upset that their comment got edited because it's generally seen as a rude thing to do", and wasn't directed towards you specifically, but towards the role of 'person whose comments are edited' generally. Sorry that that wasn't clear. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treating policies in extreme absolutes is something i would rather avoid as opposed to treating it as the norm. Even ENWP's OTHERSCOMMENTS have exceptions as stated on the bottom of the section

I'm not gonna touch on anything from that other discussion since i consider that unproductive as it has already been concluded Trade (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think voting to delete a single barely used template that just gets in the way of admins doing their job is treating a policy as an extreme absolute. We'll have to agree to disagree though. But I will say that there are rare instances of someone editing another users comments that I'm totally fine with. For instance Jmabel has corrected minor spelling issues on a couple of my comments before. I could really care less about that because it doesn't alter the original message in any meaningful way like this template does. Plus me and Jmabel have a certain level of report where I'm fine with him doing something like that. Which you and I just don't have. If my next door neighbor wants to pick up a piece of trash on the edge of my yard, cool. I don't want some rando from down the street rearranging my garage just because I left the garage door open though. You really should get the difference and why the later is problematic without me having to explain it to you. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute existing transclusions (there's few enough to do by hand), then

Delete. While I feel that there can be exceptional situations where it's appropriate for an editor to remove particularly vile personal attacks from comments, this should be a rare action, and not one which should be undertaken without thought. Having a template to automate the process of typing out "removed personal attack" is neither necessary nor appropriate; it automates a part of this process which hardly took any time to begin with, it does so in a way that feels impersonal and which can inflame heated discussions further, and it gives the appearance that doing so should be common practice. Omphalographer (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone forgot to ping the users from the last DR @Josve05a, Srittau, and Achim55: --Trade (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people you know will vote keep as the one who's behavior led to this is and after multiple people voted deleted is rather bad faithed. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caucasus ethnic map.png

Unused PNG extraction from File:Caucasus-ethnic en.svg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be part of the Azerbaijan/Armenia mess, as the uploader changed the border between the two here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ricardo Martin Almada.jpg

Scope? Own work? 186.173.149.62 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 seconds with google reveals the guy ran for President of Paraguay, in 2013. [2]
No, that alone would be insufficient for him to measure up to the Wikipedia's GNG.
It would be sufficient for a brief mention, and possibly use of his image, in an article about that election...
So, the guy's image is in scope... Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer the second question: from the press, 2013.186.172.149.148 06:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you accusing the uploader of using images belonging to "the press" - in 2013, the year he was a candidate?
Then why does File:Ricardo Martin Almada.jpg#Metadata say 2012? Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the file uploaded here in 2014, after it was in all the press in 2013? I don't think they can keep it (without permission from the photographer). 186.173.82.106 20:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

186.173.82.106, please try harder to read, and understand, replies from other participants.

Do you understand what EXIF info is? Modern cameras embed information in the image file. They will always embed the date the picture was taken. Cell phones also embed the location. Some photograghers arrange to embed their name, and the license status of the image. Do you understand this?

Do you understand that press re-uses of this photo do not give the press intellectual property rights to this image? This is an important point. Do you understand it?

This image's EXIF data shows it was taken in 2012. This proves that the press re-uses of the image, in 2013, were not instances of them using a photo taken by their own staff, in 2013.

Before you did any homework, you suspected this photo was the subject's own work. I believe you were right about that, while also being completely wrong in your pretty lazy assumption he was just some nobody. As I noted above, if he were merely an also ran candidate, for office, he would not measure up to GNG -- but that is sufficient notability for him to be in scope, as he is not a nobody. Geo Swan (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

186.173.82.106, you are making horrible newbie mistakes. You replied, "I don't think they can keep it (without permission from the photographer)"
Bzzzt! In your nomination you stated you believed the uploader and the photos's subject were the same person. That was a very credible assumption, since they have the same name, and it looks like a self-timed selfie.
Now, after having the image's 2012 date pointed out to you, you had a simple choice. (1) Withdraw your deletion request, since it was not properly thought out; or (2) stick to your guns, think up a second bogus justification for deletion, because you are one of those people who can not acknowledge that, like all human beings, you are capable of normal human error.
It looks like you chose to continue to waste other people's time, by sticking to your guns.
Please never do this again. Geo Swan (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons stated above. Images of also ran candidates for high office are in scope. I think we should encourage also-ran candidates to upload a modest number of images of themselves. Actors, writers, inventors? I would encourage anyone who can claim enough notability to not have a stub deleted from the wikipedia under WP:CSD#A7 to upload a modest number of images of themselves, (1) as their next event may push them past the GNG boundary; and (2) that image might be included in a section of a related article, like about the election they participated in. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)`[reply]
Call for closure. Geo Swan (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2. Biblioteka. Ukmergė.JPG

No FoP in Lithuania, architect Vytautas Landsbergis-Žemkalnis died in 1993 A1Cafel (er talk) 04:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This annex doesn't belong to Žemkalnis' work, look the article's ref „3.Ukmergės ligonių kasa (architektūros objektai)“: [3]. Built in the Soviet times, renovated in 2000s. I've edited the picture's category created by another user c:Category:Ukmergė library. The warning should be removed. Thanks.--Vilensija (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ahvidepealik (talk · contribs)

File:PERGi koolimaja augustis 2023.jpg is not own work.

I suspect that other file is also not own work. Deletion per COM:PCP

Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paide Teatri uuenenud meeskond..webp

Single uploading by the user. Small image. No EXIF-data (or no satisfactory EXIF-data). Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not tiny, and small image and no EXIF are expressly stated at COM:Deletion requests not to be deletion reasons per se. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saleh Manaf, 2014 legislative election.jpg

Not used, this version has a pesky white border Bremps... 05:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Püha Jüri päev 2021.png

poster. Unlike that own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No dispute about the substance of your deletion request, but just so you know, "Unlike that own work" doesn't make a lot of sense in English. What I believe you mean to say is "Unlikely to be the uploader's own work." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical Marker of Cotta Fort.png

Source from Facebook with no indication that this photo is released under a CC license: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122115806990346217 seav (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blessed Virgin of Cotta of Ozamiz.png

Photo copied from Facebook but there is no indication that it is CC-licensed: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122115289052346217 seav (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birhen sa Cotta Relief.png

Source is stated as coming from Facebook but there is no proof that this photo is CC0-licensed seav (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raiejäätmed.png

Single (remaining) uploading by the user. Thumbnail-like image. No EXIF-data (or no satisfactory EXIF-data). Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rene.lelov (talk · contribs)

files from Internet. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Risto.r.jpg

unused personal file. Out of project scope. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FahrettinKerimGokay (cropped).jpg

Deletion of main file. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FahrettinKerimGokay.jpg MRTFR55 (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emmanuel Pahud, Berlin, 2022.tif

Even assuming that the uploader is indeed identical with the photographer/ copyright holder (there is no verification up to this point), doubts remain: This image has apparently been published in this book. How does CC licensing go together with publisher's rights? Not to mention personality rights of the image subject. 2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D066 08:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emmanuel Pahud, Schloss Elmau, 2020.tif

Even assuming that the uploader is indeed identical with the photographer/ copyright holder (there is no verification up to this point), doubts remain: This image has apparently been published in this book. How does CC licensing go together with publisher's rights? Not to mention personality rights of the image subject. 2003:C0:8F26:1200:C53B:D20D:AE05:D066 08:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Final Abd Alsattar Ardati Online Translation.pdf

I have concerns about the infographics created using Canva. The poster uses stock images from Canva's Free Media License Agreement. However, I don't think it's suitable, so I'd like to delete this one and upload a new version without the illustration. https://www.canva.com/policies/free-media-license-agreement-2022-01-03/ Abd Alsattar Ardati (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have free media license from Canva, and is memory of the Wikimedia movement, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:白沙屯拱天宮.jpg

Low quality photo. Better version: File:法會.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better version? I looked at the picture carefully, but I think the camera position and angle are different from the former, so pictures are not the same. In this case, the latter cannot replace the nominated picture.--125.230.84.27 07:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-Fuji Television rally on 21 August 2011 at Odaiba 2-05.JPG

Derivative work of the logo (en:File:Fuji_TV_logo.svg), and if it's removed, I believe the image will lack context to be useful. We don't accept fair use. whym (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:577-capricornus-(23.12.-20.1.).jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wie auch bei den anderen Bildern gesagt: Das eigentliche Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dana-Lis Bittner: Um diese Datei (und die anderen) behalten zu können, benötigen wir eine Einverständniserklärung der Urheberin gem. dem Muster in COM:VRT/de. Und zwar nicht nur für die "Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite", sondern umfassend. Wenn wir die nicht bekommen, werden die Dateien gelöscht. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 06:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:585-pisces.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das mit dem Namen lässt sich leicht korrigieren. Das größere Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A 11:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Um 1700 ersteigert im MAK 5.11.2018.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - es handelt sich aber um eien Werk der lebenden Künstlerin Gabriela Bittner-Krainz Lutheraner (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Künstlerin hat mir eine Einverständnis-Erklärung zur Benutzung der verwendeten Fotos auf der Wikipedia-Seite ausgestellt. (Ich kann das Dokument vorweisen falls notwendig). Ich habe beim ursprünglichen Hochladen der Bilder nicht die richtige Lizenz ausgewählt sondern versehentlich "eigenes Werk" geklickt (Anfängerfehler!) und weiß nicht, wie ich das für die bereits hochgeladenen Bilder korrigieren kann. Ich wäre für jegliche Ratschläge dankbar. Dana-Lis Bittner (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das größere Problem ist die Lizenz. Hat Frau Bittner-Krainz wirklich ihre Einwilligung in die weltweite Nutzung durch jedermann/-frau, inklusive Bearbeitung, Verfremdung und kommerzieller Nutzung erteilt? Denn das hast Du mit der Creative-Commons-Lizenz erklärt. --2003:C0:8F07:4500:3D93:E9E9:E377:923A 12:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiiu Tepandi.jpg

Single (remaining) uploading by the user. Small image. No EXIF-data (or no satisfactory EXIF-data). Unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP Estopedist1 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AdamSala1991 (talk · contribs)

Are these old enough to have expired copyright? If not they have to be deleted, unless there is proof of a free license.

Jonteemil (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil These logo files should be kept as they are not copyrighted, they are free licensed and they provide information about the club history. Please remove the deletion template and keep them on Wikipedia. Thanks 141.98.143.192 08:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they free and what is the proof? Jonteemil (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil They are free as they are official logos which can be used on any place on the internet; they aren't photos captured by a photographer that owns its copyright. The websites that publish their files make them available to share for any of the website visitor and with a free license, not copyrighted. They should be on Wikipedia as they provide correct information, in this case regarding a business history. So please remove the deletion template on them and keep the files. Thanks 141.98.143.192 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skënderbeu Korçë is a football club with a lot of history, not 2018. https://www.gazetatema.net/2015/09/27/dossier-ckerkon-skenderbeu-ne-korce-historia-e-klubit-sportiv-te-qytetit-te-serenatave 198.0.123.65 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piscine esterne delle Terme di Castrocaro.jpg

La persona rappresentata ha rimosso il diritto alla pubblicazione Fabioselvaggio (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Fier from the air with the Morava mountain in the background.jpg

User behavior makes it difficult to believe that this is an own work. 186.172.161.20 14:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info previously posted on facebook, would need the copyright owner to contact VRT. 0x0a (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An almost identical image (some cars at the same place, some moved) was uploaded 5 years ago to Wikimapia: https://wikimapia.org/17634432/sq/Lagjia-Konferenca-e-Pez%C3%ABs Both images can be found on Facebook. Albinfo (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a blatant copyright violation. Should have been speedily deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by SweetCandy10 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your honesty, but Bekasa Studio does not upload videos with CC BY 2.0 compatible license: [4]

RaFaDa20631 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Issey Morgan Nakajima-Farran BN.jpg

Claim of own work but taken from Instagram of person https://www.instagram.com/p/Blmbd0ugGNo/?igsh=MXRpcms4NjZpOTRhYg== RedPatch (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did it and I sent to him. What's the problem? :) Succubustime (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD F10 ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klimaneutrale Produkte – kurzerklärt.webm

I think the distracted boyfriend meme at 0:38 is not CCBY/PD so it would need to be removed Prototyperspective (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for the hint. I cropped the file, so the older version must be deleted --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so this DR can be closed and probably a Template:Non-free frame revdel be added. However, the problem now is that important parts of the video are missing, not just that video element. I think it would be better to replace with text or with one to four frames of the video at these times and the text. Maybe there is some AI tool to easily remove parts of a video, it probably exists already but I don't know it and so far the video is not used. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & restore full version - COM:DM applies not just to photographs, but works in general - videos included. If there a few frames including copyrighted material, but they aren't the focus of the video or particularly relevant - obviously they are neither-, then {{De minimis}} applies. ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a video is on Commons I can take screencops, make clips of it etc. So I can crop out this meme of the video and upload it separately. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harold Rowe3.jpg

File with a wrong license tag 200.39.139.13 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:France États généraux 1614.svg

fantasy diagram, out of project scope (Macron in 1614 ?) Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hans Olaf Moser.jpg

the actor died in 1982, no photo of him could have been taken in 2018, see de:Hans Olaf Moser, der Schauspieler ist 1982 gestorben, es kann 2018 kein Foto von ihm gemacht wurden sein Nordprinz (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Matthias Moser: When was this photo taken? Was the photographer who took this photo a family member? As you are a descendant, you might have inherited a copyright in this case, but we need more information. --Rosenzweig τ 06:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:الغارات على اليمن 2024.jpg

Copyright image of attack by the Houthi on Aramco oil facility in 2022, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Jeddah_missile_attack. Credited elsewhere "Lars Baron/Getty Images"

Uploader claims own work 12 Jan 2024 as "Yemen 2024 raids launched by the United States and Britain under the pretext of stopping the Houthis from striking commercial ships and disrupting maritime navigation." Davidships (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Beautiful Ohio" License Plate.jpg

Copyvio, licensing info cites as being published prior to 1929, though that's not the case. Produced by an Ohio state employee – not a state with explicit copyright release P1 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:استهداف سفينة مارلين لواندا في خليج عدن 26 يناير 2024.jpg

Composite of images credited to Indian Navy, French Navy and maybe others. None attributed by uploader. Davidships (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fraser's paperback Flashmans.JPG

Book spines featuring late 20th century copyrighted artwork, and of not much use if blurred. Belbury (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are de minimis use sections of much larger images (the covers open out to show a much larger image). As the covers are of different editions, and as the light hides much of the artwork, there is so little of the artwork actually on show, that this really does fall into de minimis territory. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that; this isn't a wide shot of a bookshelf or library, the framing and subject of this photo is what the spines of these books look like. The various portraits of the protagonist on those spines seem like a significant part of that. Belbury (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is limited exposure of the copyrighted material and a mixture of some copyright and much uncopyrighted, so I’m happy wit de minimis use. YMMV, but I’m happy to leave it to others. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Elenakosilova

Probable copyright violations, apparently YouTube screenshots. --Upwinxp (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:بداية غارات التحالف الدولي بقيادة الولايات المتحدة والمملكة المتحدة في 12 يناير 2024.jpg

Composite, including: - Centre left copyright James Moy/Alamy Live News (cropped) of the 2022 Jeddah oil facility attack. - Bottom left, copyright © SAID KHATIB - AFP, taken 2020 of Israli air raid in Gaza - Dentre right, attributed by Alamy: U.K. Ministry of Defense/UPI. - Also some US Navy Davidships (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pedrojsfr (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Antonio de Castro.png as PD-Brazil-Photo. I have not looked at the others. Photographs that were no "works or art" were not copyrightable in Brazil prior to 19 June 1998, so keep that in mind with the other images. --RAN (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

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

Files uploaded by Constru-centro (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Constru-centro (talk · contribs)

Constru-centro previously nominated these files for deletion here, here, here, here, and here, resulting in them all being kept based on the assumption that CC licenses are irrevocable. But I don't think they wanted to revoke their licenses; rather, they wanted to say that they didn't own the copyright of the files in the first place.

Prospectprospekt (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting, there are zero reverse search results for all photos on TinEye or Google Lens prior to the Commons upload dates, so I would be curious where the photos originated if they are not actually 'Own work'. It is very possible these are copyvios, I just cannot find any evidence to suggest so. Also possible the uploader regrets choosing a CC license and wants to have the photos taken down as established. They are of good quality, so either is possible. PascalHD (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are obviously professional photos (in particular the one from the 1993 Dangerous Tour and the one of Kinnie Gibson, taken from the stage!), probably the works of Michael Jackson's then official photographer, Mr. Sam Emerson.[5]http://www.redboxphoto.biz/albums/music/

Martin 31.190.47.45 16:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no evidence these photos were stolen, they should be kept. The uploader did not say they were not their own work, so I don't think we should be trying to read tea leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that Sam Emerson was Michael Jackson's official photographer at the time and the only one who could get so close to the singer. It was impossible for a 1993 fan-camera to take such high quality photos. I wrote an email to Mr. Sam Emerson and am waiting for a response. I have included the link to this thread.

P.S. the uploader wrote in other threads that he lied about the license. What else is needed to remove these images? MJJ-777 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, nothing.

Delete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.

Delete MJJ-777 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did he respond yet? Wcamp9 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Passive-3d-tv-technology.jpg

Earliest archive that I could find on the Wayback Machine ([6]) shows that the file is under CC BY-ND 4.0 (Template:Noderivatives). SergioFLS (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Professor Yitzhak Melamed non-grata letter by Rabbi Joseph Benjamin Serfaty.jpg

Letter likely not licensed under listed terms. Packer1028 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berea KFC - October 2023 - Sarah Stierch 04.jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus, the image is part of a large collection of personal snapshots that are not educationally useful: Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful. Eric ^talk 12:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IronGargoyle. Whatever else is part of the collection is irrelevant to this DR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Eat~~ Delete per nom. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The drawing of Colonel Sanders is the only thing which is copyrightable here (everything else is de minimis). The drawing is from 1954 and registered with the copyright office that year by Harland Sanders. It was not, however, renewed. This puts the image in the public domain per {{PD-US-not renewed}}. I also think that a well-photographed meal of one of the largest restaurant chains in the world would be in scope. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- However, a number of KFC logo involving Colonel Sanders' face was deleted--A1Cafel (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Those images all seem to be different illustrations of Sanders which were not first produced in the 1950s. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yvonne Chollet (1897-1945), member of the French Resistance, c. 1940 (Remini enhanced).jpg

AI-upscaled image where the source image at File:Yvonne Chollet (1897-1945), member of the French Resistance, c. 1940.jpg was deleted in April 2023 for lacking a valid licence. No other source is specified. Belbury (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Belbury: , Perhaps restore and license the original photograph {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Since it's an identity photograph taken in 1940, whose author remains unknown. Yvonne Chollet died in 1945, so the question of image rights does not arise. Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dostoen trud.JPG

I am the author and I do not want this image to be linked to my nickname or name anymore. Furthermore, I do not want to share this image as an open source anymore. And the image is not being used anywhere in wikipedia. Araneus (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful historical artifact. I think it would be fine to revdel to eliminate evidence of authorship, but none of the reasons given above are actual deletion reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rori1911 (talk · contribs)

Not own works, no source, and no evidence of a free license.

Yann (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I add also these:

ZandDev (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six of them can likely be properly sourced and licensed with a little more work:

File:Jstanforduniv.jpg cropped from 1897 photo. see here File information updated.
File:Tayloripn1872.jpg cropped from an 1872 illustration from Illustrated Police News. see here File information updated.
The full illustration has been added as File:Killed by a Coffin at Kensal Green Cemetery (1872).png
File:Jcarlton1914.jpg is from a 1914 U.S. newspaper report. see here
File:Jchandlesandblades.jpg is from an 1823 medical journal. see here File information updated.
~~File:Rpakington1536.jpg is cropped from a 1794 engraving of Sir John Pakington, making it a misidentification. see here~~ Delete this one due to poor quality; full image is at File:Sir John Pakington.jpg, if a crop is needed, it can be made from that file.
File:Payne-gallwey.jpg appears to be cropped from this image. Payne-Gallwey died in ~~1881~~ 1916, so the image predates that.

Delete The rest Tcr25 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:Payne-gallwey.jpg depicts Ralph Payne-Gallwey, who died in 1916, not Sir William Payne-Gallwey, 2nd Baronet. Rori1911 misidentified the subject. Gildir (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is on me for scanning the newspaper article too quickly... —Tcr25 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File information has been updated for all of them except File:Payne-gallwey.jpg. The Northern Echo image might be acceptable for the source since we know he died in 1916, making the photo's creation at least that long ago, but I'm not finding other indications of pre-1916 publication to say for sure. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emdavisonderby.jpg is a cropped version of a Daily Mirror photograph that ran on page 1 on their June 5, 1913 issue. Version on Mirrorpix credits the image to Daily Mirror staff. Given date of first publication and no photographer is named, {{PD-UK-unknown}} should apply. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Vučić.png

COM:DW: Unknown source of the potrait of Aleksandar Vučić A1Cafel (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The character of Aleksandar Vučić was drawn, without a copy of someone else's photo or portrait. --Smiroje (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram relocated.svg

The file is an inessential duplicate of File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg, except Crooks is repositioned to be on the left side of the building. Aerial footage of the building shows that Crooks was on right side of the building (see File talk:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg#Shooter location is wrong apparently) Bambobee (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious position of shooter puts the image out of scope as lacking educational value. In addition, image does not credit its source (claims own work but clearly derived from File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg); Open Street Maps holds a CC-BY-SA-2.0 license to its map data, and BmboB should get at least moral rights for map details beyond OSM. Image is redundant given small variation from File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg. Image is only used on talk page of File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg for the purpose of proposing a change to that file. If a change in location is warranted, then it should be made to the original images. Glrx (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of inaccurate diagram on es.Wiki replaced with the accurate version. File only in use on talk page of the accurate diagram. Glrx (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer in use, hence concerns above take precedent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICo, Vianen, 2024 - 2.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Ymnes (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this photo myself today but forgot to tag it. But I did now. These artworks fit in a greater environment and do not have copyright in this way on a photo. Ymnes (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICo, Vianen, 2024 - 3.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Ymnes (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this photo myself today but forgot to tag it. But I did now. These artworks fit in a greater environment and do not have copyright in this way on a photo. Ymnes (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WarwickLogo.png

This file was initially tagged by Domdomegg as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I don't think this logo is CC-BY-SA: see https://warwick.ac.uk/about/brand/brand-guidelines/logos/ domdomegg (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should probably be moved to Wikipedia instead, given its use as a logo there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Uploadtext/en-nonfree-logo domdomegg (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously above COM:TOO UK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humza Yousaf meets with Prime Minister of Pakistan.jpg

No indication that the OGL applies on the Twitter account of the First Minister of Scotland A1Cafel (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shehbaz Sharif - May 2023 (cropped).jpg

No indication that the OGL applies on the Twitter account of the First Minister of Scotland A1Cafel (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eritrea resistance.webp

appears (and claimed) to be from vice news; linked article's image claims reuters credit on lead image, maybe this, but the image itself is no longer hosted there so cannot confirm. dubious copyright status https://tineye.com/search/523fcfc5a59f9586ac5977ddc97af3911acb3e90?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruth Marie Terry (1936-1974) portrait.png

Not stated in the source that this (AI upscaled?) image of a person who died in 1974 and wasn't identified until 2022 was "published in the United States between 1929 and 1963". Certainly appears to have been taken before 1963, but it may not have been published publicly until 2022. en:File:RuthMarieTerry.webp considers the image to be copyrighted with 31 October 2022 as the date of publication. Belbury (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United States case law has ruled that an image is "made public", published in USCO legal terms, when it leaves the custody of the photographer. It does not mean solely reproduced in a newspaper or magazine, even though that is one way an image can be made public. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg for a discussion of the relevant case law. It is also not AI upscaled, it is just a larger image, with no increase in apparent resolution or smoothing of grain. --RAN (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Teichert discussion seems to say that if a photo was taken by a family member, it wouldn't be considered published. Do we know the provenance of this photo? Are we assuming from the aesthetic that she was sitting for a professional photographer with the possible view that its sale "probably constituted general publication"? The source web page only says Courtesy of the FBI.

I wondered if the {{PD-algorithm}} template meant that you'd used AI to upscale it from the first, smaller file version. Belbury (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed algorithm, I must have clicked the new tick box by accident when clicking creator=unknown. Stylistically it appears to be a commercial photograph circa 1955 to 1960 when this style was popular. The style was where the shoulders fade away. --RAN (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luzhniki Cableway Station May 2018 (07).jpg

Non-informative image, for me. MBH 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These ar the high-quality welds in one of the pylons of the cableway. The esthetics of the pylons is only possible by the welds that hold them together (form follows function). I think, that you might understand that these are quite unusual, because if they were more commmon, we would see more cableways of this type all over the world. Not everybody can make welds of this type, although anyone can request that photos should be deleted. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it will be good if all of these be explained on image description and an image will be in a suitable categories (Welds etc.) Now I just don't understand what's on image. MBH 21:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. MBH, are you satisfied, and would you like to withdraw the deletion request? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek Yes, you could keep the file. MBH 02:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the {{withdraw}} template. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

File:Junior Eurovision 2024 Madrid.jpg

This is a photo of a logo displayed, which makes it a derived work. Because of the design (heart with Spanish flag) the original work has copyright and so permission from RTVE and/or EBU is needed Mbch331 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken with the photographer’s accredited permission for the event, granted by RTVE, which included no restrictions on capturing and using images of the event, including logos and designs 83.49.93.189 07:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that no restrictions for the photographer or for anyone that wants to use the photo? Mbch331 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marbre statuaire blanc St Beat.jpg

Je souhaite que cette image soit supprimée car je n'ai pas donné mon autorisation à la diffusion de mon image. Je ne souhaite pas que mon image soit diffusée en ligne de cette manière. Elle pourrait être couper pour que la sculpture soit toujours visible. 217.109.129.195 11:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,

j'ai fait une mise à jour de l'image en la resserrant sur la sculpture, désormais c'est cette version qui est visible dans les pages wikipedia où elle apparaît. La première version, qui ne peut plus être trouvée que dans les archives de l'image, sera sans doute supprimée quand les administrateurs chargés de cette tâche auront fait droit à votre demande de suppression (je ne peux pas la supprimer moi-même).

Je suis désolé pour le dérangement que ça vous a causé, Andréa, je n'avais pas l'intention de vous faire du tort.

Bien cordialement,

Frédéric. http://www.toulouse-brique.com/ (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm understanding correctly that this sculpture was created by the person with the IP account. If that's so, it's obviously still under copyright, and COM:FOP France states that "On 7 October 2016, the French parliament approved a law recognizing a limited version of the freedom of panorama that authorizes the reproduction by individuals (not organizations) of buildings and sculptures permanently located in public space, but only for non-commercial utilizations." Whereas Commons requires commercial freedom of panorama, this photo must be

Deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider Man Salesforce.png

Appealing speedy deletion and opening per procedure. Originally thought to be a copyright violation from spider-man graphic; spider-man photoshop comes from a federal government work in a now amended description InvadingInvader (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the one who started the speedy deletion process on this image.

I agree that the origin photo is in the public domain, but i'm not sure that allows clipping just the copyrighted character for reuse (see Template:Costume). --U 9 000 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg. That file was ultimately kept per the Mike Godwin opinion linked within the discussion. Plus, since it's a federal government work, if the feds had received a request from Sony and Disney to take down the picture, they would have received so by now. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion states Suppose someone dresses up as, say, Spider-Man, and has a photo taken. The photo is neither a copyright violation nor a trademark violation^[1] (emphasis mine). I agree that the origin photo is not a copyright violation, but I think clipping out specifically the coprighted character for unrelated reuse is. --U 9 000 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the source material and usage would override your concerns and enable a reasonable usage of the file. The way that I see it, as long as the source material was obtained in the public domain, that would be enough. It's still someone dressed up from a government photo, not a ripped frame from another copyrighted work. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan/Mike Godwin mail

File:Climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman.png

Appealing speedy deletion and opening per procedure. Originally thought to be a copyright violation from spider-man graphic; spider-man photoshop comes from a federal government work in a now amended description InvadingInvader (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spider Man Salesforce.png (same issue, so might as well keep discussion together). --U 9 000 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg, nothing changed ~TheImaCow (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @TheImaCow The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1000 frank cfa UEMOA a.jpg

Currency pages on COM:SENEGAL and COM:MALI state that copyright status of CFA Franc is unknown. Should be deleted per COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:1000 frank cfa UEMOA b.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Himno Nacional del Perú en Shipibo desde la Comunidad Shipiba de Santa Clara en Yarinacocha.webm

Una de las partes no aprueba su imagen en la publicación del video bajo la licencia creative commons, por tanto, debe de eliminarse del servidor. QM Keen (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag-map of Palestine.svg

Claimed as own work but also description claims "Flag-map of Palestine from the Internet." The uploader is also blocked + locked for sockpuppetry. I'd err deleting this to be on the safe side. SHB2000 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's also an irredentist map; the outline used is that of Israel. Omphalographer (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also File:Flag map of Palestine (with Israel).png. Keep both or at least one until unfree source is found. Delete immediately when copyright violation is proven. Indeed the user is globally banned. There is also File:Flag-map of Israel.svg. No need to privilege Israel over Palestine. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no comparison, because the flag map of Israel shows only the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel. That's a tangent in this thread, but I think it deserved to be said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of British Columbia.png

Created 1987, copyright for Canadian governmental works lasts 50 years. Free SVG alternative exists anyway. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source vector-images.com was indicated in the description page before being removed. The file is copied from the gif version of the non-free vector image by Denis Syabukov at vector-images.com [7]. (Possibly itself inspired from another rendering, maybe from the painting by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin maybe from circa 1990 [8].) The apparently undated vector-images.com rendering might be from circa 2000 and is not likely a Canadian government work. It is not free anyway as too recent to be in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

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

File:500px photo (49972094).jpeg

COM:DW - COM:CUR Mexico The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not enough quality to attract any derived copyright, but still useful to illustrate Mexico currency.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per User:DarwIn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:500px photo (49972094).jpeg

This file was initially tagged by Aurelio Sandoval as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Mexican currency is copyrighted and the reproduction of designs is only permitted by seeking authorisation from the Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público) Mazbel (Talk) 00:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as before: Not enough quality to attract any derived copyright, but still useful to illustrate Mexico currency. Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mahdi (PPP).jpg

Mahdi (PPP).jpg Hasanbahr17 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mahdi (PPP).jpg

Mahdi (PPP).jpg Hasanbahr17 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly because it appears to be a copyright violation from [9] —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be {{PD-IDGov}} per Matrix's link. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kang Mahdi.jpg

Kang Mahdi.jpg Hasanbahr17 (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahdi (PPP).jpg this is probably a government picture, but I can't find the exact source —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same rationale as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahdi (PPP).jpg. Looks like {{PD-IDGov}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Victory monument in Kryvyi Rih

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.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm tagging the images that are in use for transfer to (the Russian) local wiki under a Fair use rationale. Please give the bot a little bit of time to do the transfer in case it is decided to delete the images here. Nakonana (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the vast majority of the images were added in the context of Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine campaigns. Also noting that the two architects died in 1993 and 2003, so, undelete in 2073 or 2074? Nakonana (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana January 1, 2074. 70+1 years. Should be based from the year of death of the last-surviving author. The monument being part of a WLM contest, like this, does not necessarily mean there have been proper licensing permissions issued from the sculptors or their heirs. I had nominated dozens of Ukrainian monuments for deletion in late 2023 and in early 2024, majority of those were from WLM-Ukraine contests. None of the images that I nominated contained explicit permission evidences (like a link to an external email link from the copyright holders or a COM:VRTS tag). So far, it's only the Italian editions of WLM that I am aware of having proper permissions from the relevant copyright holders of their sculptures and architectures. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Mask of Sorrow memorial

No FoP for 3D works in Russia, artist Ernst Neizvestny died in 2016

A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a building. See previously kept nomination. Opencooper (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Louvre Noir Et Blanc (259427057).jpeg

No FoP in France. Architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you are stretching the no fop. The protected building is less than 20% of the picture.... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this looks like a general view, and therefore de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Qadsiah Logo.svg

there is a clear design element in the logo, the statement about threshold of originality needs to be reviewed by the community — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO Saudi Arabia is a red link, so who knows what theirs is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:김옥숙 영부인.jpg

저작권 불명(Copyright unknown). 그리고 차단회피 사용자가 올림(File Uploaded by long term abuse, Avoid blocking user) ※https://lens.google.com/search?ep=cnts&re=df&s=4&p=AbrfA8pWWkNUq-cU92CDc3RELxiuTjpT5dAttylC7MhqPYmPVUSYA4FkxfQjhinAJBBWqScuFdlCpEmj0f1hpyRI9IYJA0i2rw79UZJAKFK6pRMeMta3F57wrDNKecH4ngSXlumnyB9Um8TCyo_0V6tT35BmAu_lkpk9xNtnqv-_je83FxS15w-lRf25UdoBoyLYr4HqG2xGLCSE9A%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLDEsIkVrY0tKR1E0TmpVMFpEUmxMVE00WmpndE5HRTBPUzA1TmpFNUxUTTFaalJqTURReE1qWXdZUklmVVhwa1ltNW5aMFJUU0ZGVmMwWldkMUYzZG5veE4wVnROR1IyYjBSQ2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLFtudWxsLG51bGwsW11dLFsiYjNlNjRiMjUtOGNiOC00OGFiLTk3NDYtODcxZTNlMjdiZjM3Il1d -- 메이 (토론) 05:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WV 2023 plate.jpg

Copyvio: Not own work, taken from [10]. West Virginia state publication, not a state with automatic public domain release P1 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This design is almost certainly too simple for copyright in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think IronGargoyle is right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Precursors-of-Dancing-and-Singing-to-Music-in-Three--to-Four-Months-Old-Infants-pone.0097680.s029.oga

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work per description.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as paper (and all its content?) is formally under a free license. Needs a evaluation. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem with: File:Precursors-of-Dancing-and-Singing-to-Music-in-Three--to-Four-Months-Old-Infants-pone.0097680.s028.oga

Delete. Releasing these audio samples was an error by the authors of the paper; a corrected version of the paper was released "to remove copyrighted or confidential material", including these samples. Omphalographer (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resim 2024-07-20 105124113.png

This file was initially tagged by Delbatros as Speedy (Db) and the most recent rationale was: not her own work, copyright infringement; not clearly copyright violation, review required — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this logo not her/his own work. This logo is taken from Twitter. The logo on Twitter is copyrighted by a soccer/sports club and was uploaded to commons without the club's permission. In the past, when I took the Koza Arena visual from Twitter and uploaded it to commons, copyright warnings were made for a long time due to copyright. This image should also be deleted from commons. Delbatros^Talk 10:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only letters and stripes! Have you heard of something called TOO? Keep. 186.173.21.147 00:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, dosya telif hakkı için yeteri kadar karmaşıklık içermiyor. ancak açıklamadaki "Yükleyenin kendi çalışması" kısmı ve lisansın kamu malına değiştirilmesi gerekiyor. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 20:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 20:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Мемориальный комплекс воинам 28-й армии .jpg

Per Commons:FOP Russia. Monument opened in 1968 ([[11]]). 83.9.163.172 10:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a product of art. This is just a tank on a plain podest. I'm fairly certain that I've seen previous discussions about monuments that featured tanks and it was decided to keep the images. As for the relief of three faces in the background, it is partially covered by the tank and thus not usable on its own. It falls under de minimis. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:'Tambovsky Kolkhoznik' tank memorial. The images were kept. Nakonana (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Маршалу Жукову - panoramio.jpg

1995 sculpture in Russia, no freedom of panorama, too prominent for de minimis (see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vnukovo, Moscow, Russia - panoramio - ak ba.jpg 83.9.163.172 11:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it realistically doable to take a picture of the facade of the Category:Moscow State Historical Museum without the statue, though? It could be a case like with the pyramid in front of the Louvre of which there are images on Commons because one can't photograph the museum without the pyramid. Nakonana (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana in this case, 50-50. I would rather defer the decision to other users/admins though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nakonana. I think this angle is a good analogy for dead-on photos of the Louvre that include but don't feature the Pyramid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert M. Devlin.jpg

Press photograph can't be assumed to "simple press release, no copyrights reserved". No proof that we can use PD-Poland. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wg polskiego ustawodawstwa zwykła fotografia prasowa nie podlega prawu autorskiemu, tym bardziej jeśli nie podano jej autora. Ledowiczka (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1926 Czesława Bourse.jpg

Low chance that this is own work (made near 100 years ago) ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jest moja fotografia z archiwum rodzinnego. Ledowiczka (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prawo autorskie obowiązuje do 70 lat od śmierci autora. Ledowiczka (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed. --RAN (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dziękuję za zrozumienie. Ledowiczka (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC obowiązuje dopiero od 2005 roku, a ta fotografia była zrobiona w 1926 roku.

Jako spadkobierczyni tej fotografii rodzinnej przekazałam ją do domeny publicznej. Ledowiczka (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PDT Fotopolska-Eu 1948.jpg

PAP Photo - see source url. No info about CC or PD licence. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jest pocztówka w powszechnym obiegu, a w gazecie została opublikowana jako źródło wtórne. Ledowiczka (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haus Ponath Fotopolska-Eu 1935.jpg

No info about CC or PD licence, no publicator to use PD-old-anon. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jest pocztówka w powszechnym obiegu, a w gazecie została opublikowana jako źródło wtórne. Ledowiczka (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1948-1949 Malczewskiego fotopolska.eu.jpg

No info about PD or CC licence, no publicator or publication date to use PD-old-anon or PD-Poland ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdjęcie z roku 1948 (76 lat temu), kiedy nie obowiązywały licencje CC. Na portalu fotopolska.eu umieszczane są zdjęcia na licencji PUBLIC DOMAIN Ledowiczka (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1964 Malczewskiego 13-16.jpg

No publication date, no publicator, lack of info that this is CC photo etc. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jest moja fotografia z archiwum rodzinnego Ledowiczka (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

licencja public domain Ledowiczka (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1947-48 ul Malczewskiego fotopolska.eu.jpg

No publication date, no publicator, lack of info that this is CC photo etc. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licencja public domain Ledowiczka (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zburzona Malczewskiego Fotopolska-Eu 1949.jpg

No publication date, no publicator, lack of info that this is CC photo etc. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

licencja public domain Ledowiczka (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Władysław Węgorek Poznań.jpg

No proof that this file is PD or CC https://poznan.fandom.com/wiki/W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_W%C4%99gorek?file=W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_W%C4%99gorek.jpg ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The full image is found at the Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Poznaniu. (The image is broken on the site, but can be found via the Wayback Machine or in this PDF.) A signature and possibly date are partially visible on the mid-right side of the painting; it is hard to read, but the date appears to be 1966, which would align with the end of his term as rector of the agriculture college. It is very unlikely the painting is old enough and painted by someone dead long enough for it to have passed into the public domain. Could undelete in 2086 under PD-assumed, unless the painter is identified and an earlier undelete date set. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proszę zatem usunąć. Ledowiczka (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A. Telesiński Dziekan.jpg

No author, no info about licence in source page ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jest osoba publiczna jako Dziekan Wydziału. Nie wiem, skąd pomysł usunięcia tego zdjęcia. Ledowiczka (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fotografia udostępniona w Biuletynie Informacji Publicznej bez zastrzeżenia praw autorskich, licencja public domain Ledowiczka (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:B. Nagay.jpg

No info that this is published under CC or PD licence https://zbc.ksiaznica.szczecin.pl/dlibra/publication/31427/edition/29834/content ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nie ma też informacji o prawach zastrzeżonych. Fotografia pochodzi z czasopisma udostępnionego publicznie pod adresem https://zbc.ksiaznica.szczecin.pl/dlibra/publication/31427/edition/29834?language=pl Ledowiczka (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artykuł ze zdjęciem został udostępniony na licencji CC BY pod adresem: https://ppm.pum.edu.pl/info/report/PUM372ebd34c8e04e37b000204c2018fe96/ Ledowiczka (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ledowiczka (talk · contribs)

https://oa.zut.edu.pl/items/2402c527-258c-4cd1-ab73-552b5aedb844/full https://oa.zut.edu.pl/items/38a9499e-ecfe-4898-8b32-b17e049b0f19/full https://oa.zut.edu.pl/items/a52d80cc-e1a5-4739-ac68-57d294bc354a/full (https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12539/1815) https://azon.e-science.pl/zasoby/prof-andrzej-kotecki-archiwalny-zasob-fotografii-upwr,48265/

Descriptions of file sources indicates that entire work is published in by-nc-nd licence, which is forbidden on Commons.

ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Licencja została uaktualniona - proszę sprawdzić tutaj: https://oa.zut.edu.pl/items/38a9499e-ecfe-4898-8b32-b17e049b0f19/full

Pozdrawiam serdecznie

Ledowiczka Ledowiczka (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by The Moroccan Truth (talk · contribs)

Not released into the public domain at source, as far as I can tell.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello , mdaniels , these pictures are from morocco and do notfollow any american juridiction since the pictures were taken in morocco by moroccans and do not belong to a label , the picture's author published it on a copyright-free military pictures website The Moroccan Truth (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are private image that were released in public websites because we don't have the concept of public domain in morocco The Moroccan Truth (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and the website is moroccan : https://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/t12p200-fra-photos-anciens-avions-des-fra The Moroccan Truth (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Moroccan Truth Basically all photos are copyrighted the moment they are taken (including in Morocco). They are not allowed on Commons unless (1) the copyright has expired in both the United States and the country in which the photo was taken (for new photos, this is at least 70 years), or (2) the photographer licenses the photos using an allowed license. See here and COM:L for more information. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those images are definitely not in the public domain in Morocco yet. @The Moroccan Truth: , please read Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Morocco. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Türkiye Çingeneleri ve Oranları 2010.png

Map created by a blocked user who creates/designs fake flags and fake maps using unsourced statistics. See discussion on their talk page on en-WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SahinBasaran Netherzone (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never make my maps without resources. My map source: [12]http://www.ayorum.com/haber_oku.asp?haber=1905 SahinBasaran (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carneycastle, Tipperary (geograph 4569213 by Mike Searle).jpg

Please could you delete this photograph. I am the owner of this castle and the photograph was taken without my permission and from my land (the photographer trespassed). He agreed to remove it from the source site. I do not want to draw attention to it, I've recent spent a considerable sum in conserving portions of it and do not want people coming to visit and perhaps stealing stones or causing damage. Also the castle is surrounded by a busy working farm and it is inappropriate for passing member of the public to visit. The pictures give the impression that its open for visitors and I'm afraid it is not. Carneycastle (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Photo is already deleted on geograph.ie. --Achim55 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. Image of an important historical castle is definitely within scope. Whether the photographer trespassed or not is immaterial to whether the license is valid. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bawn gateway, Carneycastle, Tipperary (geograph 4569240 by Mike Searle).jpg

Please could you delete this photograph. I am the owner of this castle and the photograph was taken without my permission and from my land (the photographer trespassed). He agreed to remove it from the source site. I do not want to draw attention to it, I've recent spent a considerable sum in conserving portions of it and do not want people coming to visit and perhaps stealing stones or causing damage. Also the castle is surrounded by a busy working farm and it is inappropriate for passing member of the public to visit. The pictures give the impression that its open for visitors and I'm afraid it is not. Carneycastle (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly sympathetic, and while that's not a deletion reason, I definitely think it's appropriate to add a notice to all images of the castle, stating that the castle is privately owned and cannot be visited without the permission of the owner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tourangelle Musé des Beaux Arts.png

Demandé une originale au musé Elfabriciodelamancha (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor died on 30 November 1936. Is that too soon for the sculpture to be in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arlésienne, Georges Delperier.png

Demandé une originale au musé mucem Elfabriciodelamancha (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same question I asked in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tourangelle Musé des Beaux Arts.png thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SDCC - Mattson Tomlin (14).jpg

Image not marked Creative Commons Attribution anywhere on the source page that I can find. In fact, it's marked "Courtesy of Deb Anderson", which probably means it isn't even owned by the source. Will ping the uploader on their EN talk page. GRuban (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was part of a larger batch of photos from that day -- https://www.gettyimages.com/search/photographer?photographer=Kevin%20Winter&assettype=image&sort=mostpopular&license=rf%2Crm&phrase=mattson%20tomlin -- in any event, if that photo doesn't clear, can we post a better photo of the poor guy? Theiceisslippery (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've found a better photo of "the poor guy" after a bit of discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theiceisslippery.

--GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

File:Seal of Campechuela.jpg

Seal has unknown date, and CoA have to be before 1947 based on Template:PD-Cuba CubanoBoi (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also

File:Flag of Communist Afghanistan (Fake).png, fictional unused flag CubanoBoi (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Flag of Cuba with the Chevron blue.png CubanoBoi (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[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 in Category:Superstraight

All of these images are for a fictional flag having to do with a fake, transphobic sexual orientation that never went anywhere outside of a single online message board. There's no reason we need to host images of fictional flags for every random meme or online message board posting out there. In fact we don't as the upwards of three hundred deletion requests for fictional flags that were deleted in Category:Fictitious symbol related deletion requests/deleted shows. The clear consensus is against hosting these types of images on Commons. So they should be deleted as OOS since they clearly serve absolutely no educational value what-so-ever.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to start with, at least one is COM:INUSE. Next, if by “a single message board” you mean /pol/, a very notable board on the very notable website 4chan, then that is enough to both make it marginally notable and notable enough for commons’ extremely low standards. Finally, there is a difference between a made-up thing that originated outside WM and a thing made up one day. This is the former. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only in use file I saw was being used in a 2 old draft article that clearly isn't going to be put in mainspace anytime soon, if ever. So I don't think the usage is a valid reason to keep the image. As far as the where this orginated from, your correct that 4chan is notable. That obviously doesn't mean every single random thing that gets posted there is notable, eductional, or otherwise worth hosting on Commons though. Files don't get a free pass from Commons:Project scope just because someone might have posted them to 4chan once. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Straight Flag.svg is in extensive use (and if you game the system by going to every single wiki it’s on and removing it you will be reported). You should actually check these things before indiscriminately nominating everything in a category. And I don’t get why you seem to think this is just some random thing that never received any media attention— it’s discussed on the w:/pol/ article of enwiki— I quote, “ Colors associated with ‘super straight’, often used in the form of flags, were black and orange.” (Emphasis mine) It’s also discussed extensively at w:Straight flag, where one of these files is in use. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have missed checking that one. I don't plan on removing it from anywhere and I'd appreciate it if you laid off the needlessly confrontational, accusatory tone about this. Its really not helpful. I explained why I don't think its a thing in the other DR. Plenty of random, benial facts are mentioned in Wikimedia articles. That doesn't make them "things" though, whatever that means. Do you have any evidence of these flags actually beinf IRL or refered to outside of the transphobic angle? If not then at least IMO these images clearly aren't worth keeping. Although their eductional usefulness would still be questionable regardless. But actual usage of the flags IRL would at least be better then your claim that they should be kept simply "because 4chan." --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are living in some kind of alternate universe where a pride flag must be used in real life by some kind of legitimate sexual or gender minority to be in-scope. I have literally presented extensive evidence that these are non-trivially COM:INUSE and you just keep repeating the same arguments over and over when they have nothing to do with what I just said. Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to argue this is at all comparable to the pride flag? Come on. You know they aren't at all comparable to each other. Regardless, just because one image is in use doesn't automatically mean the other 9 images I nominated for deletion should be kept. You clearly have no actual arguement for keeping the imaged outside of making bad faithed, personal accusations though. I hear what your saying perfectly fine. I just think your wrong. Get over it and spare me the defense bad attitude about this. There's really no need for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“If superstraight isn’t a pride flag then you must delete” isn’t a coherent argument. I really don’t care what happens to the unused ones as long as the ones that are actually being legitimately used are kept. That’s literally all I’m vouching for here. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing none of the reasons I said the images should be deleted have anything to do with the pride flag then. Your the one who brought it up to begin with. The only noncoherent argument here is you bringing up the pride flag and then treating me like it has anything to do with why I think the images should be deleted. "the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation." That's literally all you've been doing. I guess there's nothing more to say about it if you don't care about the unused files being deleted though. Although I think the one that's in use should be deleted to, but I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this. Maybe drop it on your end going forward in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still completely baffled about why you think your reasons to delete make any sense whatsoever, but I’m more baffled by your resistance to acknowledging COM:INUSE applies to File:Super Straight Flag.svg and multiple others. Dronebogus (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since your apparently incapable of dropping this for some reason how exaxtly is me saying I just missed that the one file was being used in a Wikipedia article not an acknowlegement of COM:INUSE? With the other file, I could be wrong but I thought COM:INUSE didn't apply in cases were the image is being used on a draft article that has essentially no chance of ever being put into mainspace. The standard here isn't just "use" after all. There's also "realistic utility" and that's kind of negated by it being used in a draft article that's been stalled out for multiple years. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince me that you actually understand what INUSE is, just remove File:Super Straight Flag.svg, please. Dronebogus (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it if you promise not to come in so hot about things next time ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In use in at least 13 pages across all projects, including Catalan-, Persian-, Italian-, and English-language Wikipedias, besides of course Wikidata. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them being the mainspace, just noting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked and most of them aren't being used. One file File:Super Straight Flag.png is being used in a draft that's been there for 2 years and I'm pretty sure we delete images in that case since it doesn't have "realistic utility" at that point. Then there's a couple of random uses with other files in bot galleries, which again, doesn't meet the whole ""realistic utility" thing. That's all the usage I can find though. So can you point out which file is used in at least 13 pages across all projects since I'm not seeing it on my end for some reason? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:SuperStraightFlag.svg as a notable internet meme. Delete the rest as not useful--Trade (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, even if some of them aren't currently being used, there's no reason not to keep them for future use. JoePhin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before Adamant1 tries to argue that “most of them aren’t in use”, again, I’ll point out that since most of them are functionally identical to ones in use they’re kind of inherently in-scope. The only legitimate reasons to delete them are redundancy (which isn’t a particularly strong argument anyway) and being in undesirable formats for simple geometry like PNG/JPG over SVG (again also a weak argument). Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to argue that, actually. Thanks for assuming though. Honestly, I don't expect anything even slightly related to sex or gender issues to be deleted, or at least for anyone to vote that way, but it what it is. I still think the images should be deleted regardless. Maybe at least leave the mind reading at the door next time though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some are identical and kinda useless, but others are not. MikutoH (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Superstraight

Unused close variants of File:Super Straight Flag.png or File:SuperStraightFlag.png.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also both PNGs have even higher-quality SVGs, which are more than sufficient. ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACP LOGO(360x360).jpg

Unused and inferior in size/quality to file:ACP LOGO(5000x5000).png The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jakob Sundevall

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Epting Mundy Junior

This is not a gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Correns

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as long as the photo is not deleted, go a ahead and delete the gallery (I don't know who created it, isn't this an automatic thing?). The photo should be kept, of course.--Nina (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photo will be kept. You can find it (and more) in Category:Carl Correns. No, gallery pages are not created automatically, according to the history you created it yourself (that is why you've got an alert). JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know hot to do that (anymore :). What if you add the other photo of Correns? Still not enough to build a gallery? --Nina (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed. And the category has only seven files, so there is no need to have a gallery page as well. It just makes sense to have a gallery page if there are a lot of files and/or subcategories, then a gallery is a great tool to create order out of chaos. But not for so few, then the category is enough. JopkeB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead and delete it, please. --Nina (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I have no authority to delete a page, an administrator will do so. JopkeB (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Christian Rafn

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Borivoj Presl

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category has not so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Blümel

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. The category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Banks

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment It has more than one image. I see what you mean but there are a bunch of gallery pages with only a few images. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about other pages.

Why should this page be kept? What is the added value of it above the category, that also has three files? JopkeB (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now three images, the same as in the category. Again: What is the added value? JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Abraham Pihl

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Anton Larsen

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

The image has no source. Its provenance is not established and descriptive information is not verifiable (e.g., what it claimed to depict previously was probably wrong to begin with). Included with this deletion request is the duplicate:

File:Xiang Yu.png

Its source also provides no helpful information. It seems like one of those image plucked from the internet of which not much helpful is known. --Cold Season (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion of these images. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral image is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. At least one of the files is currently in use on the projects, so it has to be maintained. @Cold Season: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file pages, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. --Ellywa (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: There is NO SOURCE that verifies the images as a public domain image. The fact that we do not know what this image is, means that this falls under the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is definitly not a {{fact disputed}} case. The fact that you closed this without participation in discussion, while waiting for the close statement to provide unilateral counter-arguments is highly inappropriate. --Cold Season (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

This is an artwork that remains unidentified. There is no provenance or source that tells us what it is or its public domain status. In conclusion, it should be deleted per COM:PRP. Included with this deletion request is the duplicate File:Xiang Yu.png.

To @Ellywa: in the previous deletion request, {{fact disputed}} does not override this. Cold Season (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cold Season, this image is used 15 times on various Wikipedia articles, in several languages. The other version is used 3 times. Based on this, we cannot delete the image from Commons, based on our policy, as users on Wikipedia are considering the image valuable. The precautionary principle is used only in case a copyright violation might exist. Please ask additional questions on the village pump. I note you have re-nominated the image. In that case another admin will reconsider my decision. Ellywa (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with a policy or guideline that dictates that image usage should be a consideration. Furthermore, yes, not knowing anything of the artwork is the rationale that a copyright violation might exist. Point 4 and 5 in the COM:PRP policy is illustrative here. --Cold Season (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are not aware of all policies on Commons. I will try to explain more clearly. Commons:Deletion policy summarizes reasons for deletion, incorrectness of a file is not a reason. Educational not useful can be a reason for deletion, per COM:EDUSE, but as soon an image is in use, the image is considered in scope of this project, as stated in section COM:INUSE of that page. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is easy to find out this image is a variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg with other colors. It might be another scan of the same print, or another book with different colors, regarding the age. It was uploaded with a PD tag by Dr. Meierhofer~commonswiki in 2006. The PD tag seems correct. Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The deletion request is based on COM:PRP, because there is no information that identifies anything of this artwork and, as such, its public domain status is not established. I am not stating that the incorrectness in file description is the reason for deletion (which you keep using as a straw man argument), but I am explaining why it fails COM:PRP ("to explain more clearly" to you... again, as I shouldn't have assumed that everyone reads between the lines).

(2) Your mention of COM:EDUSE is irrelevant, as no argument with that as basis was raised here.

(3) COM:INUSE does not state that image usage is a reason to not delete or to maintain an image. Your argument has no merit. In fact, I hope you understand this instead, me saying that I'm not familiar with such a policy was just an indirect way to say that your claim is wrong (as no policy supports it).

(4) Your suggestion that the artwork is a "variant of File:Portraits of Famous Men - Xiang Wang.jpg" is incorrect, as it is simply not a scan of the same print. Feel free to overlay them in photoshop and look again, if you can't spot the differences. These are two distinct artworks with their own copyright status and, as such, it does not diminish the onus to establish this image's copyright status.

In conclusion, I see no credible argument that overrides COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this is not a Qing Dynasty image? What makes you believe there is a chance it's not in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it is? "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). --Cold Season (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style does not look contemporary and looks old. Otherwise, I refer to Ellywa's remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you neglect to provide any appropriate evidence of the copyright status (just like her), which violates official policy COM:PS#Evidence.

Secondly, your reply is nothing more than an assumption that it looks old without any proof, which violates official policy COM:PRP. --Cold Season (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't delete every photo of an old print because you feel like casting doubt on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" (See official policy: COM:PS#Evidence). Your reply is not a valid argument, nor does it addresses the two policies cited in my comment before it. What I feel is irrelevant (though it seems more about you), what a strange reply... --Cold Season (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get more discussion from me. See what the closing admin rules. Again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep China only awards 50 years protection, so if it is prior to 1974 it is PD. Tineye and Google could not find anyone named as the author or anyone claiming an active copyright or anyone claiming it is newer than 1974. --RAN (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is counter to the policy COM:PRP: "Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: [...] 5. "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained.""

Secondly, you provide "ifs" and neglect the burden of proof. See the policy COM:PS#Evidence: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained [...]" --Cold Season (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carex x boenninghauseniana

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carex secta

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two photos. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carel Gabriel Cobet

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have so many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add another picture from his category but couldnt. Sure you know better how to do it. Why dont YOU do it?! 186.173.170.14 06:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not add photos to this gallery page:

Because it is not my job to take care that such a page meets the standards (that is the job of the person who started a gallery page).
Because the category only contains seven files, which is not enough to distinguish a gallery pages as meaningful, not even if you would add all these seven images.

I do not know why your attempt to add another picture to the page caused a failure, it looks good. Did you copy paste the file name (which is best) or typed it? Long ago my ":" gave errors too, but after a while the problem was miraculously solved. JopkeB (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honda L15A7 Engine.jpg

I accidentally included my Location in this Wikimedia Upload, Please delete this. H982Falklands (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful photo. Revdel lat/long and perhaps altitude from EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ธงตราสัญลักษณ์ฉลองพระชนมายุ 60 พรรษา สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ สยามบรมราชกุมารี.png

This file was initially tagged by Wutkh as no license (No license since) Krd 10:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo on the flage is extracted from the Office of the Prime Minister website. Please note that the exact artwork of the government is not a public domain. --Wutkh (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NizamiBakhmanov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Dr.Wiki54 as no source (No source since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blum Zoltan.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the author is not specified, the shooting date is not specified, we should consider 120 years from a date and the only one we have is that the portrayed subject died in 1959 so it would be in the public domain in 2079 ZioNicco (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff crank family (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff crank family.jpg

This file was initially tagged by BottleOfChocolateMilk as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharm.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ArcticSeeress as no permission (No permission since) Krd 10:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original Wikipedia uploader, W:User:Dibi58, originally uploaded the image W:File:Sharmagne-Leland-St-John.jpeg, which was deleted in May 2009 for violation WP's copyright policy. In July, the user uploaded a low-quality version File:Sharm.jpg (which was ported to Commons) and then finally W:File:Sharmagne.jpg. The description of all of these files claims this to be a self-portrait. There is little likelihood that Dibi58 is Sharmagne Leland-St. John. I also found a non-cropped version of the photo at Michael Butler's website (direct link to the image). ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sf121wiki (talk · contribs)

B&W photo is not free - Commercial use is not allowed "For permission to copy or use any part of the Photographic Archive for any commercial purposes, please contact" - the other one is unlikely to be own work. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gbawden,

Thank you for the note.

I attach the instructions from the University of Chicago.

Images in the University of Chicago Photographic Archive may be used for educational and scholarly purposes, but any such use requires that a credit line be included with any image used. Any use of images from the Chicago Maroon, the independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago, requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon (see below).

Credit Line:

University of Chicago Photographic Archive, [apf digital item number, e.g., apf12345], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Thanks and take care, Sf121wiki (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"requires a separate grant of copyright permission from the Chicago Maroon" means that we would have to have permission from them to host here Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ragy96 (talk · contribs)

All copyvios. Still frame = screenshot, photos taken by Mayar Kotb and by Doa Aly, none of which are own work

Gbawden (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

All artwork is now updated with source/author Ragy96 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monica-sabata.jpg

Google finds this on twitter 10 years ago, I think we need VRT Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found Monica Sabata a few weeks ago and ask her to take a photo of her. She preferred to send me this one which was made by herself. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertgarrigos, ask her to contact COM:VRT stating that it's a selfie and she gives permission for the photo to be licensed in such a way as to include its commercial use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ikan Kekek, but I won't be able to do that. Monica Sabata is a public person here, and I just found her at an event by chance. It was the first time in years I met her in person. I told here what the photo was for and she agreed. Robertgarrigos (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but in that case, since you didn't take the photo and Commons won't just accept your say-so on how she would license the photo, it will unfortunately be deleted (hidden) on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillem-nivet.jpg

Clearly a screenshot Gbawden (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertgarrigos This is clearly a screenshot. It was taken from a TV screen? by a mobile phone. Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, just my mobile phone. I took it myself. Not a good quality, I know, because I was not close to the subject. Robertgarrigos (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Leniston

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. And the category does not have that many files that a gallery page is needed. JopkeB (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation 202102049425215728 189746.pdf

Duplicate of File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation Cropped.jpeg and potential privacy violation.

Although other people's personal information has been redacted, there are transaction IDs and dates of receipts that may be used to track and doxx irrelevant individuals. These information is also unnecessary and not useful for educational purposes. Plus, this file is only used in the Wikipedia namespace, not in articles. Of course we can redact these information, but as we already have the photo which is specifically used to show the donation record of Thomas Crooks, there is no valid reason to keep this PDF file. See also the relevant discussion. SCP-2000 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is available unredacted on a federal government website: it is trivial to search for it on the FEC's website. The source link goes to an unredacted version (click "view image" there). So the doxxing concern seems pointless. This nomination is more or less like saying that it would be doxxing to list the address of the White House as 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I have said before and will say again: this document seems to me to be perfectly in scope. It documents a fact that has figured in the news, and it is a document that there is no reason we cannot host. While use in a Wikipedia article would be a clincher to keep it, non-use is not a reason to delete: a good 90% of what is on Commons is not used in Wikipedia articles. Being a host for Wikipedia is one of Commons' purposes, but only one.

I helped redact our copy to meet others' concerns, but I thought then and think now that even those concerns were largely without merit for the reason I just stated.

In terms of whether it is in scope, a comparable case would be Lee Harvey Oswald's Social Security card, which as far as I can tell no one has questioned in the decade we have had it posted, and which has even long been used as the example in Identity documents in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I was one who suggested deletion, I'm not able to specify a concrete or policy-based reason to delete this. Observations:

It's so redacted that it's of limited educational value (especially while the complete PD original is freely available)
Some commenters have questioned whether we got the correct Thomas Crooks with this evidence, so I hope that news sources have done their due diligence on the address/other PII
Wikipedia policies, such as BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY, while they may be of limited relevance here, are based in US law, and should give us pause: Oswald's long dead, but as recently deceased, BLP (BDP) still applies to Crooks and all other involved parties, IMHO. In fact, Crooks was 17 as of the date of these transactions, so his parents may bear responsibility for it.

Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Commons hosts unused PDFs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we do. Many entire magazines or books, for example. In this case this might not be the best choice of format because it is only one page; it could easily enough be downloaded to a PC and re-uploaded as a JPG or PNG, if there is a consensus to do so, but I believe the discussion here should focus mainly on the content, not the format. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Can you please point to the guidelines that allow Commons to host unused text files? Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content states that "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" are out of scope. Do you figure this is not raw text? I figure the "entire magazines or books," absent illustrations, are, and therefore should be removed from Commons on the basis of the policy I quoted. But of course admins can choose to disregard Commons policies if you like... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not exactly a "text file". We host hundreds of government forms from various governments, enormous amounts of manuscript correspondence, and, as I've said, the entire runs of many publications, a large number of which are almost entirely text. I can't point you to chapter and verse on this being OK, but I can confidently say it has been the prevailing practice for at least 15 years. See, for example, the majority of documents directly or indirectly under Category:Government documents. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me, Commons should edit or delete policies the site (in other words, admins) is (are) not observing, because people make the mistake of relying on Commons policies and guidelines to be binding... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpetation of the "raw text out of scope" is that it refers to files such as "File:Courseenglishwiki.jpg" - generally very basic text documents that are own works, and should be, if needed at all, written using normal wikitext and not a embedded PDF/image file. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    @Ikan Kekek: feel more than free to propose clarifications to any policy or policies. Admins don't really have much more role in writing policy documents than any other active users. The additional roles we have vis a vis policy are (1) determining which changes have consensus and should be written into the documents and (2) interpreting ambiguous intent. But the consensus and intent are intended to be those of the community at large, not just the admins.
    
    Are there admins who are sometimes high-handed? Yes, and it can be a problem, but I'm quite comfortable in saying it is not what I'm doing here.
    
    Are there sources of effective policy other than what is written in policy documents and guidelines? Yes: repeated similar outcomes on DRs, CfDs, the Village pump, etc. It's sort of like "case law" supplementing "statute law".
    
    Jmabel ! talk 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. So I should just say Commons users decline to approve proposals such as I've made, including to simply correct the spelling of COM:Quality images candidates, even when I volunteered to fix all the links to it, but then again, it's not like admins fought for it, either. My experience has demotivated me from proposing changes, but I'll think about it and might make a proposal eventually (and likely see it shot down). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep All the reasons given by @Jmabel. However, I would suggest that a further redaction of both the "trasaction ID" as well as the "Earmarked for" organizations of sections "B" and "C" only. These two sections donations were apparently from a person completely unrelated to the person in section "A." This would make clear, the unintentionally misleading impression, that all three organizations had received contibutions by the person in section A. An alternative clarification is to again upload the complete, unredacted, Federal Election Commission (FEC) form as a .png or .jpg, instead of a .pdf. -- Ooligan (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trans Pennine Trail.jpg

Presumed copyvio from the Trans Pennine Trail website, modified to remove the copyright notice. A Wayback Machine snapshot shows the original was online before this was uploaded to Commons. YorkshireLad (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perkrenare Ilirie.jpg

Not "own work", from https://web.archive.org/web/20030819220645/https://www.safani.com/objects/illyrian_helmet.html Nutshinou ^Talk! 18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monedha Labeate.jpg

Not "own work", from sq:Skeda:Shkodramonedhë.jpg, but no license there Nutshinou ^Talk! 18:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nino Ksipolitas.jpg

Unfortunately, no metadata seems to be available for this file. It certainly seems possible for it to be found elsewhere as well, however, since we're talking about a really old photo (almost twenty years since it was taken) it looks like it's almost impossible to find the original source. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puligadda-Penumudi Bridge.jpg

Not "own work", from https://wikitravel.org/shared/File:Puligadda-Penumudi_bridge.jpeg, no license there Nutshinou ^Talk! 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Григорівський бір 15.jpg

poor quality, too dark and blurry, there are many better pictures in the category Hryhorivskyi Bir Luda.slominska (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, low quality image, nothing particularly interesting to see ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Johnmazik (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio: Seems to come from videos, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024080610010267 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: VRT agent (verify): we've received Ticket:2024080610010267 regarding File:Dana Leonardi.jpg. Impossible to verify authorship. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's just a pic there is no reason to delete it. It's a nice pic. 2600:8802:3B0F:9600:7072:A241:578D:9AC2 17:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified person, unknown notability, bad quality, unusable. --Krd 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what does it matter? it's just a photo. why do u make such a big deal over it? my vote is to not delete it. 2600:8802:3B0F:9600:C028:B393:E8C4:6E9C 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VioEdu logo.jpg

Not sure if it is a copyright violation or not, they provided a source. I'm not sure if the file is just placed under the wrong licensing or not allowed on Commons. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Stooges Stop Look And Laugh 1960 Trailer GIF.gif

Is this trailer in the public domain or no? If so, we can keep it and upload the video of the original trailer on Wikimedia Commons. PlahWestGuy2024 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

File:1920s street gramophone player.jpg

Picture is sourced to Pinterest, which sources it to Flickr, which says "unknown author, All Rights Reserved" and estimates that it's from the 1920s. Can we safely assume it's PD by now? DS (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader. I have no certain evidence that support this being PD. Deletion is fine with me. Ketil3 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [13] credits it as "The Stapleton Collection / Bridgeman Images". It seems likely to be PD. Platonides (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trophy euro 2004.jpg

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banachiewicz.jpg

If its in private collection, then it can't be PD-Poland or PD-anon, because there isn't any proof that this work was published anywhere. ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the absence of contradicting local law, we follow US case law on when an image is "made public". We have been following that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. This is an image from a commercial photographer. --RAN (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ester Kreitman.jpg

Poor source without evidence of publisher and publication date ツィプカ・ウエルド (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not understand your claim. Do not need publisher name due to the polish law.--FLLL (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the absence of contradicting local law, we follow US case law on when an image is "made public". We have been following that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. This is an image from a commercial photographer. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roberta Metsola to unveil John Hume bust in European Parliament in Strasbourg - 52159306852.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a grudge request by A1Cafel. Edelseider (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question The bust was created by Liz O'Kane, any prove that the sculptor agrees to publish it under a free license? --A1Cafel (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macro photography of light human skin texture.jpg

Out of scope - AI image of a common subject for which we have ample freely licensed actual photos. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting and useful example for how AI tools can be used to create high fidelity realistic textures as useful for video game 3D model design. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before deleting, nominators or the deletor should at least give 3 different links/examples from this Wikimedia commons that have macro photo of human skins .

Commented by Encik Tekateki (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty already at Category:Human skin textures. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see any other examples of AI generated skin texture Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an AI version of everything. When we have an actual photo, it's always preferable to use that, because it won't contain the inaccuracies inherent in AI generation. AI's use case is, at best, generating images of things that do not already exist. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to other the genuine macro photographs in Category:Human skin textures. Hypothetical future use to illustrate the concept of AI video game textures seems discouraged by An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph. in COM:NOTUSED. Belbury (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That quote doesn't mean or imply that all images that aren't in use should be deleted. If I was to create an article on generative AI for video game textures I very much consider using that image and even if I didn't add it, and it would really be not unlikely, then the file would still be quite useful. That it's not one of the most useful images on WMC doesn't mean it's not useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all images that aren't in use should be deleted, just this one.

Really the hypothetical could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X argument is even weaker when we're talking about AI, because it would only take ten seconds to generate an image like that if one was needed in the future. Belbury (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case for many AI images, maybe it's the case for most AI images on WMC. It's not the most valuable but there is no good case for deleting it. In addition, there is a quite realistic educational use-case for which afaik this would be the nearly only and a quite good illustration. One could also make a draft about generative AI in video games but why. I'd support renaming the file to clarify that it's made with AI in the title however. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it shouldn't be named "Macro photography". CMD (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it needs to be renamed. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:]]

File:Rävfigurin från Mjölby Porslinsrävsmuseum DALL·E 2023-04-22 09.32.47.png

Exceptionally low quality AI image of a common animal. Out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason for the request is your own subjective assessment of the quality of AI images? For the sake of clarity, can you point out which criteria you use here? VisbyStar (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VisbyStar: COM:SCOPE says "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". The misgeneration issues (left side of the face, front paws, etc.) make it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever use this image.

It is an AI-generated image of a fox figurine so the knowledge value could be, for example, in how first generation AI images are formed in different programs (in this case DALL-E in a historical generation that no longer exists). I think you are misinterpreting the term if you see "inaccuracies" in that the image does not depict a correct fox figurine. The last statement, "make it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever use this image" is probably very difficult for you to know ahead of time. VisbyStar (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TheaterFigurenMuseum 47.jpg

Nicht mehr aktuell. Mein Name ist Johann Talinski, ich bin Mitarbeiter von Kolk 17 und habe die Aufgabe unseren Wikipediaeintrag zu aktualisieren. Das Foto stellt das Figuenmuseum nicht mehr zeitgemäß und adäquat dar, bzw. ist schlicht nicht mehr korrekt. Medpaed02 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we do not delete pics for that reason. So I created new categories for historic media from 2017 and before. Files in commons are a documentation of a state when taken. Otherwise, if you were right, we would have to delete most of the historic media in commons. Since you point out to work for this museum as a institution, your proposal seems to be a weird approach to museum work.--Kresspahl (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep COM:INUSE and per Kresspahl. Medpaed02, feel free to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles. Do not try to get historical documentation removed from Commons, for goodness' sake! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 09:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eugen Goldstein.jpg

no author, no date, no source - wrong licence Goesseln (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed PD-EU-no author disclosure --RAN (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per [14], this is a 1920/1921 photograph by Berlin photo studio E. Bieber. At that time, the owner (since 1910) and photographer of that studio was a man named Julius Rosenberg (not the one electrocuted in the US in the 1950s). I could not find out when Rosenberg died, but since he took over the studio in 1910, he could have been 30 or even 25 then and lived until 1960 or later. There's a good chance the photo is still copyrighted in Germany, so I have deleted the file. It can be restored in 2042 with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. --Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Txingudirugby.jpg

It already exists in Wikicommons (LogoRugbyIrun.jpg), and does not comply with copyright. SkyRugby (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visa to Canada.jpg

Disputed copyright status, according to nomination of Jimmi Xu Fenikals (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château de Chaumont pres Mainsat.jpg

Fehlender Hinweis auf Quelle, Urheber, Aufnahme-/Veröffentlichungsdatum und entsprechende Lizenz; "eigenes Werk" darf in Zweifel gezogen werden, da es sich bei der Aufnahme offensichtlich um einen Scan einer Postkarte o.ä. handelt.

Missing Information about origin, original author, original date and missing according license information; probably no "own work" as it's obviously a scan of something like a post card. Luitold (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an early-19th century black and white postcard, which means it is public domain stuff. The picture represents the rear façade of the mansion as seen from three quarters to the right. See Insights into the château de Chaumont at Mainsat / La Serre-Bussière-Vieille in Creuse.--Elnon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Photography in the early 19th century??? Plus the Chateau was built in the early 20th century. This photography might be from the 1930s or 1940s and therefore is NOT public domain.--Luitold (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant "early 20th century" of course. I own a few postcards of the chateau, none of them is from the 1930s or 1940s, one is from the 1950s. The rest were published in the 1900s at the earliest and in the 1910s at the latest. --Elnon (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Наталя Мараховська 2023.jpg

"I am requesting the removal of this photo since I am the person depicted in the image. The user Gower posted it without my consent and violated my privacy rights." per special:diff/901573771. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was Public, admission free event and Polish law allows to photograph famous people who do their job. Gower (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal act: 81 ust. 2 ustawy o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Gower (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you don't want to be photographed, don't appear in public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overview of poster Heil Putler at Embassy of Russia at náměstí Borise Němcova street, Prague.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted? It's derivative work, but ok, if you want, delete it.--Frettie (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by {{FoP-Czech Republic}}. Jklamo (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FoP requires the object to be permanently located, a banner during a protest is clearly not, so still not covered by Czech FoP.--A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dan Hogenson - Brazos Bend State Park.jpg

Unused personal image. Nv8200p (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a popular trailhead within this park. Additionally, the very large dead oak tree stump with the old tree laying beside it provides historic information about the natural history of this heavily used public park. For example, there may be future uploads of old photos with this huge tree, before it was cut down. This photo is in COM:SCOPE, @Nv8200pa. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan d'Europos Doura.png

Licence obviously wrong: the article from which the image is taken was published in 2003 and cannot be used with this licence. The author is not Rostovtzeff but obviously Pierre Leriche. Zunkir (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author of this plan was neither Rostovtzeff nor Leriche. It was created by Frank Brown and first published in 1944 as Figure 12 in the first part of the 9th preliminary report on the excavations conducted at Dura-Europos by Yale University and the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. Cf. the caption of fig. 2 on p. 317 in E. Will, "La population de Doura-Europos: Une évaluation", Syria 65 (1988), pp. 315-321, which gives proper credit to the original publication (something that Leriche does not do). Normally this would still be under copyright, but the International Digital Dura-Europos Archive has been working with Yale University to make the documents related to the excavations freely available online, and this has resulted in the reissuing of digital versions of the preliminary and final reports with new PD licenses. Some of these reports are already hosted on the Commons (see, e.g., File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters Preliminary Report of Fifth Season, Oct. 1931-March 1932.pdf or File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report IV, Part V The Glass Vessels.pdf); others are hosted elsewhere (Hathi Trust, Internet Archive, etc.). For a full list, click on the link at the bottom of this page. Preliminary report 9, part 1 (the source of this plan) is available at the Hathi Trust, where it is marked "Public domain". Unfortunately, HT uses a Google scan of the volume which does not include the separately printed figures that were stored inside the back cover of the original publication, and fig. 12 was one of those, so we can't upload a higher resolution version from the original source; instead, we'll have to make do with the rather poor low-res version reprinted in Leriche's article. But it seems clear that that the original figure (and therefore Leriche's reproduction of it) are now in the public domain. The image can be kept, but the file page should be updated to reflect the correct creator (Brown), date (1944), original source (Preliminary Report 9.1), and proximal source (Leriche's article in Topoi), and the license should be changed, either to CC-0 or to a customized Yale University Press license like the one used on File:The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters Preliminary Report of Fifth Season, Oct. 1931-March 1932.pdf. I'd be happy to make the changes, but I'll wait until this deletion request is closed before I do in case anyone else wants to weigh in. Choliamb (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pregovori Tito — Šubašić na Visu.jpg

The photograph is reportedly published in 1972. This means a) that the Yugoslav PD tag does not apply since it covers only photos published in 1966 or earlier. PD-Serbia would be fine as it applies if the relevant photo is published before 1 January 1973, but the same tag indicates that the photo would be PD in Serbia on 1 January 1998, i.e. it does not comply with US PD-1996 tag which states that only material deemed PD in source country on 1 January 1996 is eligible for that US PD criterion. Tomobe03 (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my mistake. I put the propper licence now. Mladifilozof (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the context - Savo Orović was Yugoslav military official and partisan photographer whose works has been published in a lot of books and museum exibitions after the 1945. This date (1972), most likely, is not the first publishing of this photo. --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a little research, I found out the following - Savo Orović published all his photos from the war in the "Album fotografija iz narodnooslobodilačkog rata" in Belgrade in 1951. Two decades later, in 1972, he published only some photographs in the "Ratni dnevnik 1941—1945" as an illustration for the story. I still haven't acquired that photo album from 1951, but we can assume with great certainty that this photo is there among all the others. --Mladifilozof (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 frank cfa UEMOA a.jpg

per COM:Senegal and COM:Mali among others, copyright status of CFA Franc is unknown, delete per COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 frank cfa UEMOA b.jpg also affected. Abzeronow (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nathaniel pryor and sam houston.jpg

This file was initially tagged by JJMC89 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: source does not have the specified license; also non-DM artistic work pictured Ankry (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the only problem is the painting, I think it can be cropped out. License needs to be verified, however. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Deletion of File:Nathaniel pryor and sam houston (cropped).jpg (crop to the pictured work) was requested in ticket:2024072110005906. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:University Clinical Center Katowice logo.jpg

Possible copyright violation, a trademark of University Clinical Center of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice (https://www.uck.katowice.pl/) Gabriel trzy (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the logo is quite simple, the Polish threshold of originality is extremely low. Günther Frager (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page says rather low, not extremely low. If it's only rather low then I think this logo still seems to be below it. It's a very simple design. Jonteemil (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A German or an Austrian who writes that the Polish threshold of originality is low... When will you return the Polish works of art looted during World War II? Abraham OFM (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing against the copyright of something by referring to the theft of cultural properties? Despite the questionable conclusion of the argument this is not a discussing style we accept on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a really simple logo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-Fest in an interview (2017).png

The source video is from a channel with only 177 subscribers. The video itself has a watermark of Afisha, a defunct Russian magazine. The channel have only a couple of video, also under a bogus CC-BY license as they are taken from a concert and have the logo of the Russian social media platform VK where they were probably downloaded. Günther Frager (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Campesino, Peter E. Lopez, Sculptor. In the plaza, Las Vegas, New Mexico.jpg

Sculpture installed in Las Vegas, New Mexico in 2012 [15]. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D works in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Город Алматы.webp

This file was initially tagged by Star Mississippi as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: No reason to believe this is their own work. Cross wiki promotional spam Yann (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a speedy deletion, a valid rationale should be provided, and you didn't give any here. This is perfectly in scope, so "promotional spam" is not a valid reason. I can't find any copy on the Net, so there is no proof that it is a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB, the bulk of its usages have been deleted as the article has been deleted in many languages. It remains in four although there's a deletion discussion at de wiki. The now blocked and socking original uploader has admitted an "oops, it wasn't mine" on en wiki so I have no reason to trust this is any more legit. Star Mississippi (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, still in use in several articles. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Город Алматы.webp

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://inbusiness.kz/ru/last/v-almaty-proshel-miting-za-snizhenie-pensionnogo-vozrasta-dlya-zhenshin
After checking, I found that this was previously declined as not being a copyright violation, with the request to open a DR if this is disagreed with. Having provided the translated page I am unable to find suitable licencing. The original page is https://inbusiness.kz/ru/last/v-almaty-proshel-miting-za-snizhenie-pensionnogo-vozrasta-dlya-zhenshin
I respectfullly ask for this to be double checked for licencing 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tilali Scanlan with Edgar Iro, Tasi Limtiaco, and Abobakr Abass at the Tokyo Olympics.webp

Why would Tilali Scanlan own the copyright of this photo? And why would it be freely licensed when it comes from Insta? Schwede 66 23:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 This can be deleted, as well as other pictures I've uploaded depicting her. I thought the original author of the post would just post a CC license in the comments of the post then it would be valid (similar to other articles utilizing this), but I was mistaken as the author did not take the pictures used in the posts. I'll be more careful next time. Arconning (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is there a CC license release in the comments? It's not impossible for Scanlan to own the copyright, e.g. if she commissions the photographer under a contract that transfers the copyright to her. But that's beyond my pay grade; needs a Commons admin to make a call on it. Schwede 66 08:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don Julio Ramón Ribeyro (cropped).jpg

File:Don Julio Ramón Ribeyro.jpg

Bogus usage of {{PD-old-70}}. In 1954 Ribeyro was 25 years old. We need an explicit permission from the copyright holder to keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

File:- 2024 211 Marmashen Monastery.gif

Я автор изображения. Прошу удалить - так как повторяет очень похожее мое изображение Well-read MountainMan (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which other image is it very similar to? Please link it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Объект 195.jpg

Copyvio: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2018/10/95.html Nickel nitride (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both copies on "blogspot" have a text over the image whereas the copy at Commons does NOT. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo cropped and lettering removed in photoshop. This photo has one author - Gur Khan (Alexey Khlopotov). Nickel nitride (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Лучше уж эта фотка, чем то, что было ранее Kosthar4uk (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swordtail2med.jpg

While uploader said that is Marbled swordtail (X. meyeri), this species actually does not show elongated tail fin, which makes this identification false.[16] This uploader has been editing for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation. Other uploaded image by this user shows false licence and copyright violation. (See this) See the article that this user edited[17] and what I rewritten only based on claims in papers,[18] this user continued to add false claim that is not discussed in papers at all in articles. This image is already spread too much as X. meyeri in other language of Wikipedia, best way is to delete that. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek Now removed from articles due to this does not show X. meyeri. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I'm glad it was removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Parties.svg

Unused content fork of File:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea parties.svg TDL (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this file in the entry rather than the current map, as the current map incorrectly distinguishes between "non-parties" and "signatories", whereas signatories are in fact non-parties in the context of multilateral treaties that require a step beyond signature (ratification, accession, etc.) for a State to become a party. Accordingly, the colouration of the current map is misleading. 141.39.213.233 09:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's something wrong with the map, then it's much better to update it so that it gets used globally, rather than creating an unused content fork.

I've implemented the requested colour change to the currently in use map, so this file can be deleted as a duplicate. TDL (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Parties.svg

Unused content fork of File:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea parties.svg TDL (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this file in the entry rather than the current map, as the current map incorrectly distinguishes between "non-parties" and "signatories", whereas signatories are in fact non-parties in the context of multilateral treaties that require a step beyond signature (ratification, accession, etc.) for a State to become a party. Accordingly, the colouration of the current map is misleading. 141.39.213.233 09:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there's something wrong with the map, then it's much better to update it so that it gets used globally, rather than creating an unused content fork.

I've implemented the requested colour change to the currently in use map, so this file can be deleted as a duplicate. TDL (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andre Fauve.jpg

Historical images, created in 1963, unlikely to be uploader's work. Additional source and license information should be provided A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASF rap.jpg

Created by a globally blocked user (Moina kissimani), sockpuppet of Asf Dine : long term abuse for self-promotion Supertoff (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epiduo sales in Singapore.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Hehua as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: per Com:PACKAGE and the logo on it is not in Public domain per COM:TOO Singapore. Is this a US or Singapore work? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't know. And now Galderma's Headquarters is in Zug, Switzerland. I also don't know when the logo on it is used and published first in which country. Hehua (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SaintE logo 3stack morristown color CMYK.jpg

This file was initially tagged by OhKayeSierra as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Blatant copyvio of logo at [19]. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Communist Party Logo (Vector).svg

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the gears and the combined hammer and sickle, the levels are below TOO.

Keep. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the "stripes" on the back of the sickle representing the american flag make it above TOO?

Delete All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Too simple in my eyes. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:TOO US. Just look at the other allowed images! Some are more complex than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SIAE MICROELETTRONICA S.p.A.png

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:TOO Italy and w:Siae Microelettronica, which shows the logo is notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bickham-Script.png

This file should not be handled through the speedy deletion process, but should be a regular nominate for deletion. Typeface designs are mostly not protected by copyright law. It’s just the font softwares. Flamon (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio). Further information on why converting set type to outlines or export them to pixels is a fair use can be found here e.g. https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/font-licensing.html#act-img . The deletion request for this file should be removed. Flamon (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need evidence of permission to allow this to be used by anyone for all commercial purposes. Based on the license terms, it appears that only the orignal purchaser of the adobe license (the uploader) has the ability to use the font in commercial work. We don't have that permission, and would need to obtain it from the foundry/adobe. The image itself is legal, but the terms allowing use of the font in rasterized images disallowed additional commercial reuse of the font or image without repurchasing of the license from adobe or the foundry.

All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chuck,

Thank you for clarifying your doubts.

Indeed, only the Adobe CC subscriber is allowed to use Adobe CC fonts for commercial work. However, once the work is converted to pixels or outlines, it is no longer considered a font. Embedding a font in a PDF file still counts as a font, but this secure way is permitted by the license. The font file itself is not embedded in a PNG pixel file or SVG vector file.

Consider this scenario: if I take a photo of a storefront with a specific typeface, I can sell that photo or make it public domain. People using that photo don’t need to license the font used because they cannot extract and use the font to create new texts. If your interpretation were correct, 90% of Wikimedia images containing text would be illegal.

One more scenario: I can layout a PDF info sheet with a long text, possibly including the name of the font used, and make the exported PDF document public domain. People can print and sell this document or create new documents using parts of the PDF, either as in-frame or as rasterized.

And one more scenario: If I take a photo of a store front with a typeface, I can sell that photo or make it public domain. People who use that photo do not have to license the font that was used, because they can not use the font to set new texts.

If you were right, 90% of wikimedia images that contain text would be illegal.

But one relevant legal scenario could be that Adobe says “Did the user Flamon have the right to use the font when he produced the image?” I would refer to my real name and provide one invoice from before the date of upload, provided that the font was part of the Adobe CC library at that time. And if I did not comply, any user could register for Adobe CC, generate that image again, upload the same image as a new version or reupload a new one, quit the Adobe CC subscription within 14 days and would also get a complete refund.

Fonts are not typefaces.

If there are specific paragraphs in the license agreement that you believe prohibit this usage, please let me know, and we can discuss how it applies to this case. Flamon (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag map of South West Africa (1928–1990).png

There's an SVG version of this flag map, see File:Flag map of South West Africa (1928–1982).svg Adinar0012 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having an SVG doesn't mean that we just delete the PNG version. Please identify how the PNG is out of scope, and what is the advantage of a deletion? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag map of South Africa and South West Africa (1928–1990).png

There's an SVG version of this flag map, see File:Flag map of South Africa (1928–1982, with South West Africa).svg Adinar0012 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The process is to label PNG with the template {{Vector version available}} not to think deletion. What is the issue with both file type versions existing? Why would we take away user choice? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carte des Zirides.jpg

Carte fantaisiste non sourcée qui induit les gens en erreur 2A01:CB11:8038:4D07:1822:BE6A:FA5A:3C24 09:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zirid dynasty - dynastie Ziride.jpg

Unsourced fantasy map that misleads people 2A01:CB11:8038:4D07:1822:BE6A:FA5A:3C24 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dynastie Ziride 1.jpg

Carte fantaisiste non sourcée qui induit les gens en erreur 2A01:CB11:8038:4D07:1822:BE6A:FA5A:3C24 09:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Privéfoto Nina Blom.jpg

no author given and copyvio from linkedin page of this person see https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nina-blom-44305b52_nina-blom-werd-in-jeugd-door-moeder-mishandeld-activity-7076973882275950592-qHDq?originalSubdomain=nl Hoyanova (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:19881127A0117 John BarnesA.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Wvdp as no source (No source since). Converting to regular DR as the source is provided and it appears to match EXIF. Presumably the concern is the that uploader, User:Judophotos, might not be the Judophotos mentioned in the EXIF and watermark. —RP88 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob Santos.jpg

Clear copyright violation - cover from Sports Illustrated in 2022, which is protected under copyright Bilby (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921) (cropped).jpg

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Donald J. Trump (32820377445).jpg, needs permission from the photographer Doug Coulter. Also, a news about WM Commons debate on this photo's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJT Official Portrait (cropped).jpg

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Donald J. Trump (32820377445).jpg, needs permission from the photographer Doug Coulter. Also, a news about WM Commons debate on this photo's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJT Official Portrait cropped.jpg

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Donald J. Trump (32820377445).jpg, needs permission from the photographer Doug Coulter. Also, a news about WM Commons debate on this photo's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Diaka Camara

Not own work, original is credited to Author MOHAMAD MAZBOUDI - we need VRT to keep. Only contribution of a new user

Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DJT Official Portrait.jpg

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:President Donald J. Trump (32820377445).jpg, needs permission from the photographer Doug Coulter. Also, a news about WM Commons debate on this photo's copyright A1Cafel (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:@ Prof Catherine Colebourne FASSA Screenshot 2021-11-13 at 15.17.06.png

The YT video is free but I don't think this photo is. They displayed the photo in the video but don't have rights to the photo - you can see the full photo here https://royalsoc.org.au/blog/society-fellows-elected-as-2021-assa-fellows and https://www.remindinghistories.net/catharine-coleborne Gbawden (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are yiu saying "I don't think this photo is"

or "[they] don't have rights to the photo" If its the latter then can you supply a citation. I wouyldnt want doubt to rule our decision. If its the former then its OK we don't need for you to be sure. Victuallers (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the video is free, how would a screenshot of it not be free? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They need to have rights for the photo to be freely hosted here. You can't take a Getty image, display it in your video and claim its CC. Its a DW of a copyrighted image Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a screencap of a freely licensed video? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Море77 (talk · contribs)

1992/2002 artwork, needs VRT from artist IF in scope

Gbawden (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solar lights.jpg

CGI image uploaded for a now-deleted spam page on enwiki, by an SPI spam account. May not genuinely be their own work. Belbury (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berthelsdorf 15.09.2023, Foto Holger Hinz - PHH 4082.jpg

possible copyvio © Holger Hinz - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KMO Gröditz 12.10.2023, Foto Martin Pizga - DSC 3605.jpg

possible copyvio © Martin Pizga - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alireza jadidi pic.jpg

This image gives wrong information to the audience Moretv33 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Invalid deletion rationale 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 12:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this image as soon as possible, because the information is incorrect Jackcamera2 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's incorrect information in the file description, edit it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete VRT needed. 186.172.150.177 01:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Кутлуг Бильге Каган.jpg

No source authorisation. Incall (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luc Frieden - President of Eurochambres.jpg

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:President Susan Edwards.jpg

Wright State University is not part of the US Federal Government, thus the PD license is invalid A1Cafel (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rugby Guy Pardiès 1970s.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Daxipedia as no permission (No permission since) Krd 13:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely a copyvio, as there is no evidence of permission of reuse. If the author is unknown, 1970 is not enough old to have a free licence picture. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 20:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:4EVER49 V2.1 Full Colour 600x600.png

No author and no permission, copyvio from https://4ever49radio.nl/ which clearly states "copyright 4EVER49RADIO" Hoyanova (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the language quoted in COM:TOO Netherlands, I think this is above it, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by غريب1 (talk · contribs)

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

Yann (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of free license or PD -> Delete. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by غريب1 (talk · contribs)

Getty images. While the license is plausible, we need evidence that it is valid.

Yann (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for the latter of the two images, in which the subject died in 1953. {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} is pretty clear that that is free to use. Getty continues to market many images in the Popperfoto collection which are definitively in the public domain, and this is one of them. Abovfold (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. The first one is {{PD-Italy}} and the second one is {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fix. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by غريب1 (talk · contribs)

all of them are old photos with no metadata low resolution wrong license, most likely copyvios

Waqar💬 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many. Many of these images are of Ibn Saud, which are almost certain to be in the public domain per {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}, as he died in 1953. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rajoy-sobre-cobro.jpg

COM:DW: Unknown source of the potrait of Mariano Rajoy A1Cafel (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panoramica01.JPG

Adding this as well:

Unnecessary redirect Oscar_. (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Tableau livre (talk · contribs)

Permission of each painter needed via COM:OTRS.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2019112210003186 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 14:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Tableau livre (talk · contribs)

not own work. Permission is needed

Estopedist1 (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ju Ta 04:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tableau livre (talk · contribs)

problematic images:

File:Nikolai Kormašov Eestimaa Teed 1986.jpg - permission from the artist is needed

Other images are thumbnails, unlike that own work. Deletion per COM:PCP

Estopedist1 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 1kasutaja (talk · contribs)

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed.

Estopedist1 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lithuanian Flag project - September 1917.svg

Duplicate of File:Flag of Lithuania during the Vilnius Conference.svg. – Sbaio (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SRL Diagnostics Logo.png

The Brand "SRL DIagnostics" Logo is Different than this logo. 146.196.37.70 17:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indian foreign service GOI.jpg

This is the official emblem of Republic of India and cannot be used for a specific civil service. There is officially NO logo or emblem for "Indian Foreign Service". No logo or emblem has been approved by Cabinet of India, Ministry of Personnel GOI. The IRS has an official logo but Foreign Service does not. Additionally, this image has been directly lifted out of Google Images without any copyright information or Government of India certifying it for official purposes. This image needs to be deleted for lack of verified sources and non availability of federal Government of India stamp or authentication. 2405:201:4005:914E:51BB:8376:412F:2E9E 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - In use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian foreign service GOI.jpg

THis is not the official logo of the Indian Foreign Service. Which link or source of Government of India says that this is the official seal. logo and trandemark of Indian Foreign Service. This image has been stolen from the internet. The user should give written permission for the copyright of this image or this image should be deleted. A similar image has been deleted before but has been posted here again. Thanks. 122.171.19.146 19:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brilsmurf (01).jpg

Violation of COM:TOYS. Copyrighted character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

waarom juist deze verwijderen, geldt dat dan niet ook voor al die andere smurfen in Category:Smurfs? Alle afbeeldingen van smurfpoppetjes met een houten achtergrond in deze Category:Smurfs characters, zijn door mij gemaakt van poppetjes die ik zelf in mijn bezit heb.--Agaath (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deze brilsmurf wordt op 4 plaatsen gebruikt. Worden al die gebruikers daar ook van op de hoogte gesteld en of hun mening gevraagd?--Agaath (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soviet Anthem 1943.webm

This file was initially tagged by PizzaKing13 as Copyvio (Copyright) and the most recent rationale was: violation|1=False own work claim. Is not public domain in Russia per COM:RUSSIA, no proof of otherwise PD or CC

Converting to DR to make undeletion easier. Composition is not PD in Russia. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🖕 All my hard work for nothing! IT'S JUST A FECKIN' VIDEO MAN! 🖕 ILoveDenpaMen48 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution is appreciated, but copyright can be complex (the video itself might be fine, the song composition though is definitely still in coyright) and copyright terms are generally long. Don't worry though, this file would eventually be restored when the song's copyright expires. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: this composition is public domain in Russia if Alexander Alexandrov died in 1946. エルコボラ (話す) 02:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the lyricists died in 2009 though. Abzeronow (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The USSR and Russian anthem are exempt from copyright even if the author did not work for the government according to Russian law. One type of exempt works is:

State emblems and official signs (flags, armorial bearings, decorations, monetary signs and other State symbols and official signs).

This means any state symbol (insignia, monetary signs, stamps, or national anthems) is not copyrighted even if the government didn't make it, but not every government work is exempt (e.g. files of Soviet Central Television logos were deleted even if this is state media). A national anthem is unanimously a state symbol, and the definition of a "state" is not restricted to currently existing states. Thus, the Soviet anthem is not copyrighted.

As for the film, the general term applies to films, now that we know this isn't the uploader's own work and the author is unknown, we must look at the term as of 1996:

Standard: Life+50 years
Anonymous and pseudonymous works: Publish+50 years
Posthumous works: Publish+50 years

So this film published in 1943 fell into the public domain in 1994 and the copyright extension only occured in 2004, so this is PD in both Russia and the US. VTSGsRock (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Copyright It Is A Free Video To Be Viewed By Everyone As It Is A Historic/History Teaching Video. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C6:831C:4B01:6435:94C4:1480:7D3C (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1986 Dennis 4x4 in Beige, Front Right, 04-03-2022.jpg

Request by uploader: Filename is inaccurate, photo is low quality and does not effectively represent the vehicle, the car was not the model I thought it was and there are already far better photos of this model of car on commons. Elise240SX (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnMelvin Paris2006.jpg

Unused image of non-notable person: en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John K. Melvin Nutshinou ^Talk! 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Italy logos

COM:TOO UK (the "Three" brand is registered in UK), like File:Drei Austria.svg, File:Three Ireland logo.svg, File:3Fiber Infostrada.png, File:3 Hong Kong logo.svg --InterComMan (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although "Three" brand is registered in UK, in my opinion this is Italian logo, not British. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3Fiber logo was also theoretically registered in Italy, but it was removed anyway. So I think the UK logo regulation applies. InterComMan (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

File:Kim Yoo-jung signature.png

no source no permission Hoyanova (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This signature is believed to be ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it falls below the required level of originality for copyright protection both in the United States and in the source country (if different). In this case, the source country (e.g. the country of nationality of the signatory) is believed to be South Korea.

Note that this tag cannot be used on all signatures, as not all signatures are copyright-free.

See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag for an explanation of when the tag may be used.

This is the license stated as every other celebrity signatures that's uploaded on here Mikikooo (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK CENTRAL HONG KONG Stanley Street morning NOV-2020 SS2 11.jpg

Non-free 2D works in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo443.jpg

complex logo, need permission via COM:VRT Wdwd (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo aus einem Katalog von 1987. Der Verlag existiert seit 1989 nicht mehr. Ein Rechtsnachfolger ist nicht bekannt. 2003:FC:D71E:3B84:C1AB:7DB7:C67A:DB6 11:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very complex, and it's unclear to me whether this is really over COM:TOO Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italia 7 Gold.png

I don't think it's below the threshold of originality. Andrek02 (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question User:Andrek02, you really think it's more complex than the "simple" logos shown at COM:TOO Italy? I think it's less complex, but I'm interested in your argument to the contrary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek it is not just made up of simple fonts, lines and geometric shapes: colors are shaded and the star at the bottom right is superimposed on the writing. Andrek02 (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know all of that, but how is that more complex than the logos shown at COM:TOO Italy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the things I wrote above Andrek02 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the examples given at COM:TOO Italy are just simple fonts, lines and shapes. Or is there any specific example of how a bit of a shading effect made a logo over COM:TOO in an Italian court's decision? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm

In the Liquid Television episode featuring the short, it is listed as having a distributor, meaning it is probably copyrighted. RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ILP family2.png

Possible copyright violation: claimed as own work, while admitting it is taken from "Ivan Bratko's book" Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Epareuse, bras avancé.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Trizek as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The source image is not under free-licence. This is not the source. Yann (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what could be better? The photo is the same photos as on the company website, and it represents a product sold by the company. It is difficult to have something better. :) Trizek ^{from FR} 15:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 possibilities, and among them 2 would be OK for us: 1. It was copied from another website; 2. The uploader is the photographer, and also uploaded it to rousseau-web.com; 3. The uploader is the photographer, and someone else uploaded it to rousseau-web.com. Yann (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you know how it works how corporate photos are taken and how newbies pick any random image, actually better than I do. I don't get why this obvious copyvio case is not that obvious to you. Trizek ^{from FR} 09:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Right To Dream.png

Possibly above COM:TOO Ghana, Jonteemil (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple logo with a star and some letters, so I think it is not an object of copyright in respect to US law. عبدالله Abdallah (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons need to be free in both the US and the country of origin, in this case Ghana. So if we can't prove that it's below TOO in Ghana, it has to be deleted even if it's below TOO in the US. Jonteemil (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clemente Merlo.jpg

No source at all, probable copyright infringement. Found an identical copy in Tagliavini 1982: in that case the license would be wrong. Carnby (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets PD-Italy and USA. Republishing an historic image does not transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20171027-AMS-LSC-1261 (24216737348).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sign was made by an employee of the United States Government and as such is Public Domain (PD). This market is owned and controlled by the U.S. Depapartment of Agriculture (USDA). @A1Cafel, See: https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/initiatives/usda-farmers-market [20].

Also see the USDA logo "VegU" and vegetable education program is seen here: https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/initiatives/usda-farmers-market/usda-farmers-markets-vegu-program [21]. That page states,

"VegU is a produce education program launched in 2016 by USDA Farmers Market. Learn to properly grow, pick, prepare and store produce at free weekly 10-minute demos at the USDA Farmers Market on the corner of 14th St SW and Independence Ave SW." (emphasis added).

-- Ooligan (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:USDA visit to Pokomoke City, MD on Sunday on March 31, 2024 - 1.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please, Rev del the original. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that remains after cropping is a blurry useless mess. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The foreground is in focus and beyond is and boat and the Pocomoke River, which is designated as a "Scenic" river by the State of Maryland. Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

River was largely obscured by the blurry useless mess, we do have better options to illustrate the river. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A VRT note should be submitted within 7 days, from the photographer of the photo used on the sign and he is also this billboard's maker. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlusconi Andreotti 1984.jpg

Photo published in Italy in 1984. Currently it is in the public domain in the country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this file. Günther Frager (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Władysław Daszewski, kostiumy, Zemsta, Fredro, 1962.jpg

Invalid copyright template: This is a 2D copy of a copyrighted work (Daszewski died in 1971, copyright expires in 2042); the mentioned copyright law exception does not apply to drawings. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

Ankry (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"zgodnie z art. 3 ustawy z dnia 29 marca 1926 r. oraz art. 2 ustawy z dnia 10 lipca 1952 r. o prawie autorskim fotografie polskich autorów (lub fotografie, które ukazały się po raz pierwszy w Polsce lub równocześnie w Polsce i za granicą) opublikowane bez wyraźnego zastrzeżenia praw autorskich przed uchwaleniem ustawy z dnia 23 maja 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych nie podlegają ochronie – należy domniemywać, że są własnością publiczną". MOs810 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Transfiguration church in Katowice

Modern architecture. No free license from the architect / sculptor. No FoP for interiors in Poland.

Ankry (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if File:20231006 Transfiguration Catholic Church Katowice Poland 01.jpg violates any copyright. Neither altar nor stained glasses is a main subject of copyright (altar is far away and no stained glass in fully depicted), a cross is to simple shaped to be copyrighted and benches are utilitarian objects. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 21:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utworem chronionym jest w tym przypadku architektura wnętrza. Oczywiście można twierdzić, że nie przedstawia ona cech utworu, tyle że wtedy wchodzimy na bardzo grząski grunt rozważań, czy architektura modernistyczna jest twórcza, czy też nie. Ja bym jednak uznał że jest, bo jeżeli nie, to wyrzucamy spory kawałek sztuki (?) współczesnej, od supermatyzmu poczynając :) --Teukros (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polandball Map of the World 2014.png

From https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/29k33g/polandball_map_of_the_world_2014/, file at given source doesn't seem to have the rights to publish this image under a CC license Nutshinou ^Talk! 21:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The site from where I extracted the image specifies that the content there is under a CC license. Universalis (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't look like the author of that Reddit post published that themselves to said website. https://zhpolandball.miraheze.org/wiki/File:Reddit_brain4breakfast_Polandball_Map_of_the_World_2014.png says ATicketToTomorrow uploaded it, not brain4breakfast Nutshinou ^Talk! 11:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

File:Juan Taborcía.jpg

Quien es? 186.174.95.57 02:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taborcía and Gómez.jpg

Quienes son? 186.174.95.57 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro Municipal, Treinta y Tres.jpg

Extraída desde Flickr. La licencia otorgada por quien la subió expresa que “el archivo multimedia es de dominio público en los Estados Unidos . Esto se aplica a obras estadounidenses” siendo que el archivo no es una obra estadounidense, si no de propiedad de la Biblioteca Nacional. Estaré más atento en las próximas subidas desde la plataforma JacobinoWunsh (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Extracted from Flickr. The license granted by the uploader states that “the multimedia file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to American works” since the archive is not an American work, but rather property of the National Library of Uruguay, made by Aníbal Pintos. I will be more attentive in the next uploads from the platform" --RAN (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Switched from PD-US to PD worldwide. No need to nominate for deletion when a simple fix is available. --RAN (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Republic's flag.png

Out of scope: fictitious flag (cf. https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Repubblica_della_Base_dei_Bambù). Omphalographer (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Flag of Khalistan (Sikh Homeland).png

Out of scope: unused low-quality duplicate of File:Flag-of-Khalistan.svg (which predates this file). Omphalographer (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Free at Last (5348588795).jpg

Banners are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poster is work of the European Union government per {{European Union Government}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Free at Last (5348588795).jpg

This image was nominated for deletion last year but was kept because it is supposedly freely licensed by the European Union. Per the European Union Commission Decision European Union Commission Decision, which the permission section of the file links to, the decision pertains to "the reuse of Commission documents." Further, the document specifically says "This Decision determines the conditions for the reuse of documents held by the Commission or on its behalf by the Publications Office of the European Union (the Publications Office) with the aim of facilitating a wider reuse of information." So the permission clearly isn't valid since posters are not informational "documents." Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the legal language that makes clear that this is not informational? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poland regions travel map revised (Edited).png

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 08:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was because the image is described as an edited version of the map of Poland without specifying what original map it is referring to. Belbury (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source image is, unsurprisingly, File:Poland regions travel map revised.png (which is itself based on File:Poland Regions map.png), and the "edits" appear to be assigning different colors to some of the voivodeships (provinces) of Poland. All of these maps are attempts to organize the voivodeships into arbitrary "regions", and have been questioned previously on that front (cf. File talk:Poland Regions map.png). This edited version has no clear logic behind it and isn't in use, and should be deleted on that basis. Omphalographer (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the problem isn't copyright-related, then COM:INUSE applies. The file isn't in use now, of course, as it was removed by the Commons delinker after deletion. What arbitrary regions to use in the travel guide is up to the Wikivoyage community; voy:en:Talk:Poland is the place to discuss that, and it has indeed been discussed. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep goodness please stop using non-sequiteur arguments to justify deleting perfectly in-scope files. There is no copyright-related issue as far as I can see here. --SHB2000 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, leave Wikivoyage alone when there's no legal need to mess with us. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fedor Malykhin.jpg

Невозможно распознать объект Степан Мильчевский (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Object clearly identifiable via shirt number. Xgeorg (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian National 7312.JPG

It’s copyrighted by RRPictureArchives.NET and was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons likely without permission by the actual owner of the image Mr Mines Engine (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of this image and uploaded it myself. O484 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O484, what do you mean by "owner"? Did you shoot the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took this photo myself. O484 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I guess to demonstrate that, you should contact COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ICJ South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention).jpg

Hello. Please wait a little bit as I sent an email to the IJC media center and still waiting for a response. Freedom's Falcon (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frölunda Hockey.gif

Redundant to File:Frölunda.png. Jonteemil (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salaamathi.ogg

Recording made in 1979, the stated licence is false and the work won’t be in public domain until at least 2029. Polyna V. (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a possibility of obtaining permission from the copyright holder or a legal representative to host the file under an appropriate license, this should be pursued to maintain access to this historically significant work. Ismehela (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ismehela: Let us know how you get on with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyna V.: From where do you get the 1979 date? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the British Library, which is the source of that recording, claims. ‘The musicians that you can hear are the surviving members of the royal band of the Sultanate of Maldives, recorded in 1979 by Hassan Ahmed Maniku.’ Polyna V. (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le chanoine Granger.png

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author Xocolatl (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed. --RAN (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LOUISE EN HIVER - Biligen.jpg

Copyrighted work. No proof of permission. 2A01:CB14:B11:7200:BD2F:4D4:FCEA:7FD6 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graffiti, Market St (158728378).jpg

Copyrighted art per this website, https://www.graffiti.org/hyde/hyde_3.html (see photo near the bottom right of this webpage). COM:PCP. Ooligan (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Bahnhof Laudenbach (Württ)

It is unlikely that images from more than 70 years ago are the own work of the uploader. Therefore, I don't think we can keep those without any further provenance information.

Felix QW (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all. speculation (~unlikely) is not a reason for deletion. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 00:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that the uploader is probably an older guy, so could have been already around in 1951/52, but File:Laudenbach2.jpg very much looks like a scan of a bad photocopy (with caption), making me doubt that it is actually the uploader's "own work" as claimed. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esse Chua 2017 (Unsplash).jpg

We know that its source granted the relevant license. Do you have any reason to think the uploader at the source was not the photographer? Plenty of people don't pay attention to their EXIF data. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, "plenty of people don't pay attention to their EXIF data", but in my experience, very very few images here on Commons have an explicit "All rights reserved" message in the EXIF data. A sampling of other photos by this user on Unsplash did not have this statement in the metadata... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any reason to doubt that the photographer released this image under a free license on Unsplash; the potentially inadvertent inclusion of a copyright statement in the image metadata doesn't annul that. (We run into similar situations occasionally where a book is released by the author under a free license, but still contains statements like "all rights reserved" or "reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited" on its copyright page.) Omphalographer (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prater SV.png

Unlikely that uploader is the original author of logo and has authority to license it. Apparently above relevant TOO COM:TOO Austria Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASV Hohenau.png

Unlikely that uploader is the original author of logo and has authority to license it. Apparently above relevant TOO COM:TOO Austria Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ASKÖ Oedt.png

Unlikely that uploader is the original author of logo and has authority to license it. Apparently above relevant TOO COM:TOO Austria Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heineken Champions Cup CoreLogo 3C CMYK OnLight.png

It already exists in Wikicommons (Heineken Champions Cup.png), and does not comply with copyright. SkyRugby (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roman Środa grób.jpg

Na przedstawionym zdjęciu nie ma grobu piosenkarza Romana Środy. Jest On pochowany we wcześniejszym grobie. Opublikowane zdjęcie prezentuje grób kogoś anonimowego. Mateusz Opasiński (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bardzo możliwe że popełniłem błąd wiec spokojnie możesz usunąć grób jeśli masz zdjęcie tego właściwego.Lukasz2 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dawa Yangzum Sherpa (cropped).jpg

This is not Dawa Yangzum Sherpa. It is the wife Dawa of Chhiring Dorje Sherpa. This woman is not prominent, so it makes no sense to have a cropped version of her. Redrobsche (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copy of Copy of DSC 0000046.jpg

very poor quality image of what is billed as "old cairo"? Out of scope -- Deadstar (msg) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svalyava gerb.png

Non-free image from http://www.svalyava.org/ (that URL is now usurped; see http://web.archive.org/web/20150223092945/http://www.svalyava.org/ instead) ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All officially approved coats of arms and flags of the settlements are in the public domain and are free from copyright according to the legislation of Ukraine. The coat of arms of Svaliava shown here was approved on September 15, 2000 by the decision of the City Council. Vity OKM, 00:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svalava emblem.jpg

Non-free image from http://www.svalyava.org/ (that URL is now usurped; see http://web.archive.org/web/20150223092945/http://www.svalyava.org/ instead) ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 20:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

File:Focus on Trump's Attacks on News Media.webm

This video is not completely a work of Voice of America as it contains content from non-free sources (ABC, the ACLU and Twitter). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Ye Qianyu

Ye Qianyu was a Chinese citizen working in China whose files are generally tagged {{PD-China}}. However, according to PD-China, as he died in 1995, his works in general will leave copyright in 1995+50+1 = 2046, in both PRC and ROC.

Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Simeulue.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Banyumas.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Kebumen.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Seruyan Regency.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this is interesting. You here seem to be emphasizing the claim that I am committing copyright infringement. To be honest, I made this dossier based on File:Lambang Kabupaten Seruyan.png taken from the regency's official website, and only added a background based on this photo source: [22] [23], This kind of flag was actually adopted in the Regency, but I think the photo is indeed an unreliable primary source. Regardless, I think adding {{Extracted from}} is a wiser choice than deleting. Fazoffic (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fazoffic: IMO, instead of {{Extracted from}}, {{Attrib}} seems to fit better. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that's better. Fazoffic (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further information, please see my comments in the related discussion. Fazoffic (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote another user's comment that may explain this,

This is not true, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2007 outlines general guidelines for regional coat of arms and flags, covering provinces, cities, and regencies. According to Article 6.1, regional flags must be square with a 2:3 ratio and feature the coat of arms.
Some provinces have specific regulations regarding their flags, which provide a legal basis for their status. Additionally, under Article 42(b) of Indonesian copyright law, any content derived from regulations cannot be copyrighted, meaning flags governed by specific regulations are in the public domain.
It’s important to note that, unlike regional flags, all regional coat of arms are regulated by specific laws, placing them in the public domain. Since provincial flags are simply the coat of arms placed on a square background, they are considered derivative works of public domain images. As such, anyone arranging the coat of arms on a square background can rightfully claim it as 'own work' and no copyright violation exists.
So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.
According to COM:OOS, Files are considered within scope if they are media files in an allowable free format, freely licensed or in the public domain, realistically useful for educational purposes, and do not contain only excluded educational content. The images in this deletion request meet these criteria, as they are media files, freely licensed or public domain as on my comments mentioned above, and serve an educational purpose by representing regional flags per COM:INUSE.
— Ckfasdf (talk · contribs)

Fazoffic (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Nabire.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Puncak Jaya Regency.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Banggai.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Sidoarjo.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Jayawijaya.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Bulungan.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Bengkalis Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Indragiri Hilir Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Indragiri Hulu Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Kampar Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Kuantan Singingi Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Meranti Islands Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Pelalawan Regency.webp

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Rokan Hilir Regency.svg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Natuna Regency.xcf

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag East Kolaka.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag Kolaka Regency.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag Konawe.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag Islands Konawe.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag north kolaka.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag North Konawe.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag South Konawe.jpg

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Merauke.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Landak.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kerajaan Kaimana Papua.gif

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Manokwari.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Mamuju.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marawa Luak.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Kulon Progo.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Sleman.png

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright. Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Road Odyssey Pictures of 2011 (6313554358).jpg

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is anything novel enough in those to be copyrightable. Very similar to things that were already commonplace (and old) when I was a child in the 1950s. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Farhad Garashov imza.jpg

Delete Copyright does not belong to the uploader of the image. 85.132.29.163 04:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of West Bandung.svg

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Baqotun0023 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The West Bandung Regency flag is based on Article 4 of Regional Regulation No. 4 of 2008. Since it's based on a regulation, Template:PD-IDNoCopyright should apply according to the Indonesian copyright law. Additionally, the license information in the file has been corrected. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kab. Sukabumi.svg

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Baqotun0023 (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Baqotun0023 (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:City Flag of Medan.svg

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Baqotun0023 (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.jpg

LeHardi45 is a sockpuppet account of Sthubertliege.

No historical source of such a flag. However, there is sources for another version of Wallonie Libre with Lorraine cross. Should be delete and preserve other version (File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.svg) LeHardi45 (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other flag you include, this one is certainly not a fantasy. Here is an example of the flag in use displayed on the party's own website (1. A brief online search would also have takien you to this image) which is featured in the website of the provincial government and includes an almost identical flag. I have added this information to the image entry and tagged the other for deletion. Thanks. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Brigade Piron. This flag exists. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nisan Maroeto & Murbilamatirin Nitimihardjo.jpg

Because it is a selfie which is not used in any article Seshu0222 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Misleading rationale for deletion. Very simple inscription and seems to be related to id:Maruto Nitimihardjo. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous deletion reason! The dead person took a photo of their own gravestone? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:پرچم-جکومت-سلوکیان-اسکندر-مقدونی.png

Claims to be پرچم-جکومت-سلوکیان-اسکندر-مقدونی - flag of Seleucid-Alexander-Macedonian rule. No source mentioned, a quick search does not come up with something similar. Without a source, this is not a valid flag and is thus out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colegio Nuestra Señora del Pilar Jerez.jpg

Solicito su borrado inmediato por la interrupción de la conexión con la institución y la pérdida de vinculación con los derechos de la imagen. Ignacio Valdés Zamudio (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Like the dewfall (talk · contribs)

Likely COM:License laundering. These are artworks by Polish artist that are still alive. The photos were taken "from the Internet" or from Facebook (see the initial revision of the files). I marked some of these photos as copyvios, and later the said they were licensed with CC-BY according to https://ssi.edu.pl/, see Special:Diff/903342047. The problem is that it points to a Google Drive with files uploaded yesterday after the files were tagged as copyvios. Also the last archived version of the website doesn't have such notice. We need a COM:VRT from the copyright holder ticket to keep these images.

Günther Frager (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only are the circumstances of these files appearing on the website suspicious, but it's unclear why that website would have the authority to release these images under a CC license. Its statement that "their digital reproductions, with the permission of the authors, are also the property of SSI" makes very little sense. Omphalographer (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an organization that upholds law and objectivity and is usually kind to those contributing to its development. It is not enough for someone to have a suspicion, denial, or belief to block someone. One must demonstrate: (1) that someone's action is illegal; (2) specifically indicate which legal norm is being violated (this norm must be cited); (3) state what formal and minimal documents someone must present to be able to publish a given work, to convince the super editors. Otherwise, deleting someone's contribution to Wikipedia's development is an abuse and an act of violence by the super editors. Actions that have the characteristics of harassing novice editors should also not be undertaken. Like the dewfall (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the dewfall

Congratulations on your effort and contribution. Don't be discouraged. This is normal on Wikipedia, and no one is against you. It's absolutely important to add good, verified photos, images, and files. Everything is OK, but please check the file (image) "Adam Eden Nude": notice that it is stylistically different, and there may have been an error. I am "preemptively" removing it from Jerominek's gallery in her entry. It can always be restored, but it seems to me that it isn't hers. Her style is very recognizable. Also, contact Jerominek and check the shared gallery of authors associated with the Silesian School of Iconography. Jan Sandomierski (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sandomierski, thank you for your kind words. You were indeed right about the "Adam Eden Nude" file, and I checked that it does not belong to Monika Jerominek, nor is it in the resources shared by the creators of the Silesian School of Iconography. I made a mistake. It needs to be deleted. It belongs to Yaryna Movochan, but I have no contact with her. Too bad. Once again, thank you for your substantive comments. Like the dewfall (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omphalographer, please help me delete the file "Adam Eden Nude" File:Jerominek Adam.jpg because I made a mistake: I do not have the rights to it, and I was wrong about the author. I can't delete it myself. I apologize. Like the dewfall (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter Frager, please help me delete the file "Adam Eden Nude" File:Jerominek Adam.jpg because I made a mistake: I do not have the rights to it, and I was wrong about the author. I can't delete it myself. I apologize. Like the dewfall (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support There are the original Icins from The Slaska Szkaola Ikonograficzna. In same times the webside of this Institutions will be improwe. Michał Lew (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prof. Rudolf Buchała - graf. Aleksander Martyniak.jpg

błędny autor w szczegółach właściwości Martyniakaleksander (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.svg

I'm unable to find any reference to this flag outside of Wikipedia. Tempted to say that this is imaginary work and therefore out of scope. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was able to find https://www.belgiumwwii.be/belgique-en-guerre/articles/wallonie-libre-la.html which shows a logo (not a flag) related to a Resistance movement called "La Wallonie Libre". Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in favor of removing this made-up flag, and replacing its usage with the actual original logo. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you want to remove the flag. There are sources relating the existence of this flag. The file is usefull. Sthubertliege (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 reasons why I think this file should be removed:

Unless a source is provided that this logo was used as a flag, it is an interpretation of the logo and therefore not historically accurate.
An actual picture of the flag would be preferable to this file which has gone through several versions, hinting at the fact that it is not accurate.

The file can be replaced with File:Logo La Wallonie Libre.png. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. You can add {{Factual accuracy}} for now. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.svg

Unsourced/fantasy flag. Although it is true that the central emblem was indeed used by the underground newspaper Wallonie Libre during the occupation period, there is no evidence that it was ever made into a flag or has any existence outside of the creator's mind. The movement has indeed used another flag since the 1970s (e.g. 1, 2) which we already have on commons in a separate file. Any uses of this file on Wikipedia are easily substitutable with one of the two other images and appear to have been added by the creator or a closely affiliated account. ((Brigade Piron (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not undertsand why you want to delete this file. The flag has been built directly from archives of the website : Wallonie libre (La) (belgiumwwii.be), which contains lot of references of the red and yellow logo. The are lots of examples on this website : La Wallonie Libre | The Belgian War Press (cegesoma.be). On the other hand, this file : File:Flag of Wallonie Libre.jpg — Wikimedia Commons has been built on pure imagination ! You should focus your deletation efforts on this document, not mine. Really, I do not see why you want to delete this file. We have perfectly the right to build a modern version of the flag based on original documents. The flag is correctly referencing the original logo with walloon rooster and Lorraine cross. There is no reason why it would makes problem for you. Please respect users right to import better quality version of historical logo, wich is a way to improve Wikipedia files. Sthubertliege (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that this flag has ever existed. I'm talking about a flag, not a logo. Transforming a logo into a flag that never existed is what is discussed here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The logo clearly existed - and we already have it here although frankly I'm not sure of the copyright position. The use of the devise as part of a flag is pure fantasy, however. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence that this logo was used as a flag, and it was added to Wikipedia articles such as List of Belgian flags. Where needed, the historically accurate File:Logo La Wallonie Libre.png should be used instead. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Drbogdan

These images all fall into three categories: self portraits (beyond the one used on Drbogdan's profile, which I've left untouched), figures and images from his dissertation which was removed from Wikipedia for webhosting via MfD but which still has remnants here, and screenshot backups of a personal template on Wikipedia which was intended for the user page of Drbogdan (who is now CBANned) --Warrenmck (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~The nominator even failed to provide a deletion discussion.~~ The uploader of these files is a notable contributor and these files are relevant, partly in use, e.g. adding to the credential of the user. --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective You've got to give editors a moment to actually upload the discussion in cases of large batches of images. There are a substantial number of images in this batch, it took me more than a little bit to write all of the file names and tag the images. To anyone reading this, the keep vote came before I'd added any content at all to this page. The uploader of these files has been CBANned from Wikipedia for promotional content and low quality editing and the only images I've tagged for deletion were either self portraits, images from a dissertation which was removed on webosting grounds, or screenshotted backups of a template. Warrenmck (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tool to batch nominate and it seemed like you were finished. Didn't know the user was banned on WP now, I think there really were issues with the user but on the other hand he partly contributed very constructively, partly creating heavily-used templates. I don't think the user should be banned for the issues there are even though he should have changed that and probably would have but I haven't looked into it. I think the dissertation could be deleted as well as old images of the templates, but not the latest ones. I think the diploma images could stay but it seems like the files you nominated indeed are deleteworthy and not of the templates I thought so I'll strike my Keep. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling for a ban here, just a removal of these images. A huge amount of this users other images are in use and high quality. Note I'm not calling for the deletion of a template, I'm calling for the deletion of screenshot backups of old versions of a userspace template as out of scope.

I missed there was a tool, so you can possibly understand how this took a minute when done manually! Warrenmck (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was not saying or implying you were calling for that and don't know why you clarified this. The same applies to calling for deletion of a template, I didn't suggest you were saying so. Good if this was helpful info. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, probably a pre-coffee reading comprehension issue on my part in that case. Warrenmck (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely to be useful to people other than the uploader. One exception: this one is pretty cool and should be kept. It is in use on the Neutron activation analysis article on enwiki. File:Beamline-self-portrait.jpg is in a similar situation (selfportraits of Wikipedians which are also suitable for use in Wikipedia articles) and it has been uploaded by Warrenmck. Note that so-called Wikipedians in residence just straight up upload their portraits (for some reason) so why not have Category:Photographs of Wikipedians? Polygnotus (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(selfportraits of Wikipedians which are also suitable for use in Wikipedia articles) and it has been uploaded by Warrenmck.

note this is explicitly why I left the portrait that he has on his user page off of this list of uploads for deletion list here :) Warrenmck (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Países megadiversos.png

F5 _ The file is not referenced to any source and has no source to verify the information. Mostafamirchouli (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MineEdu (talk · contribs)

User blocked for copyvios, unlikely to be OK.

Yann (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coat of arms, you can see that they are making corrections to the colors or the text and uploading the corrections. --RAN (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Olympic Phryge

These are all images of the 2024 Paris Olympic mascot. Some are the mascot itself and others plush toys. In either case, these are derivative works of a copyrighted mascot.

Whpq (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these images are costumes of the mascot, those should be kept as per Commons policy (see "Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?"). Regarding the stuffed dolls, I think they should also be kept due to Commons:De minimis and Lack of Harm.--BugWarp (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A professional mascot costume is not a utilitarian object, and can be protected by copyright. It's much more akin to a sculpture with a person inside it than an article of clothing.

The stuffed toys are clearly covered by COM:TOYS; there's no ambiguity here. The toys are not de minimis (they are the primary objects in the photo), and "lack of harm" is not a defense. Omphalographer (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I insist, the costumes can be kept per Commons policy (see for example Lyo and Merly), why should we go against it on the eve of the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics?

And in many images, the toys are not the main subject, and even cropping the images wouldn't make for a proper use.--BugWarp (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that those images are within policy either. Regardless - we don't make exceptions to copyright policy for special occasions. If anything, the fact that the Olympics are about to start is a compelling reason to remove images which may be copyright violations so that downstream users don't inadvertently use images from Commons which we can't guarantee are freely reusable. Omphalographer (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep specifically the files depicting a performer in costume, as Commons has lots of precedent for keeping images of costumed performers (IE, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg and the dozens of categories of character cosplays).

Delete the toy images per COM:TOYS. Di (they-them) (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your referring to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay, and specifically Present consensus is that "files that merely show people cosplaying" are acceptable.. However, in this instance, these are not cosplayers, but the actual official mascot costumes. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's really not any difference between a cosplayer and an official performer; both are performers in costume. I think that the phrase "merely show people cosplaying" can reasonably be extended to "merely show people performing in costume" because cosplay is just costumed performance by fans. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for performers in costume but for toys => Deletion. Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added all the stuffed Phryges to Category:Stuffed Phryges (mascots). Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All costumes/ cosplay. delete all toys. -- Ooligan (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-terrorist operation in eastern Ukraine (War Ukraine) (27095245666).jpg

The file is sourced from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ministryofdefenceua/27095245666/ which appears plausible to me, but AP also claims to be copyright holder at: https://newsroom.ap.org/editorial-photos-videos/search?query=852436505613&mediaType=photo&st=keyword Krd 12:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos uploaded by Айнур Алматинский ГПЗ

Photos with clear authorship in metadata, author haven't done these uploads and asks me to delete the photos. --Красный ^{wanna talk?} 13:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台北市 Taipei 松山區 SongShan District 敦化北路 Dunhua North Road 茹曦酒店 Illume Hotel shop 7-Eleven Store March 2024 R12S 02.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartel De Sinaloa.png

Possible Fake - no reputed sources four use of such "logo") Stauffen (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I know I’m a random guy without an account, but I searched and could not find anything that suggested the image was real. When I saw it, it immediately struck me as fake and fanmade. It’s things like this that make people lose a little faith in Wikipedia’s credibility. That’s not what happened with me, but especially with El Mayo’s recent arrest, I wouldn’t be surprised if attention is drawn to it within the next week or two. 2604:3D09:D078:6A00:E194:3AD2:AD77:AAE3 22:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024194210444 2024-07-12 Bregenzer Festspiele - Der Freischütz - Sven - 5DS R - 0001 - 5DSR9914.jpg

No freedom of panorama. See: § 54 Abs. 1 Z 5 UrhG Bauer Alfons (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation was provided and can be checked via OTRS. Svema (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also have a permission of the stage designer himself, cause it's a not permanent building? OTRS is not valid for stage design. --Bauer Alfons (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 An accreditation does not normally include the stage designer's copyright release to reproduce his work. Rather, it is merely a release from the theatre to attend and reproduce its performance. --Plani (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Images_1_sun.jpg and File:Images 2 heart.jpg

The source website provided no longer exists, and seems to have been an early site for people to upload and share photos under cc-0 licence. There is no information about original uploader, Commons uploader picked cc-sa-4 licence here. I'm not sure this is all OK to keep, but as it's been here so long already (2016), perhaps this horse has bolted. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sevan (noir et blanc).jpg

Puede o no puede ser own work. 200.39.139.7 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a deletion reason here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sevan (couleur).jpg

Puede o no puede ser own work. 200.39.139.7 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a deletion reason here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Use Lens. 200.39.139.7 15:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a deletion reason. Speak plainly in any language instead of insinuating. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twin Scream on Oktava.jpg

Painting? If it is just a photo consider withdrawn, it looked like a painting to me.186.175.3.108 19:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athena-Air-RAE-Credit Seth Christie.jpg

copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah aaron himself gave me the image.

it's nowhere elce on the internet

and i have express premission so i think it's ok Rowan hunter little plante (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have Seth Christie contact COM:VRT to personally give his permission and agreement with the terms of the Creative Commons Copyleft license required for images to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, the image has to be deleted. Aaron is the subject, not the photographer/copyright holder. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1938 NZ league team for Australian tour.jpg

1938 photograph that is now public domain in New Zealand as the photographer died in 1971, but not PD in the US yet since this was still copyrighted in 1996. Abzeronow (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nobu-Glitter&candy.png

Own work? 186.175.3.108 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poo bins 120522.jpg

Own work! 186.175.3.108 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista panorámica de punta veleros del distrito de Los Órganos, Talara- Piura, 02, JPG.jpg

imagen está borrosa Yhhue91 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paseo fotográfico de avistamiento de Ballenas en Los Órganos 05.jpg

imagen de poco valor informativo Yhhue91 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paseo fotográfico de avistamiento de Ballenas en Los Órganos 06.jpg

no posee valor informativo Yhhue91 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hungarians slavs vlachs 10th 12th.png

1.It is fake, it doesnt reflect the truth. For example, Transylvania already had a lot of Hungarian settlemets. Seethis image, which is referenced with a book from the Columbia University Press (Bóna, István; Translation by Péter Szaffkó (2001). The Settlement of Transylvania in the 10th and 11th Centuries. Columbia University Press, New York,. ISBN 0-88033-479-7. http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/54.html.) in article Transylvania. 2) This map is not neutral, it reflects serb nacionalist POV. The used source for this map was written by "historian" Jovan Pejin, who is a serb nacionalist, also the member of the Serbian People's Movement. He is famous over his anti-Croatian and anti-Hungarian statements. (like: "Croatians do not exist as a nation", January 25, 2004, "accused Hungarians, Slovaks and Romanians of "occupying" Serbian territory in Vojvodina since the 10th Century", and anti minority books like "Autonomija Vojvodine" -- Košmar srpskog naroda/Autonomy of Vojvodina- Nightmare of the Serbian people. Currently, he is having a trial for this. (initiated by minister Jovan Branislav Lečić) It has 0 reliable, neutral,verifiable sources. --ЛенинВладимир (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced work based on the book of historian Jovan Pejin and Wiki projects are here to present all valid opinions about various subjects. Other historians might have different opinion about that subject and nobody stopping you to draw a map that will reflect such opinions, but opinion of historian Pejin is a valid opinion as well. Also note that image "MagyarsInTransylvania.PNG" that you presented is completelly unsourced (I do not see where you found info that such map is "referenced with a book from the Columbia University Press"?) and also uploaded by known Hungarian nationalist user:Fz22. But, even so, these two maps do not contradict one to another since Pejin did not showed areas were Hungarians lived but only areas where Hungarians were in majority (which does not mean that they did not lived as a minority among Slavs as well). Here you can see also another map uploaded by another Hungarian user, which also show that Slavs lived in the entire territory where Pejin presented them: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_b._10th_century.png As for historian Pejin, his political involvement is not relevant here - he is an professional historian-archivist (and he was also a director of the Archive of Serbia from 2001 to 2003: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=jovan+pejin+archivist&btnG=Google+Search ), so he is a relevant person to present his opinion about historical subjects. I made this map according to the map from the book "Velikomađarski kapric" writen by Pejin, which is in fact very good book about history of Greater Hungarian irredentism and it is writen in very professional way without nationalist anti-Hungarian statements. Also, "www.hhrf.org" that you posted as a source against reliability of Pejin as a historian is an nationalistic Hungarian web site and thus we cannot trust to that site regarding statements about historian who wrote a book about history of Hungarian nationalism. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that user:ЛенинВладимир that proposed this map for deletion is obviously a sockpuppet of some kind since he have only a few edits and his account was created on 8 January 2010. PANONIAN (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like nonsense, but is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my explanation above. PANONIAN (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commons can contain childish images like this, but should not be used in Wikipedia (except for example to illustrate anti-Hungarian hatred), as it is extremely biased (or briefly 'false'), made by a well-known anti-Hungarian historian in Serbia (a Slavic country). Qorilla (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer these questions: 1. How exactly this image is "childish"?, 2. How exactly this image could reflect "anti-Hungarian hatred"?, 3. how exactly this image is biased or false?, 4. how exactly this historian is anti-Hungarian? (please quote any possible anti-Hungarian actions or statements that this historian might done or said and then we can analyse such actions or statements to see is he realy anti-Hungarian or Hungarian nationalists only do not like him because of historical facts that he presented and that do not support false historicist claims of Hungarian nationalism), and finaly: 5. how exactly the fact that somebody is from Serbia or Slavic country would determine is he biased or not? PANONIAN (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you know the answer to these questions, so I write this for the readers who don't. This is a map which tries to prove that there were not many Hungarians living there in the early times, and therefore they should shut up outside the smaller-than-ethnic borders created after World War I. The area was populated by many people beforehand, including Slavs, but I guess it is a huge lie to show this map for the 12th century. You could draw one from the 8th century and write a hundred times Slavs on it, as Hungarians moved in around 900. So I can imagine that when they started to settle in the (sparsely populated) Carpathian Basin, there was not many of them in the first years.

I do not see why would somebody falsify a map to "prove that there were not many Hungarians living there in the 10th-12th century" when all historians agree that there were no Hungarians at all in that area in the 9th century. In another words, we do not have problem with historians who "want to prove that there were not many Hungarians", but we have a problem with Hungarian nationalists who want to prove that Hungarians "always" lived in all areas claimed by Greater Hungarian irredentist goal. Therefore, any historian that present any opinion opposite to this would be automatically attacked by Greater Hungarian nationalists. As for time period involved here, historian Pejin clearly say that it refer to 10th-12th century time period, which might not be the case for late 12th century of course, but it certainly could include beginning of that century. However, I clearly stated in the map itself that it is made according to the historian Pejin and that this map represent his opinion only, so I do not see a point of adjusting info in this map to other opinions. You can draw other maps that would reflect opinions of other historians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A shading according to population density would be very beneficial. Also I have seen quite a few maps, but none showed such a small extent. This is the minimal area that the Serbian nationalist historian (who is also involved in political topics as I see) was able to draw. Another childish aspect is that it puts "Slavs" on the map a dozen times, and colors uninhabited areas as Slav.

As I said, you did not proved that Pejin is politically motived in his historical work, so until you prove that, please refrain yourself from such accusations. As for map presentation, there are external sources with maps whose authors mark all these areas as inhabited by Slavs, see this: http://www.home-edu.ru/user/uatml/00000628/rumjancev/drevnieslavjane/rasselenie.jpg or this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Slav-7-8-obrez.png or this: http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/slavs_map.jpg - there is nothing unique in that presentation. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no censuses that time, we can not know the exact ethnic configuration, but giving this map as fact is nonsense. You are right that the fact that one is Serbian, doesn't mean he is automatically manipulative, but this map is. I just wanted to say, it is no wonder why, if one sees where he comes from, and knows what the Serbian nationalism tries to push. Qorilla (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were no censuses, but there are other ways to research population data from that time: data presented by various historians, archaeological research of graves, origin of place names, etc, etc. Of course, different historians might come to different conclusion from that data, but there is no single proof that opinion of Hungarian historians is right and oppinion of Serbian historians wrong. In fact, it is not a purpose of any Wiki project to determine who is right or wrong in any such dispute, but the true purpose of Wiki projects is to present all relevant opinions about all subjects, so let present to readers both, maps made according to Serbian and maps made according to Hungarian historians, so they will conclude for themselves who is right and who is wrong. PANONIAN (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very heated and politically loaded topic, which does not belong to this page, so it's best to close it at this point, with the conclusion that commons can host images that are not universally accepted, as there is no NPOV criteria for media on commons. Qorilla (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, POV and nationalist deletion request. File is in project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungarians slavs vlachs 10th 12th.png

That map is an user made photoshopped map, represent a weird Serbian anti-Hungarian nationalist view, that is really nonsense that only around Budapest lived Hungarians around 1200 in that big Kingdom of Hungary. We know well that Hungary had many Hungarian settlements and Hungarian historical things in the whole kingdom. This is a hardcore abuse of Hungarian history regarding Hungary. Only Budapest is Hungarian but the full Hungarian country was a Slavic country? What a nonsense!

This is a Hungarian National Atlas about Hungarian demographic (made by many scholars during 30 years of researches and based on sources), which is total different than this photoshopped map: https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol3_Ch2.pdf + https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/supplementary_maps.html + https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.6812151,21.2342624,7.00z + https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html + The English version of that atlas won the most prestigious professional prize in the biennial International Cartographic Conference (ICC) was held in Tokyo between 15 and 20 July 2019 by the International Cartographic Association (ICA). I think this tell a lot what was the international feedback regarding this Hungarian atlas. https://mta.hu/english/english-edition-of-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-voted-world-number-one-109950 OrionNimrod (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think is ok to make a fake map that in the kingdom of Hungary in 1200 only around Budapest lived Hungarians?

Or do you think it will be ok to make another fake maps that French lived only around Paris in the Kingdom of French or Germans around only Berlin in the Holy Roman Empire, or Poles only around Warsaw in the kingdom of Poland or English people only around London… etc?

OrionNimrod (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ikan Kekek @OrionNimrod, I also think it would be worth deleting these clearly incorrect maps. There’s no point in keeping them on the wiki.

As I can see, a prize-winning map has been presented as a counter-argument, so it’s unnecessary to keep the incorrect ones, especially since they clearly contradict the facts. And if they were indeed created to spread negative things about another ethnic group, then they definitely should be deleted. CriticKende (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was or I thought it was in use before. I don't have expertise in this topic and don't really care what decision the closing admin makes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungarians slavs vlachs 10th 12th 02.png

That map is an user made photoshopped map, represent a weird Serbian anti-Hungarian nationalist view, that is really nonsense that only around Budapest lived Hungarians around 1200 in that big Kingdom of Hungary. We know well that Hungary had many Hungarian settlements and Hungarian historical things in the whole kingdom. This is a hardcore abuse of Hungarian history regarding Hungary. Only Budapest is Hungarian but the full Hungarian country was a Slavic country? What a nonsense!

This is a Hungarian National Atlas about Hungarian demographic (made by many scholars during 30 years of researches and based on sources), which is total different than this photoshopped map: https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol3_Ch2.pdf + https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/supplementary_maps.html + https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.6812151,21.2342624,7.00z + https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html + The English version of that atlas won the most prestigious professional prize in the biennial International Cartographic Conference (ICC) was held in Tokyo between 15 and 20 July 2019 by the International Cartographic Association (ICA). I think this tell a lot what was the international feedback regarding this Hungarian atlas. https://mta.hu/english/english-edition-of-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-voted-world-number-one-109950 OrionNimrod (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Not a deletion reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think is ok to make a fake map that in the kingdom of Hungary in 1200 only around Budapest lived Hungarians?

Or do you think it will be ok to make another fake maps that French lived only around Paris in the Kingdom of French or Germans around only Berlin in the Holy Roman Empire, or Poles only around Warsaw in the kingdom of Poland or English people only around London… etc? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any expertise in this subject or opinion about the accuracy or inaccuracy of this map. I thought it was in use, but it's not, nor is the other file. I don't care what the admins do with this or the other file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Chris (CIS-A2K) (talk · contribs)

Out of scope -- Personal art from a non-notable artist. Commons is not your web host.

. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In use at meta:CIS-A2K/Reports/Newsletter/April 2024. Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Flags of cities of Indonesia

per in this disscusion The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia, making these representations fictional or entirely fabricated. The authenticity of these flags is highly questionable, as some originate from websites with copyright notices, while others are falsely labeled as "own work" despite being based on provincial shields. Furthermore, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is unclear if transforming a state shield into a state flag aligns with this principle, and I would argue it does not, as many of these flags are fake or derivative works that may already be copyrighted. Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO), with the primary concern being their likely infringement of copyright.

Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these Cities and Regencies flags in Indonesia, I assure you that these flags are based on my research on official media that displayed these flags inside the regional government buildings. So these flags surely not fabricated nor fictional. I admit that only few regional governments in Indonesia have regulation about their flags, the non-official ones exist just because it's commonly used by previous officials. As you said, according to Template:PD-IDGov, there is no copyright infringement for the publication, distribution, communication, or reproduction of state emblems and the national anthem in their original form. It is clear and common in Indonesia if transforming a regional symbol into a regional flag aligns with this principle. The official flags of Provinces of Indonesia are displayed inside the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia.

Thank you for your concern and I hope these flags images not deleted.

Best regards M darmanto (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{Regarding these Cities and Regencies flags in Indonesia, I assure you that these flags are based on my research on official media that displayed these flags inside the regional government buildings}

thank you @M darmanto, because that's literally what i did, i do the research about the flag usage in the official building and then make the flag design in MsWord, although i'm not sure about the detail for some of them (the emblem ratio and base color of the flag), and i think yeah, most of the flags are rarely used in public.

if those files is not deleted anytime in the future, i'll be happy if anyone could help me for the correction. HclUSA (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Matrix Do you think I should whether this discussion may be stopped because in accordance with in discussion you have closed the discussion and maintained it?

Baqotun0023 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baqotun0023 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to focus on each flag individually and focus more on fixing it. As I said in this discussion, I have been working with other people on FOTW itself to figure out if flags are real or not. There are other users in Indonesia who are helping to figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Flag of Yogyakarta City.svg, the flag of the city can be seen at here and here. As for the coat of arms, we can see the information and regulations here. This will show that the file at File:5. Flag of Yogyakarta City.png is completely false and never existed (as we saw with the provincial flag regulation, the flag has to have one background color only). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zscout370: FYI, Article 11(2) of Yogyakarta City Regulation No. 6 of 1979 ("Peraturan Pemerintah Kotamadya Daerah Tingkat II Yogyakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 1979 Tentang Penggunaan Lambang Kotamadya Daerah Tingkat II Yogyakarta") specifies that the background color of the city flag is light green. Btw, In general, the background color of regional flags is typically a single color. However, there are a few exceptions where two or more colors are used in the background. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In general, my comments are the same as in this discussion, but I'll rewrite them here anyway.

The primary issue is that there are no official provincial flags of Indonesia.

This is not true, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2007 outlines general guidelines for regional coat of arms and flags, covering provinces, cities, and regencies. According to Article 6.1, regional flags must be square with a ~~3:2~~ 2:3 ratio and feature the coat of arms.

Some cities have specific regulations regarding their flags, which provide a legal basis for their status. Additionally, under Article 42(b) of Indonesian copyright law, any content derived from regulations cannot be copyrighted, meaning flags governed by specific regulations are in the public domain.

It’s important to note that, unlike cities flags, all cities coat of arms are regulated by specific laws, thus placing them in the public domain. Since cities flags are simply the coat of arms placed on a square background, they are considered derivative works of public domain images. As such, anyone arranging the coat of arms on a square background can rightfully claim it as 'own work' and no copyright violation exists.

Therefore, these images should be deleted due to being out of scope (OOS) and potential copyright violations (COPYVIO)

According to COM:OOS, Files are considered within scope if they are media files in an allowable free format, freely licensed or in the public domain, realistically useful for educational purposes, and do not contain only excluded educational content. The images in this deletion request meet these criteria, as they are media files, freely licensed or public domain as on my comments mentioned above, and serve an educational purpose by representing regional flags per COM:INUSE. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a similar CfD discussion in which the nominator's statement was essentially a paraphrase of the previous CfD. The subject matter is likewise comparable—this case concerns the flags of cities in Indonesia, while the earlier case dealt with the flags of provinces in Indonesia. Accordingly, the rationale for retaining the files in this nomination should be consistent with the previous discussion. That CfD concluded with a 'clear consensus to keep.' I would recommend referring to that prior discussion for guidance. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Files in Category:Aba Nigeria Temple

Images (dating from 2008) claimed to be freely usable. However, {{Grandfathered old file}} does not apply to images uploaded in 2008. A valid permission through COM:VRTS correspondence is needed, instead of blanket statement "Elder and Sister Badger and the Cameroon members took pictures with shared camera for 'everyone to freely use however they want'."

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I received this email from a participant that they were given the pictures by the owner to use however they wanted. Ben forwarded the pics to me for uploading.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Aba Temple photos

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:34:11 -0600

From: Julie [hidden] <julie@[hidden].com>

To: Ben [hidden]<ben@[hidden].com>

Hi Ben: I found the photo you asked for. I have good news and bad

news. The good news is its one of the Badger's photos, and they gave us

permission to use them any way we wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trödel (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC+8)

@Trödel: can you forward this correspondence to COM:VRTS volunteers? Thru: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The file was uploaded in 2008, and cannot be grandfathered. Only files that were uploaded before 2007 can be eligible for grandfathering. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Editor-desatento.png

I don't think Joaquin took this photo if he is in the photo. Not own work. Heylenny (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Drphungmanhcuong (talk · contribs)

Images that are uploaded to promote a service. Out of scope.

0x0a (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheetul.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Gnomingstuff as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BotanyBay.jpg

possible copyvio © Stephan Kleinert - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Photo is indeed by Stephan Kleinert, it was published under CC-BY-SA, with his website stated as the author. The website where it was originally posted with license details is unfortunately no longer online. --Waithamai (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pia Latina.jpg

Zweifelsfrei Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - Bild soll die Hochladerin und Urheberin zeigen, es handelt sich aber zweifelsfrei nicht um ein Selfie

Undoubtedly mislicensing as “own work” - image is supposed to show the uploader and author, but it is undoubtedly not a selfie Lutheraner (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious copyvio, imo a case for a speedy delete. Also out of scope: person is non-notorious, according to deletion of her German Wikipedia article. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Datopaduka (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also:

--0x0a (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Datopaduka (talk · contribs)

looking like screenshot, probably not own work images.

modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 18:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central Hawke's Bay District coat of arms.svg

I suspect that this image is a copyright violation of the logo/crest of the w:Central Hawke's Bay District Council as seen here. While it is in the form of a coat of arms, the uploader has not indicated if it is based on a blazon and thus free from copyright per template:coa blazon. It's always possible that this logo doesn't actually have a blazon and is intead just designed to look like a coat of arms. As such, unless the uploader can provide a source for the blazon, I suspect this is instead based on the image of the logo itself. Radicuil (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palmerston North CoA.png

I am the uploader of this image. I now understand that it is probably a copyright violation as it doesn't comply with template:coa blazon and was based on the image of the Palmerston North coat of arms as seen here and here. While I do beleve there is a blazon for this coat of arms based on at least this, I haven't been able to actually view this or find another source for the blazon. Radicuil (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:第64回京成杯 (2021年1月14日).jpg

File:ヤマニンウルス(プロキオンS制覇時).jpg

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

File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）.jpg

File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚） (cropped).jpg

Suspected infringe child protection, a sex toy made from child body. See discussion page. Lemonaka (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cropped image: Commons:Deletion requests/File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚） (cropped).jpg メイド理世 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: If the image violates child protection policy, why did you upload a cropped version? Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I'm a little bit fuzzy that time. I only cropped the watermark of photos, randomly. Lemonaka (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: should I add the crop to this DR? Dronebogus (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Lemonaka (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t think this constitutes child pornography per se but the implications are sufficiently disturbing/disgusting enough to bring the project into disrepute. For those afraid to click the link: it’s just a silicone foot and is SFW. Dronebogus (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per the previous DR. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:28码脚型飞机杯（右脚）.jpg

Renominated, Suspected ChildPorn, under the request by Special:PermanentLink/903481066#c-Whym-20240723122200-Lemonaka-20240723074300 since last DR was closed badly. Lemonaka (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whym @Dronebogus, requesting again under request, waiting for another sysop to review. Lemonaka (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per same rationale + Yann supervoting and never explaining/reverting it Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an artificial foot, so where is the CP?

Keep, somewhat disgusting but free file which can be educational used, I don't see any reason to delete. TheImaCow (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow see the talk pages of this file. Lemonaka (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this -now for some reason globally locked- person who uploaded this dosen't want to be affilated with the image, it might be possible to revision delete the name, but this dosen't change the file being in scope (considering there are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more explicit images of this subject like this)

No idea if possession of such dolls is illegal, but images of them or their feet are not, at least I can't see any evidence for that. TheImaCow (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheImaCow this one was locked for cross-wiki abuse. They also uploaded some sex toys previously. @Dronebogus pointed out possible problem of the uploader, see archive of AN:U, the topic is "'Assifbus"' Lemonaka (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted T&S as probably should have been done from the start due to the possible concerns. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MatrixContacted long ago, no actions taken or replies got. Lemonaka (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix Any further updates? Lemonaka (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't reply. What do we hire a legal team for :/ —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have confirmation, changing my !vote to Strong

Keep as there are no issues with the file. ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing new since last time. Yann (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Елена Велена.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Oh.provista Qa6r (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Krystian Korolczuk (talk · contribs)

Presumably uploaded for use in the autobiography they wrote in polish Wikipedia - which I have also listed for deletion on that project. Out of scope personal images of a non-notable individual.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teofil Mazur.jpg

Obvious copyright infringement. There is no license information on the source page. 159.205.179.12 17:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeśli nie ma oznaczenia o zastrzeżonych prawach autorskich, to można domniemywać, że jest w domenie publicznej. Ledowiczka (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above: "If there is no copyright marking, it can be presumed that it is in the public domain." PD-Poland, Poland did not allow automatic copyright of anonymous photographs until 1994. --RAN (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High-Resolution Images of old Nebraska License plates

Old versions only (Those posted before July 27, 2024)

COM:PRP and COM:TOO. Plate designs probably exceed the threshold of originality, reuploaded low-resolution images to the same file name. QuickWittedHare (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire files If they're non-free, the size of the image is irrelevant. We don't allow fair use on this project, and fair use is why non-free images are shrunk on English Wikipedia. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, they are used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Nebraska as low quality, is that not fair use? If not, would that mean all images of license plates designed post 1985 are all copyright violations? I can open a request to remove all post 1985 designs. QuickWittedHare (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, 1989, not 1985. QuickWittedHare (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't realize you could upload images directly to the English Wikipedia if you wish to use them for fair use. That is my misunderstanding. Delete all files per COM:TOO and COM:PRP QuickWittedHare (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:19-23-038-davis.jpg

The uploader claims copyright, although he is only the photographer. No statement of original author (painter) exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attribution fixed. Keep if "made public" in 1959. --RAN (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veringenstadt Neubausiedlung Deutstetten 1953.jpg

Improbable own work of the uploader, more than 60 years old at the time of upload. Copyright situation in Germany unclear, but American copyright should certainly still be running until 95 years after publication. Felix QW (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bild zum Eisenbahnunfall Abenheim 24-07-1954 2014-03-10 19-45.jpg

As can be seen at User:Didym/Mobile upload/2014 March 9-12, the user uploaded several copyright violations in this batch of uploads. This is also an unlikely own work since it was almost 60 years old at the time of upload. Felix QW (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gewinnung des Penicillin G, Dresden 1949.png

Unlikely own work, uploaded 66 years after the photo was made. Felix QW (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Officer Grayson Body Cam Video.webm

this is a fake video that is being used for propaganda purposes. There is no "Officer Grayson" bodycam video because he never had a camera on. Staticshakedown (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False. The Illinois State Police uploaded all videos related to the Massey shooting on their YouTube page (link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFun2GydGyU&list=FLJuzdjwrT-829RwfH1bEulg). At 28:07 a title "Body Worn Camera #2" is seen. This is officer Grayson's body camera footage. In the subsequent clip (28:20) Massey can be seen throwing the pot at him. This is from the original posted YouTube clip (go see for yourself). There seems to be confusion about whether officer Grayson had his body cam on. The model of body camera he was wearing is designed to record continuously even when "off." When the officer turns their camera on it will capture the previous 30 seconds and save it. In this case, officer Grayson turns his camera "on" immediately after shooting Massey, which caused the video clip of the incident to be captured. The video is not fake and can be clearly seen in the original video posted by the Illinois State Police. BreakingTheDivide (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly fake videos don't belong on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally unbelievable. Why are you so scared of the public knowing what actually happened? BreakingTheDivide (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you need to cut it out. You don't even live in America. Why are you so determined that the part about Massey throwing the pot be omitted? BreakingTheDivide (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana, I don't think the video is fake UNLESS the Illinois State police is deepfaking bodycam footage. Watch from here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFun2GydGyU&list=FLJuzdjwrT-829RwfH1bEulg go to the 28:00 minute time, make sure you are on a desktop computer and slow the speed to -50 or slower, then honestly provide your thoughts. What I don't understand is the fact that several media outlets mentioned he didn't have his BWC (body worn camera) in operation until AFTER the shooting. If that is true either someone misrepresented that fact accidently, was confused, or outright lied. Either that or the Illinois State police made an AI deepfake video. Transparently speaking I have no idea what to think. However until this video's authenticity can be verified as well as the media coverage of former Deputy Grayson's bodycam inoperability, the video should be removed for further investigation. 97.113.143.148 06:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana is not interested in having an honest discussion judging by their interaction with me on Sonya's Wikipedia page. And your stance is very bizarre. There's no authenticity that needs to be verified here. The video is the official video released by the Illinois State Police on their YouTube page which we both linked to. You even said it yourself that the clip I uploaded matches what is seen in the YouTube clip. So why on earth would we delete the media? I already explained why it was reported that his body camera was off. That's because it was off, but right after the shooting he turns it on and it retroactively saved the prior 30 seconds because that's what the camera is designed to do. In fact, when you read the user guide for the specific model of body camera they were wearing (Axon Body 3 X60A7941G) it outlines on page 11 that there are two modes: Ready (Buffering) and Recording (Event). When in ready mode the camera records in a 0-120 second loop and when the camera is switched on to recording mode the previous 0-120 seconds of the recording are saved without audio. The guide notes that by default the camera is set to record a 30 second loop in ready mode without audio but can be configured to record anywhere from 0-120 seconds with audio. Officer Sean Grayson's body camera was clearly set to default mode because exactly 30 seconds of audio free footage is captured before he switches his body camera on which is when the audio kicks in.

The reason I know the make and model of the cameras they were wearing is because it's stamped in the top right of the video released by the Illinois State Police.

Source: https://my.axon.com/s/axon-body-3?language=en_US BreakingTheDivide (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of dispute doesn't seem like any reason to delete a file from Commons. I suggest you have the discussion on the talk page of a relevant Wikipedia article or on the talk page of the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pennsylvania Presidential Election Results 1816.svg

This file has been replaced by File:Pennsylvania Presidential Election Results 1816 by county.svg. It is not used on any article anymore. It does not provide a source for its data and is incorrect. Take Philadelphia, for example. According to A New Nation Votes, the top Monroe elector in Philadelphia recieved 6,874 votes, while the top Unpledged elector recieved 4,107 votes. And yet, here it shows Monroe as losing Philadelphia Wowzers122 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is the original map. CottonDuggan (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ghada el-Samman.jpg

The "own work" attribution seems unlikely to be correct. The user who uploaded it and claimed it as "own work" did add it to the Spanish wikipedia article at that time (diff), but simultaneously cited an article which included the photo in the Arabic 2012 version here. That Arabic article seems to be real source and seems unlikely to be public domain. LEvalyn (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

File:Elliot Rodger Starbucks Visit.webp

It doesnt look like the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office created this photo personally. Most likely a Starbucks CCTV instead Trade (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV footage falls into the public domain. AgeOfPlastic (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

man whatever bro its not that deep 121.6.120.167 12:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{PD-automated}} applies ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-automated Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Games for Windows - Live.webp

Windows orb above TOO. メイド理世 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saudi Arabian Railways Lounge (Riyadh East).webm

There's no FOP in Saudi Arabia, permission from this lounge would be required when possible. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I'm not taking any external pictures though? Does that essentially mean that the interior of a building cannot be ordinarily photographed in Saudi Arabia? Also, can one argue that (looking at Template:NoFoP-Saudi_Arabia) anything copyrighted is not a "substantial reproduction"? Leaderboard (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard There are some fine arts you included within this video and they reproduced three-dimensionally, and high definitionally (may or may not match 4K resolution, as I've checked with a HTML5 checker site), so are you really sure they are not the main topic you captured? If yes, then I'm fine with keeping it with {{De minimis}}, but if not, you'll still need their permissions per se. Anyway, Saudi Arabia doesn't have FOP for buildings either (regareless of exterior or interior). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: The focus is on what's available in the lounge. Any "fine arts" are just incidental to the topic. Leaderboard (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard And why are you edit-conflicting with me when you know that I'm trying to extend responses? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I didn't know that you were? Leaderboard (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard So even the lounge building is also "just incidental to the topic"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: Indeed. The goal of the video (which I put in Wikivoyage's page about Saudi Arabia BTW) is to allow customers to have an idea on what to expect when they visit the lounge (so that they can judge for themselves whether it's worth paying the fee). As a result, you can see that the focus was on what's inside the lounge, such as the food and seating. I do think it's reasonable to call the rest "incidental" as a result. Leaderboard (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard In that case, you'll need to seek for a better title for your video, and to modify the description, then I can agree with {{De minimis}} for rest stuffs. Otherwise, this file is still focusing the building, so still a valid copyright concern per Saudi laws. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I don't agree that the title needs to be changed - it's about the lounge right? I can add De Minimis for the rest. Leaderboard (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard Lounge right means what? Right (structural) part of the lounge? Legal rights of what that lounge exercise? Something located outside of the right wall (sic?) of a lounge?... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: It's just ... the lounge? I am not sure what title would assuage your concerns. Leaderboard (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard So, still still, you're indeed focusing on the building, or much more likely its interiors, this is still a valid FOP concern, and as said, Saudi Arabia doesn't have such a concept for allowing so (at least, they largely restricted such re-using by photographers for commercial purposes and derivative works, like what CC BY-NC-ND works). Reproduction of a building, especially its interior, is a serious architect legal right question. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: As I said before, do you know what title would work instead? I understand your FoP concerns, but I don't know what should I (re)name the file as. Leaderboard (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard If you're really not focusing on the building, then not only title, but also descriptions should change, maybe you're capturing the jewelrys? snacks? chairs?... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear from some other users before proceeding further. Leaderboard (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ironi ashdod 1997.jpg

Look like an official photograph of the soccer club. Can be found her. small size. unlikely own work. -- Geagea (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

her in he.wiki the user has been asked in 2015 if he photographed the photo. he answering that yes. But I still think that he is not the author. -- Geagea (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julio Mayora silver medal.png

This file was initially tagged by Wilfredor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: NoticieroDigital is not a reliable source. It often republishes content from various media outlets without permission, under the guise of a free license. Examples include: VpiTV, VTV, taken from Vente Venezuela -> [24], Globovision, and various social media sources. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file has already been discussed, the screenshot is from a family video call that NoticieroDigital had permission to share. NoticieroDigital may reuse things dishonestly, but not everything, and none of the links in the delete reason relate to this screenshot - if you are just using the links to establish NoticieroDigital as a license washer, you need to open a discussion to add them to the bad sources list. Kingsif (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Helmut70

These files were uploaded by Helmut70 (talk · contribs) as own works. The first two appear to be screenshots of the 3D models [25] by Owe Leitner and [26]/[27] by Anna Gehrmann (name also stated on the uploaded image itself). (Both pages state a CC license but at least the first one uses Google Earth imagery.) Helmut70 provides no evidence that they are one (or both) of these people. This suggest that the third image of a 3D model might also not be Helmut70's own work. --Entbert (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 7 Saint Hakob church.gif

Прошу удалить фото, загрузил аналогичное, но лучше Well-read MountainMan (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NOLET SCHIEDAM WAPENSCHILD.png

Wapen onvolledig. Graphics slecht onderzocht. Let George do it (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:医用TPE充气娃娃照片.jpg

Clerly against COM:TOYS, Consensus on Commons has found that sex dolls are copyrightable, as their design elements are separable from their utilitarian function. Lemonaka (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 04:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which "design elements"? I couldn't imagine a more generic apperance for this type of subject. ~TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poemas puros - poemillas de la ciudad (IA poemaspurospoemi00alon).pdf

Book by Spanish poet Dámaso Alonso (1898-1990). They book might be in the US public domain, but it is definitively copyrighted in Spain, its country of origin where the protection is 70 years pma. Günther Frager (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Milano 06-2012 - panoramio (2).jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Italy. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to me to be under the high italian ToO: normal blocky architecture without any particular feature, unknown architect, anonymous and unnamed building...--Friniate (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023-07-27 Paris - Tour Cristal - 7-11 Quai André Citroën - en travaux.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in France. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La tour cristal est actuellement en travaux, j'ai pris plusieurs photos et je pense que c'est intéressant de les publier. Si vous n'en voulez-pas cela m'est égal. Il n'y a aucun problème de droit d'auteur, ce sont des photos personnelles.

PK Patkoc (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:I See What You Mean (Argent)

No COM:FOP USA for statues. The statue en:I See What You Mean (Argent)'s artist died in 2017 so still copyrighted.

File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg (could be cropped - croptool not working for me right now)
File:Big Blue Bear Denver Colorado 2024.jpg
File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg (could be cropped - croptool not working for me right now)
File:DC0157-0172 (2818455412).jpg
File:DNC (2799468006).jpg
File:DNC 08 (2806202771).jpg
File:Lunch Time (3060827628).jpg
File:Blue Bear - panoramio.jpg

Consigned (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg in which it is incidental. SecretName101 (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg, which focuses on the group in the foreground (unsuaully costumed people around Denver during the Democratic convention of 2008). SecretName101 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all File:Talk about bi-partsan! (2797550551).jpg shows the same costumed people as File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg without the bear. File:DNC (2802521931).jpg and File:DNC (2818451470).jpg show people in front on the convention center for the same event without the bear. File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg may be de minimis, but not sure it's necessary. Nv8200p (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Talk about bi-partsan! (2797550551).jpg is significantly LOWER resolution than File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg though SecretName101 (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel and Devil Freewheelin (2797365551).jpg and File:DC0157-0169 (2818455208).jpg could be cropped to remove the bear and the rest of the photo would still be valuable (crop the costumed people above the horns). Croptool is still not working for me... Consigned (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auditory System Animation.gif

please do not delete too quickly – this is fore clarifying whether this is CCBY. @Pakitochus: this seems like a very useful illustration but I found some image looking similar to it with tineye, is this really completely your own work or did you use some other image? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mapa de la ruta 1 (Costa Rica).svg

While the map is File:Mapa de la Carretera Interamericana Norte, Costa Rica.jpg, the photos put on top of it are unsourced and probably COM:NETCOPYVIOs like the other uploads of this user. Delete per the precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 16:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced image collage. Elli (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grom-logo.png

This is an outdated logo of the GROM military unit. The current logo is a bit different. You can see it here: https://grom.wp.mil.pl/ along with the information: all rights reserved © Polish Army Szelma W (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekb collage.jpg

A copy in the Wikipedia SL (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem, the original photo in ru wiki has Cc-zero license, and the original images of the collage have PD-self and cc-by-3.0 licenses. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local copy in ru wiki, and this is a copy in Commons for use in all wikipedias, for example in Galician wikipedia. There is no problem with this because the photo has a compatible license with Commons. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 08:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ekb collage.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 83.9.163.172 as no source (No source since) Krd 18:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detective Sgt John Mateer at Ground Zero NYC in Sept 2001.jpg

According to en:John Mateer (musician), the purported author of this photograph (the son of the subject) would have been five years old when this photo was taken. Either he is a very skilled photographer, or he conflated the idea of "owning a physical copy of a photo" and "owning the copyright of a photo". GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You must be really proud of the work you do, huh?

9t5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@9t5 Hi, sorry. I'm not sure I understand your comment. Could you elaborate? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, it seems unlikely that they were letting small children inside the perimeter eleven days after the attacks. As the file is not in use anywhere and the copyright staus is suspect, deletion seems the proper course of action. Just Step Sideways (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth noting that the uploader is now blocked from Commons and also globally locked for being extremely nasty to numerous people. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Large-dulce-patria-juan-carlos-lillo-500g-6.jpg

This file was initially tagged by MiguelAlanCS as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1890. If the label design is that old, it's probably public domain. Is it, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Social Democratic Party (Taïwan).webp

Le document a été proposé à la suppression rapide G4 en raison d'un travail précédent (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Social Democratic Party (Taiwan) logo.png) Je m'oppose à la suppression du travail présent dans la mesure où la licence d'utilisation permet un partage du travail original dans des conditions identique au travail initial. Aussi, j'ai fourni le lien de la source, l'auteur et la licence d'utilisation du travail original (Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 3.0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofurei (talk • contribs) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this logo is under copyright and would not be accepted on Commons, as here is supposed to host only free content. The content on Fandom is contributed by volunteers. However, Fandom is rather lax in terms of image uploading, allowing unsourced and non-free images. It should be noted that Fandom declares that "all non-text media should not be considered to use the same license (CC-BY-SA) as text media"(see [28]) and we have removed a large number of images sourced from Fandom as a result.

However, if you are still looking to use this logo, you should upload it to local Wikipedia under fair use conditions, for example at English Wiki. 0x0a (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:أطفال قتلى في هجوم حزب الله.jpg

Contested copyright violation, social media has versions, e.g. X which could not be derivatives. RAN1 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently on Xitter 2 days before uploader's claimed creation date. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two days before what? The event happened just yesterday on July 27 and the image was uploaded to Wikipedia on the same date. We have analyzed here that it was on Wikipedia before any social media and proved that AdityaRajKaul is not the photographer. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Results from google reverse image search, exact matches, I see some listed as being "2 days ago", so I added this. I don't have Xitter access on this machine so I have no further info at this time. Comparison of dates of upload is good idea. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the post? I'm having a bit of trouble duplicating this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the post added to x.com 15 minutes after it was uploaded to Commons. -- Geagea (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The X post I linked has been deleted. There's a blurred version at Bild with bystanders at the top of the image who are cropped out of the version here. RAN1 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they uploader can share some other photos they took of that location - even less interesting photos - such context might make the authorship claim more credible. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-credible claim of authorship, no EXIF data, this has the same image with some more blurring, predating this by an hour or so. I simply do not believe the claim that this is the author's own work, coming right next to basically an active crime scene. Nableezy (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is on twitter unblurred, which, if I can decipher timezones correctly, was an hour and a half before it was posted here. Nableezy (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was the same image which was discussed here where the timestamp was already discussed to be done after Commons and not before.

2. When you have posted the link the image was already deleted there for a week, so not sure what is the purpose of doing such post. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this image can't be the source as it has no timezone and more importantly it's more blurred that the one on Commons and one couldn't take a more blurred image and unblurr. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That post appears to have been made at 23:56 27 July 2024 UTC; seven hours after it was uploaded here. The Twitter link doesn’t appear to work; are you sure you provided the correct link?

At the moment, I think Keep, as I’m not seeing any evidence this is a copyright violation, although I would like to see the VRT submission processed as I think that will resolve this conclusively. BilledMammal (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter link for works fine for me. And I find the claim of own work to be utterly disbelievable. If it was their own work it would have EXIF data, but it doesn’t. Nableezy (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EXIF data may be removed when people do not want to share personal info to get exposed and killed. Wikipedia rules do not mandate EXIF use. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oleg Yunakov: What do you mean by that? RAN1 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geolocation data became redundant when the coordinates were published, the EXIF data must have been removed automatically by whatever was used to propagate the image. RAN1 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah removing the brand of camera and type of lens is really something that people do for protection. Just say you want to keep the image because you want to use it for propaganda, sheesh. Nableezy (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written you a warning for violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rule. If you have any questions on the image copyright I'll be happy to help you. But please retrain from personal attacks in the future. Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have any questions, and the fantastical claim that removing the camera brand is something that somebody would do here because of safety is absurd, and the reason for that absurdity is transparent. Nableezy (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far there are exactly zero valid reasons to delete this image in accordance with the Commons rules. If someone will attempt to do so he/she will get a request for admin rights removal. Your "fantastical" claim when you at all cost try to suggest to delete the image just because you do not like will not help. This just proves the potential point that whoever took it might want to remain anonymous as when others think in propaganda views in relationship to images people may get hurt (example: Charlie Hebdo shooting). Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you used this image in a DYK nomination at ru.wiki (diff), what you're saying is hard to believe. RAN1 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/29

July 30

File:Escobar Evo.png

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shmuel Shapiro.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wappen des Wardenburger Schwimm-Club.jpg

Copyvio? Zumindest muss darüber geredet werden, auch wenn die Latte tief hängt (Schöpfungshöhe) GerritR (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramaria flavosaponaria.jpg

This image was never reviewed and at the source, the license today is CC BY NC ND 4.0 Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the images in this image set are licensed as CC BY NC ND 4.0 Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, It was CC0 when it was move to commons. Awkwafaba (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Internet archive did not record the webpage of the source and so Commons cannot keep the image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murals of NetworkArts by User:N-gio (talk · contribs)

Derivative work of copyrighted artwork. The United States does not provide Freedom of Panorama for public art. The work was made in 2000 by a group called NetworkArts.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyperbolic in Mamle and Hasan Zirak's song lyrics.jpg

"It is the policy of the Journal of Duhok University to own the copyright of the technical contributions. " https://journal.uod.ac/index.php/uodjournal/article/view/2034 HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the copyright here, the book refers to Salahaddin University-Erbil, not Duhok University, I puted this link-source only to refer the book page for the file. I don't know why there is "Duhok University", + I have indicated the name of the creator and author. Must I have made a mistake in setting the file source? Zamand Karim (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been published by the Journal of University of Duhok, which has a copyright notice on its website. For your information, Salahaddin University-Erbil is the author's affiliation and the link you provided also has a copyright notice: "Copyright (c) 2023 Baraat Ismael FaqeAbdulla". HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HeminKurdistan: but there is also this: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. If I give the author proper credit and provide a link to the license, which I have done. Zamand Karim (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial restrictions are not compatible with Commons copyright policy. Please see Commons:Licensing. Omphalographer (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, your link is about this: "Exaggerating And Hyperbolic Expressions in Northern Kurmanji with Reference to English: A Socio- Pragmatic Approach", but the subject of my file is: "Hyperbole as a Way of Showing Eager Toward a Lover in Hamay Mamle's and Hasan Zirak's Songs", ofcourse I made a mistake in putting the source. Zamand Karim (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, when there are contradicting copyright notices, on Commons we take the one reserving more rights as granted. Secondly, the website clearly says "Except where otherwise noted..." which applies to this notice: "Copyright (c) 2023 Baraat Ismael FaqeAbdulla". HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so hard to create a pie chart on wikis, you can also upload your own file. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I put my own chart on the same file? Zamand Karim (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elreen Ando at the 2020 Summer Olympics.png

No evidence that this particular screencap was taken by a Philippine Sports Commission employee from the source interview video. License would be appropriate on parts where Elreen Ando is being spoken to by the interviewer. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ateneo de Zamboanga University Main Campus Rear.jpg

No FoP. Photo taken in private property and uploaded without permission from the property owner (Ateneo de Zamboanga University). Raymondsiyluy05 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, nothing depicted. --Krd 18:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TV Azteca Honduras logo.png

The logo was previously nominated for deletion and kept, because this was bulk DR for mostly Mexican logos and in Mexico the logo is not copyrighted. This is logo from Honduras and we have no information about threshold of originality in Honduras. The logo does not consist of simple geometrical figures and in my opinion the logo is copyrighted in Honduras. Taivo (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iranian Revolution youths.jpg

Photograph by Ahmad Kavousian, on sale on Getty Images w/o any information on prior release [29]. No proof of being made publicly available inside Iran more than 30 years ago. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TYSZKA Stanislaw MEP.jpg

Plik słabszej jakości od identycznego File:Stanisław Tyszka MEP (2024).jpg Stanisław Krupiński (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1718870221552 20240619 ZAJACZKOWSKA-HERNIK Ewa PL 005 MOBILE.jpg

Plik słabszej jakości od identycznego File:Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik MEP (2024).jpg Stanisław Krupiński (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BRYŁKA Anna MEP.jpg

Plik słabszej jakości od identycznego File:Anna Bryłka MEP (2024).jpg Stanisław Krupiński (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Αρχηγείο ΕΥΠ 1.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Αρχηγείο ΕΥΠ 3.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 15:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Αρχηγείο ΕΥΠ 3.jpg

Well, sorry for creating more work for you that you have to correct. I thought this would not apply for photos that are my own work. Greek law pretaining copyright for public buildings etc. is really complicated as far as I have researched. Could you be so kind to inform me of the years needed to pass for the copyright to be lifted? For example in this case the building was completed in 1978. How many years have to pass?...

Thank you. --Michail Angelos Georgoulas (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jug1212 (talk · contribs)

Likely not own works. Definitely not the Josh and Bobby one which seems to be a selfie.

SDudley (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Josh and Bobby at FAU vs UF Swim Meet 2018.jpg and File:Josh and Bobby Finke at a Swim Meet.jpg. The File:Josh and Bobby at FAU vs UF Swim Meet 2018.jpg is the same image as this 2018 Instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/BoPtlSiH3jV/ BUT the one in Wiki Commons seems to be higher resolution than the one on the Instagram post, which would indicate it's not taken from Instagram. The Instagram user's username is Jug1212 - just like the Wiki contributor. Special:Contributions/User:Jug1212 is likely the Josh who is in the photo, particularly since the 2024 Wiki Commons image is higher resolution than the 2018 Instagram post image and therefore the owner of File:Josh and Bobby at FAU vs UF Swim Meet 2018.jpg. In that event, he is also the owner of File:Josh and Bobby Finke at a Swim Meet.jpg since that's clearly the same person in the photo. OCNative (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this! SDudley (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete File:Sunnyside Cemetery St. Petersburg Sign.jpg is shown on the page https://www.afterall.com/funeral-cremation/florida/st-petersburg/sunnyside-cemetery/flasc.html (as noted in the file's upload into, the exact URL of the image is https://www.afterall.com/dw/image/v2/BHFG_PRD/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-afterall-locations-catalog/default/dw6561ccf6/images/flasc.jpg?sw=1536&q=65). That page has "© 2024 Foundation Partners Group, LLC. All rights reserved. AFTERALL™ is the trade name of a network of licensed funeral, cremation, and cemetery providers associated with Foundation Partners Group, LLC." OCNative (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/31

[1] Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan/Mike Godwin mail

[1]