Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/07/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
stolen from the web. no valid exif data. uploader is not the copyright holder Dead.rabbit (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, CV per reverse image search. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Out-of-scope personal photo. 沈澄心✉ 09:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @沈澄心: 什麼意思？ 日期20220626 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't notice that this file is already in use. --沈澄心✉ 09:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep: withdrawn. --沈澄心✉ 09:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Subieron está foto sin mi consentimiento LucasG18 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: unneeded personal photo, no other in-scope usefulness, uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused personal drawing, no educational value, out of COM:SCOPE. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, clear case, OOS personal doodle by non-contributor. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Image extracted from Facebook. Lord Maximoff (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, the user uploads a previously deleted image. Lord Maximoff (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, re-upload of previously deleted copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, the user uploads a previously deleted image, extracted from Facebook. Lord Maximoff (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, re-upload of previously deleted copyvio, just in another file format. --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, the user uploads a previously deleted image, extracted from Facebook. Lord Maximoff (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo petro.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 22:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that this file does not comply with project scope, as it is a picture of a non-notable person that doesn’t seem to hold educational value. It was initially used for an en:WP:AB that got almost immediately deleted. everyone's favorite Blua lago
(let's have a chat y'all) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: F10, nothing to discuss. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rakibpixel (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT. IM addition blatant advertising of and by a non contributor. Out of scope
- File:Rakib Pixel - 05.jpg
- File:Rakib Pixel - 04.jpg
- File:Rakib Pixel - 03.jpg
- File:Rakib Pixel 02.jpg
- File:Rakibul Hasan.jpg
- File:Rakib Pixel.jpg
🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Whatever the case is with the license, these images are OOS anyway. Commons doesn't need to host selfies of every random person out there. No offense to the guy, but there's nothing to indicate he is particularly notable or that his selfies are worthy of inclusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: CSD F10: personal images by non-contributor. --Wutsje 02:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
this is my picture. 186.172.147.110 23:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: SD, F10. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
personal image, no usage, low quality Gampe (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete by nomination --Gampe (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s an image of me and I want it removed from here 119.18.0.99 11:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Bad quality Dronebogus (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete mediocre quality penis selfie. Note: Same image deleted in 2015 under title File:A Micro Penis.JPG -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
not Pezhman Noor 186.172.147.110 23:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Not own ? 186.172.147.110 23:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified on 2 June 2022. 186.172.147.110 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji and was taken this month. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Fiji copyright for works of the Fiji government lasts for 50 years after the date of creation. So this image isn't PD until at least 2073. Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep No this uploads is not copyright violations. This images was sourced from the facebook page "Australia in Fiji" .i.e. the facebook page of the Australian High Commission in Fiji, i.e. the australian embassy in Fiji. This fact can easy be proven as in https://fiji.highcommission.gov.au/suva/home.html there is a link to that Facebook page
- So this files were made by the australian government and so contrary to what Adamant1 claims that "This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji". The fact that this can be clearly checked in 30 seconds, it just shows that he is sloppy in his deletion requests and none of what his claim holds water. Tm (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I had nominated this for deletion a few days ago and it was closed as keep due to an erroneous reading of DFAT on the part of the closing admin. What this ultimately comes down to is that this file is hosted on Facebook. The DFAT template explicitly states ""This permission extends to all websites using the DFAT copyright statement". The Facebook website does not use the copyright statement and the template doesn't include Facebook in its included sites. Whereas The copyright on the websites such as dfat.gov.au clearly say they releases information "presented on this website" under CC. Not all media published by them anywhere. So essentially the only way Commons can legally host the image is if DFAT explicitly stated that all media published by the embassy/DFAT in general is under CC license, there was a CC license on the Facebook page, or a mention on their website's copyright page saying their CC license includes their social media. I haven't found evidence for any of those things being the case though. So unless someone else can this image is copyrighted until 50 years after the date of publication per Copyright_rules_by_territory/Australia#Government-produced_works. Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per discussion in the previous DR. Yann (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of a disingenuous leap to call one comment a "discussion." Especially since Tm had spammed the same (or extremely similar) messages/personal attacks in a bunch my deletion requests at the same time he voted on this one. Nor does Tm's keep message or yours address the legal issues that might arise with using DFAT for images that are posted on Facebook, which I would think you'd care about. Or are you just more concerned with winning a discussion then you are following copyright law? It's perfectly fine if you were wrong about your initial judgement about DFAT. There's no need to double down on your opinion or defer to someone else as a face saving measure or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The license applies to content posted on websites which contain the DFAT copyright statement, which I don't see anywhere on this Facebook page. -M.nelson (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep sorry but this person is now trolling and should be blocked for wasting our time, as i have said multiple times, since the election of the new Australian government, its looks like they are no longer keeping images on their sites, the DFAT licensing applies to all its embassies which means its also applies to its social media pages as well since thats where they publish any information or images nowadays ..its basically the same as how we treat the US Govt..This user has no understanding of how licenses works, as you can see through his work and history here and is making up rules as he goes, heck even for this image he nominated, even they tagged the facebook post with a [Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] footnote linking to their DFAT page implying that the rights of that images belongs to them thus it falls under their purview, they never did this before the new government came in implying their new rules seems to be to only post images on social media now and not on their website --Stemoc 22:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Stemoc: Can you provide a source for the claim that the DFAT license applies to all content published by DFAT, regardless of which website? As far as I know, the source for the DFAT license is https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/about-this-website/copyright, which specifies content published to "this website" (dfat.gov.au) only. -M.nelson (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
"it looks like they are no longer keeping images on their sites"
That is patently false. Anyone can go to https://multimedia.dfat.gov.au/ and see that they have been posting images there as recently as two weeks ago, which is exactly when this photograph was posted on Facebook and uploaded to Commons BTW. Literally all Stemoc does is throw ad hominem attacks at people as keep arguments. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- The website you linked did not exist in June when i added those images and thus they were no longer keeping it on their foreignminister.gov.au site, they moved it to the new location and as mentioned many times, embassies fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and those images were tagged with DFAT and DFAT always released is images under CC-BY-AT.. since the new PM and cabinet, they have only added images from July onwards. The reality is that you don't understand how licensing works cause you originally tagged these images for deletion assuming they were uploaded by the Fiji Govt and the copyright link for the Australian Embassy in Fiji links to their main site DFAT who we have said multiple times releases all their images under the same free licence for over 15 years now which you can see in their new multimedia website where every image is released under "Creative Commons: By Attribution".. Embassy related images/events will only appear on the official embassy facebook pages and images related to Australian Govt Ministers will appear on the Multimedia site and if the images added to facebook get tagged with DFAT which this one was, it means it falls under the DFAT LICENSING. Stemoc 16:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The DFAT site plainly says "all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence". Material on other websites like Facebook are not automatically granted a CC license. -M.nelson (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The website you linked did not exist in June when i added those images and thus they were no longer keeping it on their foreignminister.gov.au site, they moved it to the new location and as mentioned many times, embassies fall under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and those images were tagged with DFAT and DFAT always released is images under CC-BY-AT.. since the new PM and cabinet, they have only added images from July onwards. The reality is that you don't understand how licensing works cause you originally tagged these images for deletion assuming they were uploaded by the Fiji Govt and the copyright link for the Australian Embassy in Fiji links to their main site DFAT who we have said multiple times releases all their images under the same free licence for over 15 years now which you can see in their new multimedia website where every image is released under "Creative Commons: By Attribution".. Embassy related images/events will only appear on the official embassy facebook pages and images related to Australian Govt Ministers will appear on the Multimedia site and if the images added to facebook get tagged with DFAT which this one was, it means it falls under the DFAT LICENSING. Stemoc 16:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright status on their website only applies to what is uploaded to their website, not everywhere. We have no clue whether they want to release the stuff on facebook with a CC license, or if they only post their to get around the CC license their website provides certain things. Their copyright website says licensing details will be clearly displayed, and if no license is displayed full copyright terms will apply. This isn't on their actual website, and their also is no clear license detail displayed. The ones posted on the multimedia site above clearly have CC license displayed with each image. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per M.nelson. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Not own ? 186.172.147.110 23:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Contenu inexistence Sakida0 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Elcobbola as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=338467898458802&set=a.175442801427980. Converting to DR per User talk:DMZveteran. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: Who is the photographer of this image? Is your name David Apperson? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I am David Apperson, founder of Vets Helping Vets, and owner of Day Bird Loft ... and creator of the collage on Facebook on
- Lindale Texas Chamber - https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=350317810607144&set=a.175442801427980
- Vets Helping Vets - https://www.facebook.com/military.veterans/photos/a.325642414136429/5551112861589332
- and also posted on my Linkedin page at https://www.linkedin.com/in/homingpigeons/
- If someone needs to talk with me my number is 430.288.1999 DMZveteran (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have responded to Elcobbola with the following -
- The image (i.e., collage) found on the Lindale Chamber Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=350317810607144&set=a.175442801427980 was designed by me and sent to the chamber as I am a member as well as the owner of Day Bird Loft ... DMZveteran (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: The person in the middle of the photo seems to be you - is that right? Who is the photographer then? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- A girl in the office. Do I need her to give you a note or something ??? DMZveteran (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If so I can do that Tuesday. DMZveteran (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photo was taken on a cell phone. You will notice I am in all the images in the collage from three different cell phones ... and I own all digital images, copyright or otherwise. DMZveteran (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: Is she your employee, such that she has signed an employment contract agreeing to transfer the copyright in any work she does as part of her employment to the company (i.e. "work for hire")? And by "office", what specific company or organization are we talking about here - Vets Helping Vets, Day Bird Loft, Lindale Texas Chamber, or something else? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lindale Chamber ... and some of the event images are now of Flickr - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/purple-heart/ DMZveteran (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the record we have decided to share images on Flickr rather than the image we uploaded to Wikipedia and some kind of hall monitor situation that we don't have time for ... but if you ever figure it out let me know. DMZveteran (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: Based on the information you've provided, I think the easiest way to resolve this issue is for https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=338467898458802&set=a.175442801427980 to be updated with the following caption: "This image is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts - I took the text as you stated and placed it as a comment. Once everyone is done with this holiday weekend I will have the text moved into the heading. I will let you know when it has been completed. Thanks DMZveteran (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The statement you provided is now up for the entire series of images. See https://www.facebook.com/lindalechamber/posts/pfbid02Yhxob2DcygJNiVNk2t5G5wfzPp7CudNjwogqn7n4RNBZmg1c7b8SfATa31uFs1dcl DMZveteran (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: Based on the information you've provided, I think the easiest way to resolve this issue is for https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=338467898458802&set=a.175442801427980 to be updated with the following caption: "This image is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the record we have decided to share images on Flickr rather than the image we uploaded to Wikipedia and some kind of hall monitor situation that we don't have time for ... but if you ever figure it out let me know. DMZveteran (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lindale Chamber ... and some of the event images are now of Flickr - see https://www.flickr.com/photos/purple-heart/ DMZveteran (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: Is she your employee, such that she has signed an employment contract agreeing to transfer the copyright in any work she does as part of her employment to the company (i.e. "work for hire")? And by "office", what specific company or organization are we talking about here - Vets Helping Vets, Day Bird Loft, Lindale Texas Chamber, or something else? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- A girl in the office. Do I need her to give you a note or something ??? DMZveteran (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DMZveteran: The person in the middle of the photo seems to be you - is that right? Who is the photographer then? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: LicenseReviewed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mr.weekbot (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text logos of non-notable entities, out of COM:SCOPE.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused image of a (according to own description) "test file", no educational value, out of scope COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused picture with completely inadequate description, no educational value, out of scope: COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused image of a money transfer company, no educational value, out of scope COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
promotional content, out of scope Ezarateesteban 23:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- And also
- File:Castillo Royale Ortigas Events Place, Venue, Party Place1.jpg
- File:Castillo Royale Ortigas Events Place, Venue, Party Place2.jpg
- File:Castillo Royale Ortigas Events Place, Venue, Party Place4.jpg
- File:Castillo Royale Ortigas Events Place, Venue, Party Place5.jpg
- File:Castillo Royale Ortigas Events Place.jpg
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
no place specified, no relevant people, no relevant race out of scope Ezarateesteban 23:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
low-quality image with no realistic educational use Wouter (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete Commons isn't a porn website and the image has zero educational value. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused caricature with no resemblance to the person described, no educational value, out of scope COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Problemas de imágen! 2806:10AE:6:827B:31D5:D754:5FCE:33BD 07:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete DNLA8 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is seriously a weird nomination. Given the multiple unsuccessful nominations by the uploader, it should be speedily deleted per COM:GCSD#G7. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above, uploader agrees. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
40 kb. Probably not "own work", see metadata. Xocolatl (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; yoinked from facebook. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Unused image, no educational value, out of scope: COM:SPAM Feyth (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo? Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
personal image, no usage, low quality Gampe (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete by nomination --Gampe (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Yann. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Image was licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IT, which was disallowed on Commons 218.250.38.128 10:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, governo.it's media, according with its terms, can be used with a {{cc-by-3.0-it}} license and be freely distributed and reused, provided that the source is always quoted, unless otherwise specified. In this case, there is a notice after the photograph which explains that this particular file is licensed with a cc-nc license. 83.61.237.190 16:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, personal image, experiments, no usage Gampe (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete by nomination --Gampe (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Андрей Романенко. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, notability, no usage, experiments Gampe (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete by nomination --Gampe (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fitindia. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:1
|
|---|
|
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.
Copyvio + is that literally a photo of a screen? Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Amada44 talk to me 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope garbage Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope junk
Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope
Dronebogus (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS junk files Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
More OOS junk
Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Out of scope junk Dronebogus (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS crap junk Dronebogus (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No copyright info + OOS Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. Yann (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Load of OOS crap 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.
More OOS crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert me if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Oos garbage Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Deleted I'm closing this since the files were already deleted. Feel free to revert if there's a reason the discussion should still be open. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
That was fast. More junk as usual Dronebogus (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Deleted The images were deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nom, some apparent copyviols from social media. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope crap Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Garbagé de OOS Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
OOS garbage Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
Files in Category:1
[edit]Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual collection of Instagram crap
Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Oos garbage
Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Usual oos crap
Dronebogus (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative work of logo. Source country is unknown, so we cannot be sure in freedom of panorama. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Personal spam and potential copyright violations
- File:Azmy Ehab21.jpg
- File:BALSA EUCLIDES.webp
- File:JARDIM BALNEARIO EUCLIDES.webp
- File:MAPA EUCLIDES.webp
- File:Moatazelmasry1632004.jpg
Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:1
[edit]Out of scope
* Pppery * it has begun... 19:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from copyright holder Oded Ezer is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
~As I mentioned on some of the other assets I’ve added with this one, they are all part of a paid edit and all the files was given to me but the creator and subject of the article itself — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.65.232 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The problem is that oral permission is not enough. Permission must come from copyright holder, not from you. Taivo (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve emailed him now, but he’s busy so he might not be available to review the webpage and compose a mail accordingly. But I hope he will, how long does he have? עידו כ.ש. (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regular deletion request lasts at least a week. Taivo (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve emailed him now, but he’s busy so he might not be available to review the webpage and compose a mail accordingly. But I hope he will, how long does he have? עידו כ.ש. (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022070510010121 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I have just accepted permission for “File:פרויקט ארמון הזכרונות - עודד עזר.jpg” under ticket:2022070510010121. -- Geagea (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per VRT. -- Geagea (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nab service (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused logos of non-notable company, out of project scope
Jianhui67 T★C 17:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete essentially advertising Herby talk thyme 07:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Tulsi24x7 09:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Low-quality chemical structure; opaque (white) background & colored atom labels. We have File:3-Furancarboxaldehyde-2D-skeletal.svg as high-quality replacement. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete of course, per nom, there is no need to keep low-quality PNG files while we have better alternatives. Wostr (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
out of scope, notability, no usage, experiments Gampe (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete by nomination --Gampe (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 02:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia except architecture. Xunks (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
pt: Não apenas essa é uma montagem da cabeça de Ramos-Horta sobre o corpo de Francisco Guterres, também não há qualquer indicação concreta da origem da fotografia original de Ramos-Horta que serviu como base para a montagem, ou que ela esteja sob uma licença livre. // en: Not only is this a montage of Ramos-Horta's head over Francisco Guterres' body, there is also no concrete indication of the origin of the actual picture of Ramos-Horta used for the montage, nor that it's under a free license. Solon 26.125 03:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support deletion. JPF (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio from Twitter. Larry Hockett (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
No permission from all the persons in this photo to post on Wikimedia. A Qayyoom (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I just realised I do not have a permission from all the persons in this photo to post on Wikimedia. A Qayyoom (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per prompt uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The image is not educationally useful and of mediocre quality. The uploader is also a vandal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_France&oldid=1083996803 Kelly The Angel (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Already exists Bli231957 (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader's request. File:Tris(acetylacetonato)neodymium.png is the existing higher quality and more chemically accurate alternative. Marbletan (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete doi:10.1007/bf00743270 and similar confirm that each AA ligand is bidentate. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
These two files show the logo of Maharishi University of Information Technology ([1]) in India. That university was founded after 2000, so the logo is not PD-old of some kind, and it also seems to be above COM:TOO India to me, so we'd need a COM:VRT permission to keep these. Even if they were uploaded by a user named Muit.
Rosenzweig τ 22:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --✗plicit 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Files in category:Fotosession Die Mühle (temporär)
[edit]- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-001.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-002.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-003.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-004.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-005.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-006.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-007.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-008.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-009.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-010.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-011.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-012.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-013.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-014.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-015.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-016.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-017.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-018.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-019.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-020.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-021.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-022.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-023.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-024.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-025.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-026.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-027.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-028.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-029.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-030.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-031.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-032.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-033.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-034.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-035.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-036.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-037.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-038.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-039.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-040.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-041.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-042.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-043.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-044.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-045.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-046.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-047.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-048.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-049.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-050.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-051.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-052.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-053.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-054.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-055.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-056.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-057.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-058.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-059.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-060.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-061.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-062.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-063.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-064.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-065.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-066.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-067.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-068.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-069.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-070.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-071.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-072.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-073.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-074.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-075.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-076.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-077.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-078.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-079.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-080.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-081.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-082.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-083.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-084.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-085.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-086.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-087.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-088.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-089.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-090.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-091.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-092.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-093.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-094.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-095.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-096.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-097.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-098.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-099.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-100.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-101.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-102.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-103.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-104.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-105.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-106.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-107.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-108.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-109.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-111.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-112.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-113.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-114.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-115.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-116.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-117.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-118.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-119.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-120.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-121.jpg
- File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-046 (cropped).jpg
I request the deletion of all photos taken during a non-public event of the art association "Die Mühle" Eberswalde and uploaded to commons. Reason:
- The event did not take place in public space.
- No OTRS ticket exists.
- A consensus of the photographed persons on the possible publication is neither evident from the surroundings of the event nor from the body posture or other gestures that would allow an implicit consent to be inferred.
- There is no contract between the model and the photographer.
- After such a long time, the photographer also does not see himself in a position to subsequently obtain the consent of the persons photographed.
- The consent to the publication of the images given in the individual file descriptions is based only on a verbal agreement where it was not entirely clear to individuals in the final sequence what publication under a free licence means. At least one of the persons depicted subsequently objected.
I expressly do not doubt that the photographer acted in good faith. In order to avert possible damage to the persons depicted, the photographer and not least Commons, the images should therefore be deleted. The photographer has agreed to this. --Smial (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep "The photographer has agreed to this". If the creator wants to delete, then they should nominate the images, but they are past the courtesy clawback period by 13 years, and the license is irrevocable. The images were not taken surreptitiously with a spycam, they were taken with a large Nikon D50 DSLR camera. A downstream user may have republished them and we would be removing evidence of a valid license. A devious person could nominate a set of images for deletion, get them deleted, then sue downstream users, leaving them scrambling to prove the original license. Even the threat of suing, can be enough for people to settle a legal dispute once Commons declares that the original license was illegal. A paid nude artistic model gives their consent, I took a photography class in college and we had a nude model and they signed a standard release form before they got paid. More evidence must be presented that a standard model contract, even an oral one, never existed. We do not require anyone else in the category:nudity to even sign a written consent contract, then have the photographer file it away, and later scan it, and submit it to Commons 13 years later. See for instance: File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-088.jpg where the poser is looking directly at the camera, she is aware she is being photographed. --RAN (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per RAN. 13 years seems a good amount of time to let any objections be known. I am willing to reconsider my vote if there is verification of a person depicted objecting (can be sent via COM:VRT if they wish to be anon) or further information from the photographer/uploader. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - The images represent a naturalistic record of a life drawing session as it occurred, a situation that is very familiar to me. The photographer circled the room many times for what was certainly 2-3 hours, photographing the participants as they worked, both model and artists. Certainly, all consented for this to begin, and is further implied by their not "posing" or otherwise reacting to being photographed.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Although I have selected some images below to be kept based upon usefulness, I do not think a case has been made to delete any based upon the issue of copyrights in the original proposal.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete I'm not super convinced by the reasons given by the nominator as to why these images should be deleted. That said, a lot of them are extremely low quality (fuzzy, weird angles, don't show the peoples faces, Etc. Etc.) and it's hard to argue that a lot of them have any educational value. The images also aren't being used anywhere and it's doubtful they ever will be. So I think they can reasonably be deleted. At the end of the day Commons doesn't need 200 low quality images, extremely similar images of every event that happens ever. A case needs to be made as to why this one is unique and why these images should be hosted on Commons. Personally, I just don't see it. Especially not based purely on pandering to downstream users or whatever. It's not on us if some rando website has to remove the images because a link to the original license isn't available anymore. Otherwise the same argument could be made for keeping copyvio or really anything. "Keep, otherwise owners of downstream websites will never know the image they got from Commons is copyrighted!" Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- "the same argument could be made for keeping copyvio" the difference is a valid license, this license is valid, the rationale for deletion is consent. --RAN (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply: Most are not good photos, but they do serve an educational purpose. I have used five of the images to illustrate the article Model (art), and consider them a useful addition to the topic. They are among the few images related to the topic that are contemporary, and show both the typical poses and the working environment for art models. Until now, I did not know that there are so many from the same event, and if they remain would go through them again to select the better ones. In fact, choosing images where the activity is clear but the faces are not would address the consent issue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I replaced two images with one in article. Also note that the room was lite for art, not photography.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate what I said in my vote, I'm fine with the few that are unique and good quality being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Adamant1: If you do not agree with the nominator's reasoning why all the images must be deleted, I suggest you change your "Delete" vote. (If the argument that all the images must be deleted does not pass, a narrower subset of images could be renominated for reasons of quality or scope.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Selection - None of the images are of "good quality", being poorly composed, which could be improved by cropping; but also need exposure correction. However, I have gone through them again and selected the following to illustrate the art model article, and would want them kept: #12, 37, 55 and 98. Each illustrates in addition to different model's poses, the studio working environment. Note that articles in other languages on the same topic use images from the same event, perhaps not the same as I have selected.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The reason for this DR is that the people photographed may not have consented to publication. So either we agree, and have to delete all of them, or we disagree, and should not delete any of them. To delete some of the photos and some not makes absolutely no sense for me in this DR with the given reason for deletion. --Stepro (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Agree, this deletion request is for the specific claim that none of them have proper consent and therefore must all be deleted. Votes should address this as explained by the nominator. *If* the decision is to reject the nominator's allegations, the result for this listing would be "kept" - in that eventuality a separate new request could be made for individual images or groups of images for quality/scope reasons. Bringing up "quality" of the images at this point confuses the issue. I suggest we deal with one issue at a time; the nominator's allegations first. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing that says the reason for a DR can't change if multiple people who vote think it should, or that some files should be deleted and others kept. It happens all the time. For instance if an image is nominated as OOS but it turns out to be copyvio or visa versa. It would be ridiculous to renominate the files if there's a consensus that most of them should be deleted just because it's not specifically because of the whole "taken at a non-public event/lack of consent" thing, which no one here can prove anyway. Personally, I say just deal with the low quality ones while we're here instead of wasting the communities time with another nomination that probably won't have a different outcome. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The idea that these photos are not good enough to help someone understand and learn something about painting nudes from life - particularly if viewed as files and not opened to full size - is absurd. I don't know whether that will or will not be considered as a deletion rationale, based on this thread, but if it is, I vote Keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This DR is not about licenses, image quality, scope, nudity or educational usefulness. It's about peronality rights and missing OTRS. It does not matter how old the photos are, when they were uploaded to commons, or whether someone has used the images somewhere in the wikimedia universe or outside of it. --Smial (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know what OTRS is and what it may have to do with images, but I know a bit about copyrights. The RD is complicated by the images falling into two categories, those with clearly identifiable faces of individuals, and those showing the backs of heads in the foreground and unrecognizable (out of focus, dark) faces in the background. This was the basis for my selection of four images to keep. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is confusion regarding photos taken in public or private; a private individual (as opposed to a public figure) does not loose their personality rights in public. The right to control the use of one's own image is a property right not based upon the right to privacy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- All the images should be kept, having one person decide which ones they like as "educational" or "useful", is a terrible idea. The images are never deleted, just hidden, no space is saved. We have short videos that take up 10 times the space, that have never been watched. --RAN (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a few days since I read through this, but I don't think I ever said I liked or disliked any of the images. Obviously having fondness for an image or not is completely separate from the question of it having educational value. Personally, I don't think a semi-blurry image of a wall, people's backs, and a lady sneezing (if that's even what she's doing) like File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-035.jpg serve an educational purpose. There's a good amount of the images that are along the same lines. Like this one. What is anyone with an education level above a third grader going to learn from that image? Even looking at a photograph like this one you can't see what anyone is doing and the body of the nude women is mostly hidden by the fact it's a weird side angle. So what exactly is educational about that image? Let alone what is educational about it that can't be better served by the thousands of images of nude figures or people painting that Commons is already hosting? Same goes for File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-027.jpg, File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-064.jpg (although to a lesser degree), and File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-112.jpg. All of them are essentially blurry shots of people's backs, a wall, and an essentially worthless (at least for the educational purposes of Commons) nude model in the middle. I also think amateur, rapid fire images like these go against Commons:NOTHOST. They are no different from someone taking thousands of photographs of their country drive with a dash cam. Such images are routinely deleted when people upload them as OOS. In the meantime it should go with saying that users should have the wherewithal to select the best images from a shot to upload instead of treating Commons like a backup drive or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the images are useful because we see some of the artistic compositions in progress; don't ignore those. If you'd like to nominate particular images you consider to definitely be useless for deletion, we can consider them individually. But do consider, these are not just nude photos; they are a type of chronicle of a woman posing nude in an art class or analogous situation in which artists are making representations of her. And when you say the photos are blurry, I have to imagine you're not considering their uses as thumbnails in articles. It is not reasonable to delete photos on the basis of quality if they are good enough to be reasonably usable as thumbnails in articles. We are constantly considering such criteria at COM:VIC - which photos are most useful as thumbnails only. Sure, these aren't as sharp as some photos, but they are interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a few days since I read through this, but I don't think I ever said I liked or disliked any of the images. Obviously having fondness for an image or not is completely separate from the question of it having educational value. Personally, I don't think a semi-blurry image of a wall, people's backs, and a lady sneezing (if that's even what she's doing) like File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-035.jpg serve an educational purpose. There's a good amount of the images that are along the same lines. Like this one. What is anyone with an education level above a third grader going to learn from that image? Even looking at a photograph like this one you can't see what anyone is doing and the body of the nude women is mostly hidden by the fact it's a weird side angle. So what exactly is educational about that image? Let alone what is educational about it that can't be better served by the thousands of images of nude figures or people painting that Commons is already hosting? Same goes for File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-027.jpg, File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-064.jpg (although to a lesser degree), and File:2009-08-31-akt-muehle-112.jpg. All of them are essentially blurry shots of people's backs, a wall, and an essentially worthless (at least for the educational purposes of Commons) nude model in the middle. I also think amateur, rapid fire images like these go against Commons:NOTHOST. They are no different from someone taking thousands of photographs of their country drive with a dash cam. Such images are routinely deleted when people upload them as OOS. In the meantime it should go with saying that users should have the wherewithal to select the best images from a shot to upload instead of treating Commons like a backup drive or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted per nominator, as he has adressed several problems (of local laws), that couldn't get resolved by the photographer. -- 32X (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Luis Scola. Likely to be Flickrwashing. QTHCCAN (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This image was taken by the Japanese government. According ]Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan only Laws, judgements, and notices are PD, and this is none of those. Or the copyright is held by a third party, who there isn't premision from. Per the terms of use of the source "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright (eg, portrait rights in photographs, publicity rights, etc.) have been processed in particular. Except for those clearly stated, it is the user's responsibility to obtain permission from the third party." So either way this image clearly isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Probably you are arguing "personality rights", but this is not necessary to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about personality rights because {tl|Personality rights}} says it applies to works that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Whereas in this case the images clearly aren't freely licensed or PD. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright." Obviously neither of those have anything to do with freely licensed images, PD, or anything else in {{Personality rights}}. It would be great if you actually researched what I said next time before copying and pasting the same boiler plate, obviously false comment into all my deletion requests. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: licensed {{GJSTU-2.0}} (compatible with CC-BY-4.0). No copyright issue. --Yasu (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This image was taken by the Japanese government. According ]Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan only Laws, judgements, and notices are PD, and this is none of those. Or the copyright is held by a third party, who there isn't premision from. Per the terms of use of the source "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright (eg, portrait rights in photographs, publicity rights, etc.) have been processed in particular. Except for those clearly stated, it is the user's responsibility to obtain permission from the third party." So either way this image clearly isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Probably you are arguing "personality rights", but this is not necessary to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about personality rights because {tl|Personality rights}} says it applies to works that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Whereas in this case the images aren't freely licensed or PD. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright." Obviously a third party owning the copyright to the image has jack all to do with {tl|Personality rights}}. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: licensed {{GJSTU-2.0}} (compatible with CC-BY-4.0). No copyright issue. --Yasu (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The website that this image was obtained from makes clear that people need permission from the copyright holder to use portraits that are hosted on their website. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright (eg, portrait rights in photographs, publicity rights, etc.) have been processed in particular. Except for those clearly stated, it is the user's responsibility to obtain permission from the third party." So this image clearly isn't public domain and therefore can't be hosted on Commons. Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Probably you are arguing "personality rights", but this is not necessary to be deleted per {{Personality rights}}. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about personality rights because {tl|Personality rights}} says it applies to works that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Whereas in this case the images aren't freely licensed or PD. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright." Content for which a third party owns the copyright obviously has jack to do with {{Personality rights}}. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: licensed {{GJSTU-2.0}} (compatible with CC-BY-4.0). No copyright issue. --Yasu (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Dvorec pionerov.jpg
- File:Dubrovin pedagog.jpg
- File:Кубрякова.jpg
- File:Kubrjakova E S.jpg
- File:Stupin A D.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures. Recent installations.
- File:Memorial board of Lev Pontriagin.jpg
- File:Ilja Muromec pamiatnik 2015-05-19.jpg
- File:Ilja-Muromec pamiatnik 2015-05-19+.jpg
- File:Памятник на могиле Матвея Дубровина.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Modern [and very low-quality, I'd say] paintings, based on old photographs [2] → File:Gulak-Artemovskii Petr Petrovich.jpg, [3] →File:Rizhskii Ivan Stepanovich.jpg, File:Oosipovsk.jpg → File:Osipovskii Timofei Fedorovich.jpg and so on. No authors' permissions.
- File:Netushil Ivan Vyacheslavovich.jpg
- File:Bagalej Dmitrij Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Kuplevaskii Nikolai Iosifovich.jpg
- File:Lagermark German Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Alekseenko Mikhail Martynovich.jpg
- File:SHCHelkov Ivan Petrovich.jpg
- File:Cekhanoveckij Grigorij Matveevich.jpg
- File:Pitra Adolf Samoilovich.jpg
- File:Kochetov Vladimir Ioakimovich.jpg
- File:Roslavskii-Petrovskii Aleksandr Petrovich.jpg
- File:Foigt Karl Karlovich.jpg
- File:Paliumbetckii Aleksandr Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Gulak-Artemovskii Petr Petrovich.jpg
- File:Kunitcyn Aleksei Vasilevich.jpg
- File:Pavlovskii Andrei Fedorovich.jpg
- File:Komlishinskii Vasilii Sergeevich.jpg
- File:Ellinskii Nikolai Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Dudrovich Andrei Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Kroneberg Ivan IAkovlevich.jpg
- File:Dzhunkovskii Vasilii IAkovlevich.jpg
- File:Osipovskii Timofei Fedorovich.jpg
- File:Stoikovich Afanasii Ivanovich.jpg
- File:Rizhskii Ivan Stepanovich.jpg
Sealle (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks
- File:Космический ковчег - Сергей Королёв.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Никола Тесла.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Стивен Хокинг.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Илон Маск.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Vladimir Guriev.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Иоганн Кеплер.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Джефф Безос.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Ари Штернфельд.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Александр Чижевский.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Владимир Комаров.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Юрий Гагарин.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Константин Циолковский.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Николай Рерих.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Станислав Лем.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Нил Армстронг.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Николай Фёдоров.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Валентина Терешкова.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Приглашение.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Гай Северин.jpg
- File:Космический ковчег - Галактика Алия.jpg
Dogad75 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Изображения фрагментов "Звездолёта Овчинникова" сняты в присутствии автора В. А. Овчинникова и с его согласия. Eraevsky (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Eraevsky: по правилам проекта Ваших слов об этом недостаточно, разрешение нужно оформить по стандартной процедуре, описанной на странице COM:OTRS/ru. Sealle (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Уважаемый @Sealle: ! Я созванивался с В. Овчинниковым и он обещал отправить согласие на использование. Не могли бы вы проследить и сообщить о поступлении этого письма. Если в течение недели не будет от вас вестей, попробую вновь с автором уточнить. Eraevsky (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Сам не могу. @НоуФрост: . Sealle (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Есть такой. Ticket#2018100510005488. Но @Dogad75: его за собой заблокировал и пока не обработал. НоуФрост (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Спасибо! Я написал Dogad75. Eraevsky (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Есть такой. Ticket#2018100510005488. Но @Dogad75: его за собой заблокировал и пока не обработал. НоуФрост (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Сам не могу. @НоуФрост: . Sealle (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Уважаемый @Sealle: ! Я созванивался с В. Овчинниковым и он обещал отправить согласие на использование. Не могли бы вы проследить и сообщить о поступлении этого письма. Если в течение недели не будет от вас вестей, попробую вновь с автором уточнить. Eraevsky (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Eraevsky: по правилам проекта Ваших слов об этом недостаточно, разрешение нужно оформить по стандартной процедуре, описанной на странице COM:OTRS/ru. Sealle (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Undeleted per Ticket#2018100510005488. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
3D-работы неизвестных фотографов, разрешение на использовании своих работ на свободных лицензиях нет.
- File:Рашет Яков Иванович - Медальон в Царском селе 4.jpg
- File:Рашет Яков Иванович - Медальон в Царском селе 1.jpg
- File:Рашет Яков Иванович - Медальон в Царском селе 2.jpg
- File:Рашет Яков Иванович - Медальон в Царском селе 3.jpg
- File:Михайлов Павел Степанович - Скульптурная группа «Икар и Дедал» в Государственном Русском музее.jpg
- File:Либерих, Николай Иванович - Раненая амазонка (1872).jpg
- File:Либерих, Николай Иванович - Медведь нападает на двух крестьян, собирающих дрова (1865).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Иван Фёдорович - Портрет генерал-майора П. А. Струкова (1858).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Иван Фёдорович - Урядник I дружины Санкт-Петербургского подвижного ополчения в Крымскую войну Ф. П. Матвеев (1855).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Фёдор Иванович - Бюст Великого князя Константина Павловича (1830-е).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Иван Фёдорович - Сидящий гренадёр (1855).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Иван Фёдорович - Скифский воин (1855).jpg
- File:Климченко Константин Михайлович - Портрет Софьи Владимировны Гурко (1840-е).jpg
- File:Климченко Константин Михайлович - Горельеф на левой стороне пьедестала памятника Н. М. Карамзину.jpg
- File:Климченко Константин Михайлович - Портрет Татьяны Алексеевны Гурко, урожденной Корф (1840-е).jpg
- File:Камберлен Иосиф - Река (1809).jpg
- File:Земельгак, Яков Иванович, Шубин Ф. И. - Надгробие П. М. Голицына (1783).jpg
- File:Забелло Пармен Петрович - Памятник А. И. Герцену (1872).jpg
- File:Забелло Пармен Петрович - Нимфа.jpg
- File:Забелло Пармен Петрович - Венера.jpg
- File:Забелло Пармен Петрович - Христос.jpg
- File:Забелло Пармен Петрович - Итальянка (1863).jpg
- File:Жилле Николя-Франсуа - Бюст Марии Фёдоровны.jpg
- File:Наполеон Жак - Торговец мясом.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак -Девушка в национальном костюме.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Пётр I.jpg
- File:Ковшенков Иван Фёдорович - Черноморский казак (1856).jpg
- File:Ковшенков Фёдор Иванович - Бюст Императора Александра I (1827).jpg
- File:Бюст императра Александра I (1827).png
- File:Бюст императрицы Елизаветы Алексеевны (1827).png
- File:Ковшенков Фёдор Иванович - Бюст императратрицы и Елизаветы Алексеевны и императора Александра I (1828).jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Лоточник.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Продавец овощей.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Кузнец.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Кавказский воин в кольчуге.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Кавказец.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Аллегорическая фигура Невы.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Екатерина II.jpg
- File:Теодор Жак - Игрок на балалайке.jpg
- File:Алексеев Василий Владимирович - Медаль В память столетия Императорского Московского Воспитательного дома (1863).jpg
- File:Алексеев Василий Владимирович - Медаль В память освящения Исаакиевского собора в Санкт-Петербурге (1858).jpg
- File:Алексеев Василий Владимирович - Медаль на столетие Московского университета (1855).jpg
Dogad75 (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. — Racconish 💬 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Every image from http://hm.msu.ru may be found earlier on different websites under an unfree license. So obviously http://hm.msu.ru is not their author and can't relicense them under a CC license. http://hm.msu.ru itself changed their license from 1996–2014 © Факультет ВМК МГУ имени М. В. Ломоносова to a CC one before the uploads (2018).
- File:Бочаров Геннадий Алексеевич.jpg, found at https://old.sk.ru/opus/p/mathematical-modeling-2017-speakers.aspx
- File:Вайпан Виктор Алексеевич.jpg, found at https://diplom.edu.pl/kk/pravovoe-regulirovanie-predprinimatelskoy-deyatelnosti-zakonodatelstvom-goroda-moskvy/
- File:Гусев Леонид Владимирович.jpg, found at http://newslab.ru/article/679328
- File:Локшин Александр Александрович.jpg, found at http://club.berkovich-zametki.com/?p=29589
- File:Алисова Татьяна Борисовна (2000-е).jpg
- File:Т. Б. Алисова и А. Л. Локшин.jpg
- File:Алисова Татьяна Борисовна (1940-е).jpg
- File:Соколов Михаил Эдуардович+.jpg
- File:Аветисян Арутюн Ишханович.jpg
- File:Соколов Михаил Эдуардович.jpg
- File:Царенко Сергей Васильевич.jpg
- File:Павликова Елена Петровна.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- May @Eraevsky: explain too where comes the dates (of shooting? of publication?) comes from since, on some files, there's nothing on EXIF? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dear Patrick Rogel! All of the above images belong to professors of Moscow State University. The site of the Museum of History of Moscow State University is the official body of Moscow State University. Eraevsky (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's what I suspected: that the professors provided their regular "own" images (which remains to be proved since they are not the photographers) to the Moscow State University, which placed them under a CC though they have not the right to do so. It's explains why images can be found somewhere else prior of their insertion in http://hm.msu.ru. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dear colleague! Most of the photographs in question are amateurish, which leads to the conviction that the rights to it belong to the person who is depicted in the photograph and allows its public distribution. In any case, the responsibility for copyright in this case lies with the history site of Moscow University, and not Wikimedia Commons. Eraevsky (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Eraevsky, ваши рассуждения находятся далеко за пределами принципов защиты авторского права. У любой фотографии есть автор, и если он письменно не передавал своё исключительное право изображённому, никаких прав у последнего не появляется. Размещая чужие фото без согласия фотографов, МГУ занимается отмыванием лицензии. --VLu (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @VLu: В рассматриваемой нами теме речь идёт о публикации фотографий персоналий (не художественных изображений) и этом случае помимо авторского права фотографа имеются права персоналии на защиту своего изображения. Суть данного права состоит в том, что никто не вправе обнародовать и использовать изображение (фотографию), на которых изображена персоналия без её согласия. В случае изображений с сайтов МГУ подобное согласие было получено с высокой вероятностью в отличие от сайтов, ссылки на которые приведены коллегой Patrick Rogel. Eraevsky (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dear colleague! Most of the photographs in question are amateurish, which leads to the conviction that the rights to it belong to the person who is depicted in the photograph and allows its public distribution. In any case, the responsibility for copyright in this case lies with the history site of Moscow University, and not Wikimedia Commons. Eraevsky (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Personality rights" have nothing to do with copyright. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @VLu: With the other files uploaded by Eraevsky and put on SD it seems there's enough proofs of copyvio. Last remaining files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Professors of Moscow State University. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dear colleagues, given your experience with images, you are probably right, but I do not consider myself entitled to blame any portal for dishonesty solely on the basis that search engines find similar photos on other portals. Eraevsky (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for modern artworks except architecture.
Xunks (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 16:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Unless the cartoon images can be shown to be PD with only simple text added, or the artist has specifically free licensed their work, this is a copyright problem as Commons:Derivative work; the copyright remains with the artist, not the photographer. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Larry Sharpe is a known, pro sex work politician in New York, posing for a picture in front of a painting. Here are examples of things I found in a quick search that don't include a famous person as the subject of the image:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Warhol_Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans_(MoMA_-_New_York).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baku_Museum_of_Modern_Art_inside.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_of_Modern_Art_in_Armenia_6.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minsk_Museum_of_Belarusian_Modern_Art_Natalia_Sharangovich.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graffiti_Betty_Boop_1.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Betty_Boop,_front.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Betty_Boop_1933_v_1939.jpg Dennisconsorte (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennisconsorte: Your reply suggests you missed the point of this deletion request. Please see Commons:Derivative work, that is the concern. Note that copyright laws vary in different countries, and see Commons:Freedom of Panorama and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Graffiti for more relevant information about some of the images you've linked. However US copyright law is the only one relevant for this particular image. If you want a photo of Larry Sharpe, it would be fine if you crop this image to remove his artwork. Again, the issue is that the copyright of the artwork belongs to the artist, Mr Sharpe I presume, and unless Sharpe specifically releases it under a free license, photographs of it are a copyright problem by reason of Derivative Work. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This image is from www.davidmolloyphotography.com and there's zero evidence from what I can that they released it under a public domain license. Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually it might be Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. If so, this can be retracted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy keep Extracted from a CC BY 2.0 file. Please be careful before nominating any files for deletion. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Low quality image that was uploaded by a noncontributing SPA account. So likely OOS. Adamant1 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- This file is a serious content. Please don't delete it Aaronlg~eswiki (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE - unused with no realistic educational usage - like also COM:ADVERT: see reference to A-Webdesign.com and user's other (and deleted) uploads Эlcobbola talk 01:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from commercial packaging. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji and was taken this month. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Fiji copyright for works of the Fiji government lasts for 50 years after the date of creation. So this image isn't PD until at least 2073. Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No this uploads is not copyright violations. This images was sourced from the facebook page "Australia in Fiji" .i.e. the facebook page of the Australian High Commission in Fiji, i.e. the australian embassy in Fiji. This fact can easy be proven as in https://fiji.highcommission.gov.au/suva/home.html there is a link to that Facebook page
- So this files were made by the australian government and so contrary to what Adamant1 claims that "This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji". The fact that this can be clearly checked in 30 seconds, it just shows that he is sloppy in his deletion requests and none of what his claim holds water. Tm (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but photographs taken by the Australian government have the same copyright term as ones taken by the employees of the Fiji government, date of creation + 50 years. So it would still be copyrighted either way. You would have known that if you spent like 30 seconds looking at the actual law instead of wasting the time frivolously attacking me over nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the same reasoning I gave at the uncropped picture deleteion discussion. No evidence their CC license applies to social media. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The DFAT license (https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/about-this-website/copyright) says "all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence". Material on other websites like Facebook are not automatically granted a CC license. -M.nelson (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji and was taken this month. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Fiji copyright for works of the Fiji government lasts for 50 years after the date of creation. So this image isn't PD until at least 2073. Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep No this uploads is not copyright violations. This images was sourced from the facebook page "Australia in Fiji" .i.e. the facebook page of the Australian High Commission in Fiji, i.e. the australian embassy in Fiji. This fact can easy be proven as in https://fiji.highcommission.gov.au/suva/home.html there is a link to that Facebook page
- So this files were made by the australian government and so contrary to what Adamant1 claims that "This image is from a Facebook page ran by the government of Fiji". The fact that this can be clearly checked in 30 seconds, it just shows that he is sloppy in his deletion requests and none of what his claim holds water. Tm (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but photographs taken by the Australian government have the same copyright term as ones taken by the employees of the Fiji government, date of creation + 50 years. So it would still be copyrighted either way. You would have known that if you spent 30 seconds looking at the actual law instead of wasting your time frivolously attacking me over nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the same reasoning I gave at the uncropped picture deleteion discussion. No evidence their CC license applies to social media. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The DFAT license (https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/about-this-website/copyright) says "all material presented on this website is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence". Material on other websites like Facebook are not automatically granted a CC license.
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is from www.davidmolloyphotography.com and there's zero evidence it is public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it might be Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. If so, this can be retracted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The Flickr source seems to be authentic and is licensed Attribution (CC BY 2.0) -M.nelson (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified on 2 June 2022. 186.172.147.110 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Uncertain source and license.
* https://shuaib6727.blogspot.com/2020/04/zulfiqar-ghose-as-novelist.html
* https://www.sheilland.com/zulfikar-ghose
* https://www.chapman.edu/research/institutes-and-centers/john-fowles-center/fowles-speakers/zulfikar-ghose.aspx Nemracc (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Exif data missing, no own work. Nemracc (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Collage of unsourced photos, user's only contribution. Multiple hits on social media in reverse image search, but as this has been on Commons for years uncertain where original was. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The same image already exists: file:Coniopternium andinum fossils - Agua de la Piedra Formation.jpg -- Patachonica (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Arlo James Barnes 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Problem is, who's gonna delete it? Patachonica (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; in future you can tag as a duplicate. --Gbawden (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Keine Freigabe durch den Urheber (Fotografen) ersichtlich Jbergner (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RichardHemming (talk · contribs)
[edit]All three of these are portraits of the uploader. However, the copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject.
- File:Richard Hemming MW 2020 portrait.jpg
- File:Richard Hemming headshot 2017 portrait.jpg
- File:Richard Hemming headshot3.jpg
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GeorgHH as no permission (No permission since). Converting to DR as the uploader replied on their talk page but got no resopnse. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Klingsor089: Please ask M. Holzner to email us a Creative Commons license release by following the instructions at COM:RELGEN (see COM:VRT for more details on the procedure). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
wrong date, wrong author, probably wrong source - copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; clearly a scan, needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Unused. I don't see any artwork by Mohamed Rahmoune. Achim55 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
not free image Wiki Farazi (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
copy vio Wiki Farazi (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, in use but could be replaced by any number of infinitely better images. Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is no other images that provided same information to readers. The image is of perfect file size rather than an unecessarily big file. Resolution is good enough to show the information the author intended to share. Better seaview (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; we have others. --Gbawden (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why this picture could be free. It’s not freedom-of-panorama and it is not de minimis non curat lex (Beiwerk). DaB. (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Where are you from? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.125.145.130 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The photo is of poor quality, blurred. No description. Just another of the countless graffiti in São Paulo. Just another photo uploaded from Flickr without paying attention to quality or informative value. Whether the camera position is correct cannot be verified. Out of scope. Nemracc (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KlassikaUA-SV (talk · contribs)
[edit]Set of low-res images, uploaded by a person with advertising nickname, two of them have FMBD marks in metadata. Very unlikely own works, permissions required.
- File:Колосова, Эльвира Георгиевна.jpg
- File:Токар Олена Миколаївна.jpg
- File:Дмитрий Владимирович Агеев.jpg
Xunks (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
A file I myself uploaded. Not needed anymore and not used in any article. Bakir123 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Free licensed image of national leader with articles about him in over 30 languages. In scope; no evident problem. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
According to Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Crown_copyright "published photographs are out of copyright 50 years after publication." This image was taken and I assume published in 2021. So it won't be in the public domain until at least 2072. Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete - the source website states "www.royalnavy.mod.uk is published under the Open Government Licence, and you can reproduce information from the site as long as you obey the terms of that licence.". Do photos count as "information"? I notice that EXIF states "©UK Ministry of Defence CROWN COPYRIGHT, 2021" and does not mention the OGL. -M.nelson (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- See also related DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Key 2021.jpg -M.nelson (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: yes, photos count. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
According to Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Crown_copyright "published photographs are out of copyright 50 years after publication." This image was taken and I assume published in 2021. So it won't be in the public domain until at least 2072. Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete - the source website states "www.royalnavy.mod.uk is published under the Open Government Licence, and you can reproduce information from the site as long as you obey the terms of that licence.". Do photos count as "information"? I notice that EXIF states "©UK Ministry of Defence CROWN COPYRIGHT, 2021" and does not mention the OGL. -M.nelson (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- See also related DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Key 2021 (cropped).jpg -M.nelson (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: yes, photos count. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Megamanfan3 as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Google Chrome is proprietary software released under Google's terms of service and cannot be uploaded under arbitrary free licenses, including CC or BSD licenses.|source= https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/terms/. Relative to the open-source Chromium for Android, are there any distinguishing features visible here that surpass COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep no one can tell that's Chrome just by looking at it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vegetamin as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
no author given no permission Hoyanova (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good morning. thank you for your concern, the photo is mine and free in use, I hope this answer is akay for you, kind regards, Ernst Ernstkraft (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I put in the copyroght box the following: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
- I hope this settles the cuestion. Sorry, still learning Ernstkraft (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Text is not covered under FoP in China. 沈澄心✉ 09:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Betty Boop files under copyright
[edit]- File:I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal You (1932).webm
- File:Betty Boop.gif
- File:Betty Boop's Birthday Party (1933).webm
- File:Betty Boop.svg
- File:Just a Gigolo (1932).webm
- File:You Try Somebody Else (1932).webm
- File:Fleisher studio cartoon.jpg
- File:Betty-boop-opening-title.jpg
Copyright renewed (see 1) (1), Copyrighted and trademarked characters with Paramount owning copyright and Fleschier Studios owning trademark, see (1)--Bacromisee (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Media from films still under copyright. Keep Other images if the only concern is trademark; trademark is not copyright; {{Trademark}} can be added. Could you please specify circumstances of individual images? Thanks -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- the svg of betty boop is infamously used in official merchandising and is copyrighted (example: one)Bacromisee (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- oh and also the first JPG includes the copyrighted design too Bacromisee (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That image of Boop is from old Fleischer artwork (I recall seeing in book in the 1980s), but the versions on Commons do not have any actual reliable sourcing. Unless actual source going back to original showing public domain status can be shown, Delete -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have deleted the films and images I was able to confirm had copyright renewed. The two remaining have inadequate sourcing - unless proper sourcing and demonstration of PD status can be shown and added, those should be deleted as well. Thank you for your work, Bacromisee. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. The opening title (File:Betty-boop-opening-title.jpg), specifically from Betty Boop M.D., has it's copyright renewed. Bacromisee (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think that was used in repeatedly in Betty Boop cartoon opening sequences. "Betty Boop M.D." (1932) was the first appearance? If so it would not be PD for another 5 years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I double checked, and yes, Betty Boop M.D. was the first appearance of this opening. Betty Boops Bizzy Bee was the final apperance of the original opening. Bacromisee (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that deleted as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete File:Snow White (1933).webm & File:Betty Boop in Snow White.png, copyright renewed Bacromisee (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- also delete File:Let Me Call You Sweetheart (1932).webm
- File:Betty Boop in The Old Main of the Mountain.jpg
- copyright renewed in 1959 Bacromisee (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:Betty-bimbo-minnie-the-mooc.jpg delete per webm deletion of minnie the moocher Bacromisee (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that deleted as well. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I double checked, and yes, Betty Boop M.D. was the first appearance of this opening. Betty Boops Bizzy Bee was the final apperance of the original opening. Bacromisee (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. The opening title (File:Betty-boop-opening-title.jpg), specifically from Betty Boop M.D., has it's copyright renewed. Bacromisee (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Deleted File:Betty Boop.svg per COM:PRP. --Ellywa (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
wrong date, wrong source, probably wrong author, probably copyright violation. Xocolatl (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
File:President Biden Meets with His Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China screenshot.png
[edit]No permission from the Chinese Government (Left hand side) 218.250.38.128 10:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The badge itself is PD, but no evidence provided that its photo released under free license. Xunks (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyright status is unclear. I've never heard of a video being PD because it's from a surveillance camera. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed surveillance camera images have no author and are regarded as copyright free on Commons. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see. That's an obscure rule I've never heard of. In that case, I apologize for the inconvenience and I request that this deletion request be closed in favor of keeping the video. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Geir Olsen / NTBs image. Not free license. https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/norge/2022/07/01/195856184/dagbladet-sian-lederen-tiltalt-for-vold-skadeverk-og-krenkelse Johannes Østby (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we need an odd one of these but this is simply exhibitionism
- File:Mikropenis an erwachsenem Mann.jpg
- File:Mikropenis an erwachsenem Mann 3.jpg
- File:Mann mit erigiertem Mikropenis.jpg
- File:Erigierter Mikropenis.jpg
- File:Mikropenis Hypogenitalismus.jpg
- File:Mann mit Mikropenis.jpg
- File:35 years old male with micropenis.jpg
- File:Adult male with micropenis.jpg
- File:Adult man with micropenis.jpg
Herby talk thyme 10:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Educationally worthless. AshFriday (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Actually these are educationally valuable IMO. We have lots of photos of cock sure, but comparatively few micropenis ones, and these are ones where the entire person is visible, which is unusual in the category. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
These photos seem to show what is always the same man, fully nude or genitals only, most with face visible, name added somewhere in the file name or description, or both. This may be someone uploading images of himself, or it may be some form of defamation. I think these files have a COM:IDENT problem and should be deleted unless we got some express consent by the model.
- File:Michael Skotnik mit Mikropenis in Extremform.jpg
- File:Hypogenitalismus mit Extremform Mikropenis.jpg
- File:Mikropenis Extremform.jpg
- File:Mikropenis hard.jpg
- File:Mirkopenis soft.jpg
- File:Mikropenis an erwachsenem Mann 3.jpg
- File:Mann mit erigiertem Mikropenis.jpg
- File:Erigierter Mikropenis.jpg
- File:Mikropenis Hypogenitalismus.jpg
- File:Mann mit Mikropenis.jpg
- File:35 years old male with micropenis.jpg
- File:Adult male with micropenis.jpg
- File:Adult man with micropenis.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 22:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Most of them can be deleted, i.m.o. Maybe keep a few, where his head is cut off (not literally) :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Not anonymous work. Signed by LEO. Probably caricaturist Лео Борис Михайлович (1904–1975), and not book illustrator Лeo Александр Николаевич (1868-1943) Alex Spade (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's all guesswork. The author has not been identified. And why one and not the other? Kolchak1923 (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is not exempt, this is not anonymous work. If author would not be identified we could not use p.3-4 of {{PD-Russia}}, and file would be deleted because it is missing essential information. Alex Spade (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nomination makes sense. Delete. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 17:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This image was taken by the Japanese government. According Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan only Laws, judgements, and notices are PD, and this is none of those. Or the copyright is held by a third party, who there isn't premision from. Per the terms of use of the source "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright (eg, portrait rights in photographs, publicity rights, etc.) have been processed in particular. Except for those clearly stated, it is the user's responsibility to obtain permission from the third party." So this image clearly isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Probably you are arguing "personality rights", but this is not necessary to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about personality rights because {tl|Personality rights}} says it applies to works that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Whereas in this case the images aren't freely licensed or PD. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright." An image that is copyrighted by a third party obviously has nothing to do with {{Personality rights}} or works that are freely licensed. It would have been cool if you didn't cut and paste the same clearly wrong boiler plate comment into all my deletion requests. Having to respond to the same nonsense over and over is super tedious. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 Doesn't this and File:Pany Yathotou 2019.jpg appear to be covered by the (commons-compatible) license provided in the terms? See [4]. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per Mdaniels5757 and https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/terms.html (CCBY4.0 is acceptable on Commons per COM:Licensing. --Ellywa (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This image was taken by the Japanese government. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan only Laws, judgements, and notices are PD, and this is none of those. Or the copyright is held by a third party, who there isn't premision from. Per the terms of use of the source "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright (eg, portrait rights in photographs, publicity rights, etc.) have been processed in particular. Except for those clearly stated, it is the user's responsibility to obtain permission from the third party." So this image clearly isn't in the public domain. Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Probably you are arguing "personality rights", but this is not necessary to be deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm not talking about personality rights because {tl|Personality rights}} says it applies to works that are freely licensed or in the public domain. Whereas in this case the images aren't freely licensed or PD. Per the usage terms on their website "Content for which a third party owns the copyright and content for which the third party has rights other than the copyright." Neither "Content for which a third party owns the copyright" has nothing to do with {tl|Personality rights}}. I'd appreciate it if you didn't copy and paste the same clearly BS boiler plate comment into all my deletion requests next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Replied on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Beaumont 2019.jpg. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per Mdaniels5757 and https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/terms.html (CCBY4.0 is acceptable on Commons per COM:Licensing). --Ellywa (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This image is a scanned version of a handwriting letter by Pericle Felici in late October 1980. According with {{PD-Italy}}, this image shouldn't be seen as a "simple photographs", so the PD expiration time would be 70 years after the author's death, so it should not be considered PD at present. The signature could be {{PD-signature}}, but the handwritten dedication depicted before it, is still copyrighted because Pericle Felici died in 22 March 1982, so this affects to Italy (source country) and the United States (where post-1977 works are only out of copyright if 70 years p.m.a. had been passed, something that it isn't happened yet). This file, at least, would be out of copyright after 2053. 83.61.237.190 11:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, handwritting is copyrighted, but I considere this a simple photo. Therefore deleted this image while making redirect to cropped version. --Ellywa (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
should be deleted because otherwise it leads to weird double inclusions by the bots: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Panther&diff=13105110&oldid=12724310#English Fytcha (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Fytcha. The redirect is currently in use on some projects. Please change it into the correct file on the projects and nominate the file again. Currently no problem on Wiktionary. --Ellywa (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
should be deleted because otherwise it leads to weird double inclusions by the bots: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Panther&diff=13105110&oldid=12724310#English — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellywa: As you've told me above, I've changed "De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg" to "De-Panther.ogg" on all projects where I could find it (which was actually just ja.wiktionary). Please tell me how I can find out where else it is used (if it still is). To expand on the deletion rationale, if somebody adds "File:De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg" to a page, then User:DerbethBot could additionally add "File:De-Panther.ogg" to that same page even though they're referring to the same file, which is obviously undesirable and which has happened on en.wikt. The easiest solution is to just get rid of this useless redirect. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Fytcha, the redirect is still used as you can see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalUsage/De-Panther-pronunciation.ogg . Ellywa (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per request and "ignore all rules". Redirects of a certain age should be retained, per Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects, because the file can be used outside the Wikimedia projects. Without a redirect the original source is impossible to find. @Fytcha: I hope this situation will not occur more often. In that case another solution to the problem should be sought. But the file is deleted for now. --Ellywa (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This photograph was taken by an employee of Crown Studio Ltd, whom I assume would either be Francis Thompson or Frank Thompson. Since they were the owners at the time the photograph was taken. According to Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand works of joint authorship expire 50 after the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known, which would likely be Frank Thompson since he was the last person of the two to die, in 2001. Therefore this image isn't in the public domain until at least 2052. Even if Francis Thompson was the author it still wouldn't be PD until at least 2028. Although I assume the copyright goes to Frank Thompson as he's the last known person to be alive and part of the business when the photograph was taken. Adamant1 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The source, https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22854636, states copyright is unknown. --Ellywa (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It is useless copy of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Umayyad_Garden.jpg in slightly lower resolution Nous (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Maybe there is something that I don't understand about the art and the surrounding blackspace is meaningful. I don't think that's true though. While the other copy is used, a cropped version ultimately seems more useful. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ahunt as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Google Chrome is proprietary software released under Google's terms of service and cannot be uploaded under arbitrary free licenses, including CC or BSD licenses.|source= https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/terms/. Relative to the open-source Chromium, are there any distinguishing features visible here that surpass COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: the elements of Chrome are de minimis on this file imho. --Ellywa (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag). This looks quite old. Is it possible it could be covered by a PD tag? [24Cr][talk] 19:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The book is surely old, but not necessarily also the photography of it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Túrelio, photo of a 3D object has its own copyright. --Ellywa (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
a more accurate version of this file exist (File:CoA Città di Ferrara.svg) Ketipmaig (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, files are different. --Ellywa (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
inaccurate. a better vwesion exist (File:Stemma_di_Cento.svg) Ketipmaig (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, files are different. --Ellywa (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Auch wenn der Hochlader sich als "Theater Elektra" bezeichnet, ist die Datei möglicherweise geschützt GerritR (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
This photograph was taken by an employee of Crown Studio Ltd, whom I assume would either be Francis Thompson or Frank Thompson. Since they were the owners at the time the photograph was taken. According to Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand works of joint authorship expire 50 after the death of the last of the authors whose identity is known, which would likely be Frank Thompson since he was the last person of the two to die, in 2001. Therefore this image isn't in the public domain until at least 2052. Even if Francis Thompson was the author it still wouldn't be PD until at least 2028. Although I assume the copyright goes to Frank Thompson as he's the last known person to be alive and part of the business when the photograph was taken. Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no evidence of authorship, in the deletion rationale, in the original source, or elsewhere. Materialscientist (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your talking about. The file information literally says Crown Studios of Wellington is the author and I said the same thing in my delete rational. I assume the copyright holders would have been the business' owners/the people who took the photographs. Both of whom I've provided information about. Otherwise I guess you could argue photographs taken by or in a studio aren't copyrighted, but that would just be nonsensical. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I do not consider this photo "anonymous" as it is from a Studio. Therefore the photo must be deleted imho. --Ellywa (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)