March

March 12

Template:Removed caption read

Template:Original caption serves exactly the same purpose, and has more translations. It allows for more parameters and options. This template is hence redundant and unnecessary. No reason to put a box around as well. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix: The templates seem to do different things, the nominated shows text prior to that version. I am not advocating for the template though would expect to see more evidence of no harm from deletion, and that a redirect of the template would not be misrepresenting the intent of use. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Well, in the scenario an original caption was taken from an image and placed into the description, obviously it would have been removed from the image beforehand. Stating "this was the original caption" and "this was the removed caption" is in essence the same thing, since you're obviously not going to duplicate the caption in both the image and the file description, you'd put it in one place or another (most likely the file description). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

File:Ahmed Mourad Zulfikar.jpg

This file was initially tagged by C.Suthorn as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: All the uploads by the account are either COPYVIOs or PD because the copyright expired in Egypt in a time, when egyptian copyright was low. All the files have a very small resolution and poor EXIF data. The logo should be a SVG or at least PNG. The files are claimed own work, while this is impossible for most of them as the depicted people died decades ago. the given time in the info template is wrong.The five images of Gamal Abdel Naser that are not included in this DR can probably also deleted for low quality, better existing images at commons and having been uploaded by an otherwise COPYVIO only account.

Old photograph, converting to DR for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. If you have a higher resolution version, you can over-write this version. --RAN (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per COM:Egypt, the copyright is maintained 50 years pma. This image is made in 1943, so it is not sure the photographer has died more then 50 years ago. I propose to undelete in 2044. The photographer will be higly likely deceased more then 50 years by then. No evidence of anonymous publishing. Ellywa (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

File:Ornella Vanoni al Festival di Napoli 1964.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Caulfield as no source (No source since) Krd 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the one above. --Zenwort (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though source is missing, dated 1964 it meets {{PD-Italia}}+{{PD-1996}}. Consigned (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 UEC Track Elite European Championships 090.jpg

Doublette mit 2024 UEC Track Elite European Championships 070.jpg Nicola (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uploader request, duplicate of File:2024 UEC Track Elite European Championships 070.jpg. Consigned (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Znak wodny GDEL black.png

Logo jest nieaktualne i nie połączone z żadnym wpisem. Pojawia się w wyszukiwarce po wpisaniu nazwy pracowni i jest aktualnie mylące dla Klientów. 80.238.115.88 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is out of date and not linked to any listing. It appears in the search engine after entering the studio name and is currently confusing for Clients.

translator: Consigned (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only used on a personal page, non-notable corporate logo. Consigned (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024年第32屆台北國際書展開.jpg

No FoP for 2D/3D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if one considers the toy cooyrightable and not COM:UA as it would be in Nationalist China, clearly de minimis. --Zenwort (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sadhvi Pramukha Shree KanakPrabha Ji.jpg

Unlikely to be uploader's own work (image is claimed to be from 1965 while the uploader claims to be "at school", i.e., of school age as of 2024). Also, it's a scan from a newspaper or other low-quality print which is very likely copyrighted. See also related discussion about another image by the same uploader[1]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unlikely the uploader's own work. Consigned (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo du Département du Finistère.jpg

problème de conditions d'utilisation, cette oeuvre ne peut pas être adaptée Département Finistère (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of use problem, this work cannot be adapted

translator: Consigned (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by P0su0h (talk · contribs)

Something like Bindingsteuer doesn't exist, see deleting discussion in German Wikipedia w:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/19. März 2024#Bindingsteuer (BNR)

Killarnee (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the opinion of the user "killarnee" with regards to the existence or not "Bindingsteuer", the changes to "§ 20 Abs. 6" in December 2019 and Deember 2020 are history.

The article "Bindingsteuer" has Number 1: not been deleted but moved. Number 2: the discussion was about "political inclination" and "relevance of the term Bindingsteuer" and not its existence.

Changes in 2019: https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/4499/al82883-0.htm

Changes in 2020: https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/4499/al119027-0.htm

User "killarnee" is invited to check how the law changed in 2019 and 2020 and the changes match what it's depicted in the two png file.

Best regards P0su0h (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the lengthy German debate: Wrong licence in any case. Obviously screenshot from software, text may be free as German law. Doubtful if educational. Delete precautionary principle. --Zenwort (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wooseongjin.jpg

This is an unused file, and I request to delete it because it violates the paid contributing without disclosure 호로조 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In use at koWP, though in user ns and potentially out of scope. Have requested deletion at koWP and let us see how that community responds. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future of Life Institute logo.svg

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo. I believe this file is simple enough to be allowed under COM:TOO US. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is above threshold, thus very likely copyvio. --Zenwort (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Font seems simple, though has an element of proportionality thrown through to wrap around a simple image though again with an element of design. The declaration of the license is fictional. I tend ever so slightly to agree with Zenwort, though it probably needs to be compared with other deletions focused on to TOO or not to TOO. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:St. Matthäus (Augsburg-Hochzoll)

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:St. Petrus (Augsburg)

copyright violation; artist of stained glass windows (E. Schickling) died in 2012; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stained glass is either de minimis or easily cropped out to feature the pipe organ. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Church was inaugurated in 1962, and its architect Willem Wichtendahl died in 1992. In Germany there exists a standard of life + 70. In Germany FoP is only for exterior views and this files are from the interior of the church. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:St. Petrus (Augsburg)

copyright violation; contemporary artworks (crucifixus, for example; artist of stained glass windows (E. Schickling) died in 2012); no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Church was inaugurated in 1962, and its architect Willem Wichtendahl died in 1992. In Germany there exists a standard of life + 70. In Germany FoP is only for exterior views and this files are from the interior of the church. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Michaelskirche, Waiblingen

copyright violation; stained glass windows by Domke (see https://www.evangelisch-in-waiblingen.de/fileadmin/mediapool/gemeinden/KG_waiblingenneu/Adressen_und_Ansprechpartner/Gebaeude/Miki.pdf) who died in 2005; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC

03 is de minimis, keep that. --Zenwort (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Friedenskirche (Düsseldorf)

copyright violation; stained glass windows by Domke who died in 2005; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded new pixelized versions. --Chris06 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which made the already blurry pics rather unusable. Scope? --Zenwort (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ quote from FoP Germany: Buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or administrative buildings are not "public" within the meaning of the statute, and thus photographs of works exhibited in their interior do not qualify for § 59(1). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behalten, es geht um Innenfotos des Kirchraum, nicht um die Fenster. --Chris06 (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ja ich verstehe, die Kirche ist in der Public Domain, aber die Fenster sind noch unter copyright und eher prominent im Bild, also da kann man meiner Meinung nach kein de minimis draus machen. Files der Innenräume ohne die Fenster sind ja auch nicht zur Löschung vorgeschlagen worden. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Fotos sind für die Dokumentation des Innenraums geeignet und Bilder wurden hier schon oft nicht gelöscht, wenn das Fensterglas verpixelt ist. --Chris06 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stricken my delete vote since its not anymore the same files we are voting on and I can follow the rationales of both Chris06 but also the one of Zenwort.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NDH St. Blasii 03.jpg

copyright violation; stained glass windows by Domke who died in 2005; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pfarreizentrum St. Petrus Embrach Innenraum.JPG

copyvio, 1 artwork by Rosa Studer-Koch (pd. 2061), no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no FoP for interiors of a church in Switzerland Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep de minimis. --Zenwort (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015 (retouched).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted Peter Griffin character.

Converting to DR for discussion since the photograph appears to be free. Germany has FOP, and this appears to be permanently displayed. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per this. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Griffin in Hannover 2015.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted Peter Griffin character.

Photograph appears to be free, so converting to DR as this doesn't fit criteria for speedy deletion. Germany has FOP and this may be covered by that. Abzeronow (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti can be removed, so FOP doesn't apply. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: @Gnom: for their perspectives on German law. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is covered by German fop, because it is both public (if this is a public street or path, which it seems to be) and permanent (per de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „bleibend“, which explicitly mentions that many legal commentaries consider graffiti to be permanent). I'm not so sure if this is lawful though (in both Germany and the US) because it's a copyrighted character. We do have several other photographs like this though (File:Hilden, Dorotheen Park Lucky Luke.JPG is one I could find after a quick search). --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per COM:PCP. Peter takes up too much space on the photo to be COM:De Minimis. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that FOP requires that the artwork in question was originally placed with the rightsholder's authorisation, which is not the case here. Pinging @Gestumblindi. Gnom (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As I was pinged by Gnom: I share Gnom's understanding. I think that original graffiti in Germany should be considered permanent and therefore fine, per Rosenzweig, but graffiti depiciting pre-existing copyrighted artwork or characters are a different matter. If these would fall under FoP, we could "liberate" any artwork, any copyrighted character, just by painting them - without the copyright owner's permission - on a wall and then claiming FoP. This can't be the law's intention. I would differentiate, though. For example, File:Tintin-Wandgemaelde in Bruessel.jpg is a meticulously painted mural in a prominent location in Brussels, Belgium, showing a scene from a Tintin comic. It is part of the official en:Brussels' Comic Book Route and therefore we can assume that it was made with the right owner's permission (and Belgium has now FoP, too). Such murals should be fine. On the other hand, we also can almost certainly assume that the graffito in question here was not made with the right owner's knowledge and permission. Why do I then only vote "weak delete"? Because, as also pointed out by Rosenzweig, we seem to have a quite liberal practice when it comes to this question. There will be borderline cases where a permission by the rights holder would seem possible, but not certain. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Freedom of panorama rests on the notion that certain artwork types may have allowable 2-D derivative works made if they are in a public place. It protects the photographer from infringement when capturing a panorama of these public artworks. It shouldn't matter if the creator of the public work has infringed themselves on an earlier work. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: Your assumption basically destroys copyright - if it were true, as I wrote above, I just could paint the copyrighted artwork of my choice on a wall in public space and suddenly it's free for anyone to photograph and reproduce. That surely can't be right? Gestumblindi (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not destroy copyright. That is a silly and hyperbolic statement. The original graffiti artist is still committing a copyright violation. FoP laws where photographers are able to reproduce 2D graphical art in public are relatively rare (and probably problematic for the reasons you give), but that does not make the laws less valid, nor their attempt to protect photographers in a more extreme manner. The derivative work is a derivative work no matter the source. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per de:Panoramafreiheit#Rechtfertigung, the official rationale for freedom of panorama in Germany says something like that erecting a work of art at public places expresses the intent to dedicate that work to the general public. And Germany's highest court, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), added that authors consenting to such a placement of their works also agree to dedicating their work to the general public, at least to a certain degree. Some legal commentators argue that some works of art may be placed in public solely at the initiative of the owner without the consent of the author, and therefore fop should be based on the interests of the general public. They all though seem to base their arguments mainly on legitimately produced statues etc. which exist in single copies, so those arguments probably don't quite fit for graffiti. --Rosenzweig τ

Delete - even if FOP, it's a depiction of a copyright violation. The copyright holder did not consent to displaying the character in public. Consigned (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SV Holthausen Logo.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jnkssns as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Logo ist falsch! Es hat im oberen Drittel rechts über dem "n" in Holthausen eine Macke. Ein neues Logo wurde bereits hochgeladen und im Artikel geändert --Jnkssns (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Yann (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hauptbahnhof Schweinfurt Gleisanlagen.png

Überholte Datei, wird nicht mehr benötigt. Da sie von mir durch bessere Datei [2] ersetzt wurde. Foxxy199 (Foxy5) (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can have two versions of the same file. Some may prefer it without the labelling. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karte Schweinfurter Becken.png

Überholte Version Foxy5 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

("Überholte Version" → "Overhauled version") Do you mean Karte Schweinfurter Becken 2.png with 'overhauled version'? WikiMichi (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMichi: No. Karte Schweinfurter Becken 2.png is the better version. I mean this File:Karte Schweinfurter Becken.png with Overhauled version. Foxxy199 (Foxy5) (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think that "Schweinfurt Becken 2" is an outdated version. For me, this map has a different context. The first version IMHO represents more the topography, lacking the urban area. In my opinion, this is too distracting in a more topographical context. In an encyclopedic context, on the other hand, the urban area fits in better, simply as a reference to the "real world", to make it easier to imagine the dimensions.

So it is a keep for me. There are many, many "unused" files on Commons, which are not used in Wikimedian projects like Wikipedia. However, one never knows when another editor is going to need a different map, let alone non-editors just downloading (or using the file via API). It's not like the storage space is sacre. ;-) --WikiMichi (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having multiple versions of files is perfectly reasonable, they just need to be suitably described/commented/explained what the file may be, and how it differs from other versions. I wouldn't suggest that we delete something unless it is problematic — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SW Lage am Main.png

Datei wird nicht mehr benötigt, da sie von mir durch bessere Datei [3] ersetzt wurde. Foxxy199 (Foxy5) (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can have both versions. Remembering that it is not solely internal use that is the consideration. I don't see that two versions is problematic. Good {{Information}} templates is the requirement. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

Files uploaded by Epichippo (talk · contribs)

Incorrectly tagged as own work.

Keep Reproduction of ancient PD artwork -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ancient shadoof near the Nile River.jpg
File:Egyptian Shadoof.jpg
File:Shadoof.egypt.jpg Keep PD stereograph --RAN (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnôs (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patty Pravo al Piper.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Caulfield as no source (No source since) Krd 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palouse City Flag.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.87.219 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to have design elements, and to be beyond TOO. Rationale of the upload should be challenged. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Springfield, Vermont.png

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.87.219 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I made this a long time ago. What can I do to fix this entry? Thanks H0n0r (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@H0n0r: We need the underlying source that you took to make that image. We need to know that copyright of the underlying image, not solely your work in reproducing. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Odessa, Texas.png

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.87.219 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin

es gibt bereits Paintings in the Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin Mateus2019 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--Oursana (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sortable table is something formidable. The problem with the categories are the subcategorizing, so that you often have to guess and search for your object clicking and clicking... With a table you can sort with the data you have, and you have all the objects on one page, even the pictures, so can search just by scrolling through.

If the table wasn't so stupid, sorry, underdeveloped, with its ocean of red links, columns like location (100% Gemäldegalerie, I guess) and unnerving entries that begin with "painting of"; either it is already defined for the table (paintings in the...) or you have to have another columns for medium. Another obvious problem are the urls, thrown in as they are, long as the Amazon... The automation too should be smarter than this.

For the last months I have visited several of these tables on Commons, and it is never a pleasant view. If someone would be keen to make something worthwhile out of it, you like and want to work with, one could even link both to each other, so they may complement themselves. Otherwise it stays more of a half-backed data dump, noone will use.

I disagree as long as there is someone to care, otherwise

I agree. MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wondering whether this is possible to be done through translation special tool, have you asked at com:Translators' noticeboard about what may be possible? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:雲端數位表現佛教藝術釋依林的佛道實踐八十八句大悲咒出相.webm

Freely licensed video that features artworks by a living Taiwanese artist. There's no commercial FOP for artwork in Taiwan (which is regrettable) so I think we'd need permission from Shi Yilin to host this here. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Yilin herself is happy to circulate her works, and there seems to be no copyright. Thyj (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is noted at the bottom of this website: "本站資料，歡迎翻印、翻錄、轉載流通，功德無量。" (The materials on this site are welcome to be reprinted, transcribed, reproduced and circulated, and the merits are immeasurable.) Explain that her work is not copyrighted. Thyj (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a website statement, and the work is still allowed to be reproduced. Thyj (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thyj kindly contact her to allow these images of her copyrighted artwork released under commercial Creative Commons licensing, preferably through email as explained at COM:VRTS. Only an email from her or her company/firm will allow us to commercially distribute her artworks. Note that Commons upholds the definition of free cultural works, so non-commercial content is forbidden (see COM:Licensing#Forbidden licenses). If she does not want to have her artwork exposed commercially on the Internet, then sorry we cannot host these images of her artwork. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an email to contact her, but so far there is no reply. Thyj (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:צילום מסך דף משתמש.jpg

he.wiki screen capture. obviously meant to point out an error, but has been superseded by another image. no use. Poliocretes (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:צילום מסך של עריכה של דזרט.png

Screen capture of he.wiki edit summery. This should have been a link Poliocretes (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LL-Q1321 (spa)-Leire Uranga Celaya-boskoitz.wav

It's Basque, not Spanish Rodrigo5260 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a reason to rename and not a reason to delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i didn't know how to make a renaming request, that user recorded a lot of Basque words and phrases (mostly the latter) as Spanish. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo5260: The instructions for renaming a file are here: Commons:File renaming. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 🖒 Rodrigo5260 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ajax1.jpg

Image has a copyright claim, in description. Whether it's from the uploader or someone else, then it's a copyvio to use image except under fair-use, which is not allowed on commons. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajax1.jpg

Superseded by File:Blend4WebAjax2.jpg Nyuhn (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Peoples' United Revolutionary Movement (Halkların Birleşik Devrim Hareketi - HBDH).svg

Seems like a copyvio, specifically the handshake photo. Maybe there is a free image we could replace the photo with? Thespoondragon (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

File:Proud Boys at the J6 Rally (IMG 8842).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If freedom of panorama (or similar doctrines) does not apply, I am for keeping a blurred version. For example, we could blur the face and the "Patriot" logo with a minuteman while leaving the visible text of the sign (which is not copyrighted). RVD3 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IIArmy-Ariabod.svg

Hoax, this ranking never existed in Iranain Imperial army. the user even fully changed the look of this historical rank(!) Amir (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Amir What evidence do you have that it's a hoax? It's used on two Wikipedia pages so editors are finding it useful. Consigned (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Consigned This has been discussed in details in fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/آریابد in the article's AfD. Such rank never existed in the Iranian Imperial Army. It's a hoax. The old law doesn't mention it at all and the highest is Sepahbod: https://www.dastour.ir/Brows/?lid=22178 Amir (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michelino DanteAndHisPoem.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution, better files Dante and His Poem by Domenico di Michelino Oursana (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a higher resolution version in history, but it was reverted with a comment that some devices couldn't display it. A better solution would probably be uploading a better quality version of this image at the same filename (hopefully addressing the incompatibility concerns). This file is heavily in use, so deletion seems destructive and deletion following replacement of a different file name seems like a bother. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colin Powell anthrax vial. 5 Feb 2003 at the UN.jpg

This is obviously not a still from a video, and the still cannot be found from the link Victorgrigas (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Videos can have sharp resolutions. It was a video listed on White House and State Department .gov sites. They probably had high quality equipment to take videos at the UN.

Here are .gov pages and archives with videos of the event:

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/

https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

They all list videos. Though I can't download them now.

I think it is safe to assume that the video showed Colin Powell holding the vial.

Then the question is whether it was this specific image.

One could assume that the video stayed up for years probably. No one on the Commons during those years said that the video did not show this image.

I say assume good faith of the original uploader and keep the image. Who is gonna complain? And how can anybody prove that this specific image did not come from this video?

See also: w:Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council.

--Timeshifter (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alamy has this photo credited to Elise Amendola of the Associated Press (not US Gov).
Though the video in the source link is no longer available, the still is actually from this CSPAN video which doesn't include the photo above (much lower quality and different angles). I find it incredibly unlikely that the White House had a separate, much higher quality (unlikely in 2003) video, yet chose to use a still from a different video to illustrate it. Consigned (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horace Mann Bond.jpg

Uploader says According to the source [...] the image is in the public domain. If however the source is incorrectly stating so, then instead the use is fairuse for the article Horace Mann Bond. It is fair use because the subject is dead and the photo is too small and of too low resolution to be commercially valuable. on the file page. Checking the source at https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/bond-horace-mann-1904-1972/ today, it now claims the image to be fair use rather than public domain. If this image is not in the public domain, Commons cannot host it, Commons does not host COM:FAIRUSE images. Belbury (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was the rationale imported from English Wikipedia, which houses fair-use imagery. The image is "PD-US-not renewed", up until 1989 you needed to register for a copyright and no image of Horace Mann Bond under any variation of his name appears in the registration or renewal databases. --RAN (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-not renewed}} requires the image to have been published before 1963 - how do we know that it was? Belbury (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speedee in Gentilly.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Fair use (fair use). It's in use, and possibly public domain by formalities. Converted to DR for discussion. @Infrogmation: Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally uploaded this to en:w as fair use (trademark character), with my photo of it free licensed. Someone else copied it to Commons in 2012. I have not researched the "Speedee" character - per en:w:McDonald's#History the company stopped using the character in the early 1960s, so may be out of copyright in source country (US), but that cannot be assumed without research should anyone care to do so. If cannot be shown to be out of copyright, should be deleted. Apparently no longer used in en:w, so no reason to copy it back there. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AHMSAbdelwahab (talk · contribs)

These files are all company logos found on Google. Most of them are duplicates of existing logos, have the wrong licence, are uncategorised, may have TOO problems etc. It would be more time than it's worth sorting through them. Most aren't eligible for speedy deletion as well.

File:Fanatics.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:Expedia.png Keep not duplicate
File:EA Electronic Arts Logo.jpg Delete duplicate
File:Cocacola.png Delete duplicate
File:Carlsberg.png Keep not duplicate
File:Booking.png Delete duplicate
File:Adidas.png Delete duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken Ukraine.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken Russia.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken Latvia.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken ER Turkey.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken ER France.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken 0 0.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Gatorade.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Heineken.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB FedEx.png Keep not duplicate
File:Topps Logo.jpg Unsure raster copy of svg
File:Turkish.png Keep not duplicate
File:Socar.png Delete duplicate
File:SNCF Logo.png Delete duplicate
File:Santander Logo.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:Playstation Logo.png Unsure raster copy of svg
File:Proman.png Keep not duplicate
File:Pepsi.png Keep not duplicate
File:Gazprom Logo.png Delete duplicate
File:Ruffles Logo.png Keep not duplicate
File:PepsiMax Logo.png Keep not duplicate
File:Konami Logo.jpg Keep not duplicate (very close, this is jpg and not svg, but it's a different color than the svg and I've this this shade represented in some advertisements)
File:Hublot Logo.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:FEDEX Logo.png Delete duplicate
File:Starball Logo.png Delete probably above TOO
File:Orange TM.png Delete duplicate
File:Heineken Logo.png Keep not duplicate
File:Hankook Logo.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:UEFA uefadotcom Blue.png Keep not duplicate
File:Expedia-Live.png Keep not duplicate
File:Oppo logo.png Keep not duplicate
File:Mastercard.jpg Unsure raster copy of svg
File:Volkswagen Logo.png Keep not duplicate
File:Vivo logo latest.jpg
File:Molten.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:Mcdonald.png Delete duplicate
File:Lays Logo.png Delete duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Mastercard.png Keep not duplicate
File:KIA logo.jpg Delete duplicate
File:Hyundaikia.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:IMG logo.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:Hisense Logo.jpg Unsure raster copy of svg
File:Heineken logo.jpg Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 23-24 RGB PlayStation-PS5.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 22-23 RGB TurkishAirlines.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 22-23 RGB Pepsi.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 22-23 RGB oppo.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 22-23 RGB Expedia.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 22-23 RGB adidas.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB Socios.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB PlayStation.png Keep not duplicate
File:UCL 21-22 RGB PepsiMax East.png Keep not duplicate

—Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 19:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of these should be deleted, but I don't agree with this broad approach. I did a quick scan through the first five images on the list. Of these, three did not duplicate existing logos. While there may certainly be COM:TOO issues (though not in the first five), these need to be approached more carefully as they are all notable companies. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: All of these logos are inferior duplicates of existing logos, have little useful descriptions or categorisation, and have the wrong licence. It would be more effort that it's worth to manually sort through these logos when we already have most of them under a different name. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 19:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are inferior to existing logos. I haven't had time to go through all of these, but just in the first five, I can't find an exact match for File:Fanatics.jpg, File:Expedia.png, or File:Carlsberg.png. So it's not true that these are all inferior duplicates (unless something is really missing that I didn't see). Poor categorization or missing descriptions are not good reasons for deletion, particularly when it is so self-evident what categories these should belong to. These are major companies for the most part and have categories and descriptions which can be easily added. There is no problem with taking our time on fixing these if they aren't copyright violations. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Now, I haven't looked at every logo nominated here individually, but yes, it seems that most of the logos are low quality duplicates with nonsense licences.

Sometimes, it is just better to respond to mass uploads with mass deletions - especially the "logo" category, we have already 120,000 Unidentified logos which need all kinds of checks - dumping even more files into commons which need especially significant amounts of cleanup work isn't helpful whatsoever. TheImaCow (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most per my individual votes on the files above. I'm going to reiterate my comment above and express my disagreement with how this deletion request was created (as well as with TheImaCow's deletion vote above). Care was clearly not taken in the nomination as a majority of these files are explicitly not duplicates and it took very little checking to find this out. As there are almost no copyright violations here (most are below the threshold of originality in their jurisdictions) and the logos are clearly from high-profile, in-scope companies, I think it's unfortunate that we would default to delete because we can't be bothered to check a few categories. I get that the cleanup job is large, but I suspect most of those 120,000 unidentified logos are from non-notable companies. That these ended up in Category:Unidentified logos is just poor categorization. We don't delete files for being poorly categorized. We recategorize them. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"London Town (You haunt me)" by Melville Gideon.wav

Sound recordings follow different rules. If this was truly fixed in 1924 then undelete in 2025. SDudley (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdul Malik al-Houthi.jpg

Also affected: File:Yemeni Military (SPC) Spokesperson Yahya Saree.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File previously deleted for not having a valid license. Not a work by Tasnim (actually re-published by them) and a probably a license laundering case, no watermark, no photographer credit, not an indication. HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a work by https://mmy.ye/, the official website for Yemeni Armed Forces (SPC). You can contact the admin via the Telegram number provided in the footer of the website or contact their website admin and confirm the permission. N niyaz (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@N niyaz This is the owner who should contact the Commons to grant the permission. Please read Commons:Volunteer Response Team. HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MMY.YE has no copyright disclaimer written anywhere on the website and the website owner gives permission to use the content in the website without any license stated. Technically MMY.YE does not copyright any of their content. N niyaz (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @N niyaz. Public domain content from Yemeni governmental source, uploaded to Tasnim so license changed to CC-BY. Kys5g^talk! 01:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz Where in MMY.YE does the website owner give permission to use the content for any purpose? Since Yemen is a signatory of the Berne Convention, all intellectual property is automatically copyrighted without needing a notice. Consigned (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless evidence of free license or relinquishing copyrights are provided from the copyright holder. Consigned (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could be classified as a media handout, I've contacted the website admin before with them giving permission but not citing any license.</nowiki> N niyaz (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz This is not an election, policies such as Commons:Licensing are not up for vote. You should prove that this file is freely-licensed. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

Files of Forviz

Forviz (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

File:Acueducto Bosque.jpg (760×507)
File:Barrio Juderia.jpg (1136×856, camera HP PhotoSmart C812)
File:Chimenea Fábrica la Escopeta.jpg (1952×2608, camera HP PhotoSmart C945)
File:Fuente Los Tres Caños.jpg (1136×856, camera HP PhotoSmart C812)
File:Iglesia Almócita.jpg (500×372)
File:Panorámica Almócita.jpg (500×333)
- crop File:Almócita, en Almería (España).jpg (400×225)

I take 6MP-9N3 and Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL as own cameras. The rest are mostly small photos with mostly different cameras. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am against the deletion of these images. I don't think there is any reason for delete. Lopezsuarez (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC

This and all the following nominations by Taivu This applicant seems to be under the impression that altered EXIF data is a reason for deleting. I routinely anonimize all images I upload. As long as they have a plausible license NONE of his nominations should be deleted as no no valid reason is given and many are of possible use and within scope. --Zenwort (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of Rudard

Rudard (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

If the files are really useful, then they should be written directly into some articles. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are historical speeches critical to the understanding of Mr. Fair's impact on the LGBTQ movement in Philadelphia. They are not available online elsewhere and are essential to the narrative of this article. I'm unclear how they can be "written directly" into the article or are out of the scope of Mr. Fair's biography. Rudard (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the speeches transcripts of his speech or are they Fair’s copies of the speech he used to give at the events? And the latter case they would be historic documents, but if they’re just transcripts, they should be converted to text. You might want to consider posting them to archive.org and link to them in from the Page in an External Links section. Myotus (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for copyright reasons: only David Fair himself has legal right to provide his speeches under free license. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Derkoenig (talk · contribs)

https://www.statistik.bayern.de/presse/pressefotos/index.html states that "Das untenstehende, druckfähige Bildmaterial steht Medienvertreter zur redaktionellen Berichterstattung über unser Haus zur Verfügung." (= The printable image material below is available to media representatives for editorial reporting on our company.) This is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons, as only the editorial usability is not enough.

DCB (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Da muss ich dir widersprechen: Der von dir zitierte Satz bezieht sich auf das „untenstehende“ Bildmaterial von der dortigen Seite, aber nicht auf die von mir hochgeladenen Fotos. Ich habe mich an dem fettgedruckten Satz „Alle Fotos können unter Angabe der Quelle und bei Beachtung unserer AGBs honorarfrei verwendet werden.“ und auf https://www.statistik.bayern.de/presse/mitteilungen/2024/pm02/index.html „Die Fotos dürfen nur mit Angabe der Quelle (c) Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik verwendet werden.“ orientiert. § 9 Abs. 2 der AGB https://www.statistik.bayern.de/meta/agb/index.html der am ehesten Anwendung finden könnte, lautet: „Vervielfältigung und Weiterverbreitung, auch auszugsweise, mit Quellenangabe ist gestattet. Die Namensnennung des Landesamts als Rechteinhaber hat in folgender Weise zu erfolgen: "Datenquelle: Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik“ - www.statistik.bayern.de.“, ohne eine von dir argumentierte Einschränkung auf Medienvertreter oder redaktionelle Berichterstattung. Auch sonst habe ich in den AGB keine Klausel gefunden, gegen die ich verstoßen hätte. Derkoenig (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC attribution required by creator and correctly mentioned in image descriptions. Absolutely no reason for deletion. --Zenwort (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DCB: Do you have anything else to add? Derkoenig (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of Shivayeeimagebot

Shivayeeimagebot (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

File:An Artistic memorial at Eco Park.jpg (2104×3036, camera GT-I9082)
File:Bihar CM unveils Satyendra Narain Sinha statue at Satyendra Narain Sinha Park in SK Puri.jpg (528×960)
File:Bihar Governor CM Fmr Governor Kerala during public function.jpg (3216×2136, camera NIKON D90)
File:CM Nitish Kumar Governor Nikhil Deputy CM tejaswi yadav.jpg (960×540, Facebook file)
File:Inauguration of S N Sinha Park in Patna.jpg (528×960)
File:Shrimati Kishori Sinha Ji MP.jpg (1944×2896, camera NIKON D80)

I accept Sony DSC-HX7V as own camera. The rest are often small photos. If camera data exist, then always different. One file comes from Facebook. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of Yutingstar

Here are last remaining uploads of Yutingstar (talk · contribs):

File:徳川ミキ japantiara kunozan.jpg ‎(1128×1454)
File:徳川ミキ japantiara phoenix.jpg ‎(1112×1474)
File:Ukrainian Fashion Film Festival.jpg (4032×3024)
File:Profile Daisuke Tarutani.jpg (original 3024×4032)
File:Profile Daisuke Tarutani solo.jpg (872×700)

Mostly small photos without camera data. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of 199515sesar

Here are last remaining contributions of 199515sesar (talk · contribs):

File:ATRACTIVO TURISTICO INCAHUASI.jpg (600×375)
File:HUAYTARA.jpg (259×194)
File:HUAYTARA 2.jpg (400×300)
File:Huaytara capital arqueologica.jpg (276×183)
File:IGLESIA HUAYTARA.jpg (259×194)

Small photos without metadata. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of 마이산

마이산 (talk · contribs) uploaded these logos:

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that this user may also be known as Sangjinhwa. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of 161803cesar

161803cesar (talk · contribs) uploaded these files:

File:Henrique Prata.png (768×526)
File:Henrique Prata 1.png (698×602)
File:Henrique Prata 2.png (723×663)
File:Henrique Prata 3.png (700×646)
File:Henrique Prata 2018.png (781×632)
File:Henrique Prata - programa.png (711×610)
File:Hospital Nossa Senhora 5.jpg (1121×760)
File:Hosp Nossa Senhora 2.jpg (1025×637)
File:Hosp Nossa Senhora small.jpg (1294×741)

First group. Small photos without camera data. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation.

File:Ranulpho Prata.jpg Keep Brazil and USA public domain
File:Ranulpho Prata 1.jpg Keep Brazil and USA public domain
File:Ranulpho Prata small.jpg Keep Brazil and USA public domain

Second group. Source "Arquivo da família" is not acceptable. I suspect photographers' copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second group – no evidence of publication in 20th century. That way we cannot be sure, that the licenses apply. Taivo (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently none of this user's photos are their own work. numerous clear cases of copyright infringement, in addition to images generated by artificial intelligence of questionable educational value. to me, a clear case of mass delete. Sturm (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1932 Summer Olympics logo.svg

The license template is wrong (not created before 1929). There is no indication this is public domain in its home country, since uploader has provided no information about this logo's illustrator, publication history, or copyright renewal status (relevant if it was first published in the US). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have blocked the uploader for other (more egregious) copyright violations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question is whether this is above COM:TOO US, considering that the rings themselves _are_ out of copyright, and the American Flag is probably not copyrightable either. PaterMcFly (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely complex logo, the tree branch is not simple. But I would be surprised, if the copyright is renewed. Taivo (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1952 Summer Olympics logo.svg

The license template is wrong (not created before 1929). There is no indication this is public domain in its home country, since uploader has provided no information about this logo's illustrator. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info I have blocked the uploader for other (more egregious) copyright violations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyrighted. It was not yet in public domain on URAA date and now USA demands 95 years from publication. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1932 Winter Olympics logo.svg

The license template is wrong (not created before 1929). There is no indication this is public domain in its home country, since uploader has provided no information about this logo's illustrator. Info Addendum: I have blocked the uploader for other (more egregious) copyright violations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logo is complex, but I would be surprised, if the copyright is renewed. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The design of the image is so complex that it will not enter the public domain until 2028. Please put in Category:Undelete in 2028. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AGAD Gorgonowa case 1.png

Unlikely to be own work, made 90 years ago 178.37.205.142 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding. This file has been supplied by AGAD (Polish Central Archives of Historical Records) as license-free work. 31.0.64.28 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attribution fixed. --RAN (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion the current license does not apply, because we have no evidence, that the photo was ever published in Poland before upload into Commons. Taivo (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rita Gorgon and Mieczysław Ettinger (trial 1933).JPG

No publication date and publicator - date in description is only event date (data wydarzenia in source page). So it can't be PD-anon. ApproachTV (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed license to {{PD-Polish}}. Lowdown (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moenandar.jpg

wrong date, wrong source, no quality Xocolatl (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed. When we get a bigger version we can overwrite it. --RAN (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current license demands 50 years from publication. Unsure whether this has passed. Taivo (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet nomination. --Zenwort (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AELFCARENA.jpeg

A stadium (re)built during the 2000s. As a result and due to the lack of FOP in Greece this photo as well as any other depicting this stadium as well as any sort of architectural element of the latter should be deleted. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 13:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am skeptical that this photo sufficiently infringes the architects' design enough to rise to be copyrightable. The outward design (that we can see on this picture) displays no more creativity than a ferris wheel. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Magog the Ogre. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AELFCARENA.jpeg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). But it clearly has a source, so I have no idea why it's nominated. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question can also be found in a number of publications originating or related to the club itself, while at the same time in the metadata section there's a lack of mention regarding the camera, the mobile phone, or even the drone that was used in order to take this photo, and at the same time there's a code which most of the time (?) as I remember from similar cases on Commons is a direct hint that the file in question originated or was downloaded from Facebook. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Εὐθυμένης: please show where this was used by the club. I am not seeing any sites except downstream sites which posted after it was here. What's more, this is a high resolution photo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I don't see any reason to doubt the uploader here. —holly {chat} 22:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AELFCARENA.jpeg

Re-nominate. I do not agree that this is just an ordinary structural work, but it is a well-designed stadium. English Wikipedia claims the author is Potiropoulos D+L architects S.A.. As this is designed by a Greek architectural firm, it is impossible that its creativity is just similar to ferris wheels, dams, or viaduct/overpasses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the same reasons I originally gave. I do not believe this building rises to the threshold such that it is copyrightable. I'm looking at an overhang and some seats, not a piece of artwork or creativity. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre don't belittle minimalist or simple buildings like this. Per the arena's information on the architecture firm's website, it won the bronze award in the 2022 edition of the A’ Design Award and Competition. The roof is well-designed so that it functions as a floodlit object during the night. IMO arenas like these do not get treated as public domain objects, and images of these well-designed and awarded buildings should not be commercially-licensed (unless Greece changes their copyright laws). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Delete. The building got multiple architectural awards, so probably the photo has enough copyrightable details. Another opinion is needed as well. Taivo (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Even assuming that the building (or portions of it) is/are copyrightable, I don't think the photo, as a whole (i.e. uncropped), shows more than de minimis copyrightable detail. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022 (cropped).jpg

Copyright violation Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Old username of uploader matched EXIF data (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg). IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleted source file Commons:Deletion requests/File:Josie Ho at Busan International Film Festival 2022.jpg, needs COM:VRT Consigned (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Happy Merchant.webp

A. Wyatt Mann‘s works are not in the public domain 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info A. Wyatt Mann is a pseudonym for Nick Bougas, born in 1955. Thuresson (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComercianteFelizprimeiraThread.png

A. Wyatt Mann‘s works are not in the public domain 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 04:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info A. Wyatt Mann is a pseudonym for Nick Bougas, born in 1955. Thuresson (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is quote of pictures created 1902 or older, Mann is admittedly not the creator. Fix licence and keep. --Zenwort (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Francesco Moriero 1992-1993.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Caulfield as no source (No source since) Krd 05:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WATJ (AM) Logo.gif

Highly unlikely to be a CC-licensed "own work"; the microphone in this logo for radio station WATJ probably puts this above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:WFXJ-FM Logo.png

This logo for radio station WFXJ-FM is highly unlikely to be a CC-licensed "own work", and that stylized fox has to be above TOO. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless the uploader can show they are the actual creator and copyright holder of the artwork, Delete -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Heilige Familie Schoeftland

There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Walter Moser died in 2023 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Heilige Familie Schoeftland Orgel.jpg. The only thing copyrightable here is the stained glass and it is likely de minimis. If not, it can be easily cropped out. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Organ seems to be from 1988. The organ is the prime object of the file you want to keep and that is not de minimis anymore. If you crop out the stained glass and the organ you have not much left.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organ is a functional object. It is not part of the architecture. Its shape is dictated by the sound it was made to produce. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stained glass should be cropped as much as possible. Why is the organ not in the center of the image? Krd 07:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if the image is cropped, there is still no FoP for interior views of churches. The file is named after the church, it is in its category...If it were the only file of an organ, ok, but we have over 600 quality images of organs on commons. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church is within scope. Organs are an important part of the musical life of a church, so why would there be a problem with a particular organ? Who cares that we have 600 images of other organs? We want an image of this one. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about scope, but FoP. And the interior of a church is excluded from FoP in Switzerland.

As you didn't seem to be aware of the particular phrase and the link (as above) is not enough for you, I post the particular phrase on churches here.
It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.

Sources are monographs on Copyright:

Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic!1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Haas/Uhlig, URG, 4th ed. (2022), Art. 27 (7); Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2020), para 490.
And the organ was built in 1988 so the organ will not be in the PD until 2059 as long as its inside a church.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An organ is a musical instrument—a utilitarian object. It doesn't get copyright protection simply by being in a church. It isn't an architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle could you link to a commons shortcut? I tried to search a shortcut with utilitarian, musical and instruments, but didn't succeed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean COM:UA? IronGargoyle (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: I believe that the stained glass is de minimis since it is only a portion of the entire stained glass work and it was clearly not the intent of the photographer to capture the stained glass (per the title of the image). I don't see a problem cropping the image, but I didn't see if the point if others agreed that the stained glass was de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Bruder Klaus Basel

There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Bruder Klaus Basel Krypta Altarraum quer.jpg and File:Bruder Klaus Basel Orgel.JPG. Any copyrightable architectural elements here are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the artifacts are within a church, and churches are specifically excluded from FoP in Switzerland. The particular phrase is rather well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the objects are in a church if they don't show a meaningful portion of the church architecture. The objects are still within scope and still meaningfully associated with the church. I don't know what you mean by the sentence "The particular phrase is rather well sourced." What phrase? IronGargoyle (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a link to FoP Switzerland is enough. The phrase in question is:

It is generally held that the interior of a church cannot be depicted under Article 27.

Sources are monographs on Copyright:

Cherpillod, Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, 1995, p. 300; Macciacchini/Oertli, Handkommentar Urheberrechtsgesetz, 2nd ed. (2012), Art. 27 (6); Sandro Macciacchini: Die unautorisierte Wiedergabe von urheberrechtlich geschützten Werken in Massenmedien. In: sic!1997, pp. 361–371, p. 369; Fanny Ambühl and Stephan Beutler: Fotografieren verboten! – Zum Spannungsverhältnis von Urheber- und Eigentumsrecht im Fotografiebereich. In: recht. 2011, pp. 14–19, p. 18; Rehbinder/Haas/Uhlig, URG, 4th ed. (2022), Art. 27 (7); Hilty, Urheberrecht, 2nd ed. (2020), para 490.

And the organ was built in 1971 so the organ will not be in the PD until 2052 as long as its inside a church. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the idea what you can copyright the architectural interior of a church. I'm saying that an organ is a musical instrument and a utilitarian object. It is not part of the protected architecture. Also, a simple white wall and doorway is non-infringing. It is a de minimis portion of the larger work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg)

There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Heilig Geist Höngg Andachtsecke neu.tiff, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Treppenhaus.JPG, and File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagsaltar Taufstein.tiff. These are close-ups of walls, corners, and other simple interior elements which are de minimis in relation to the larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no FoP for interior views on Switzerland as explained above. Structures such as interior views of staircases or churches are specifically excluded from FoP. The phrase about churches is very well sourced. I have researched a bit on the Organ and it hails from 1954, so File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg, File:Heilig Geist Höngg Orgel 1973.jpg can be undeleted in 2025 and other files with the organ can be uploaded from 2025. The rest I suggest to undelete in 2079. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organ is a utilitarian object. Its shape is dictated by the sound it is designed to produce. It is not a work of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started a COM:VPC discussion regarding organs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these pictures show more than the organ. So these could be a problem. Also something must be subject to a copyright in the first place. I doubt it is the case for File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG. This only shows chairs, a table, and plain walls. Yann (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, :) can't you see the Holy Spirit shining in through the window? To make the light shine into a church like this, is quite an achievement. A bit more seriously I don't see myself in the position to say what is copyrightable and what not. For some "artists" even trash is art. Would we keep contemporary art just because it's made of trash? In my experience we delete it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't delete something just because someone calls it "art". It must be subject to copyright. See Category:On Kawara as an example. Yann (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Allerheiligen Zürich

There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. File:Allerheiligen 3357-b7.jpg, File:Allerheiligen Altarraum Orgel.JPG, File:Allerheiligen Zürich Krypta Altar mit Inschrift.jpg, and File:Kirche Allerheiligen Zürich, Orgel.JPG. Images of pipe organs as well as simple walls and corners. Only de minimis elements of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organ is from Bernhardt Edskes who died in 2022 and its an interior view. Per FoP Switzerland interior views of churches are not permitted and that phrase is really well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The organ is a functional object whose shape is dictated by the sound it is made to produce. It is not part of the architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above. Keep organ. --Zenwort (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Katholische Kirche Münchwilen

There is no FoP for interior views (of churches) in Switzerland. Its architect Karl Higi died in 2008 and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Antonius Münchwilen Orgel.jpg and File:Muenchwilen katolika preghejo - orgeno 339.JPG. Just a pipe organ sitting in a corner of a room. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Organ is from 1974 so under copyright until 2045. And those are interior views of a church which is not included in FoP Switzerland and that phrase is really well sourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organ is a functional object whose shape is dictated by the sound it is made to create. It is not a work of architecture. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bu Jue Xiao Xiao.webp

Taken from a website claiming copyright https://peachandgoma.com/pages/about - no evidence of being available under CC 4.0 DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would its CC be if it's a public profile picture? The author also uploaded her profile photo to her public Twitter account. https://x.com/bujuexiaoxiao/status/1666064562851037185?s=20 As far as I can tell, it's not posted anywhere with an official copyright. Joshuarhuang (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN3267 (994379847).jpg

Freedom of Panorama does only apply for buildings. COM:FOP Denmark. Also see previous discussions like this one. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a building but model or toy. COM:UA, thus keep. --Zenwort (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toys are unfree in most cases. Lukas Beck (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billund Legoland 11.jpg

Freedom of Panorama does only apply for buildings. COM:FOP Denmark. Also see previous discussions like this one. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasoning that way, argumenting miniature buildings are no buildings, thus not covered by danish freedom of panorama, will result in the end in a situation, that only photos released by the official press department of Billund Legoland will remain in Wikipedia, as this, this or this - and I don't see Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as an executive branch of the official press department of Billund Legoland^©... Further more, the fact that even the official press department of Billund Legoland indirectly contributes photos to Wikimedia Commons can be seen as a sign to the support for Commons by the administration of Billund Legoland. So the fear of being threatened by Billund Legoland is just an irrational fear: there is no hint of Billund Legoland fighting against Wikimedia Commons, but a clear hint that Billund Legoland has an interest of seeing photos of its park here. ThomasPusch (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-enactments of buildings are re-enactments and not buildings. The copyright may also not lie with the park owner, but with the person who created the work of art. Incidentally, we have already cleaned up this category several times and deleted many images. I don't see any justifiable difference in this picture. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Therme Vals

There is no FoP for interior views in Switzerland. Architect Peter Zumthor is still alive and in Switzerland exists a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first three. Extremely simple walls and corridors are a de minimis part of a larger architectural work. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not "extremely simple walls" but ones designed by Peter Zumthor, a Pritzker Awardee, which is often referred to as the Nobel Prize in architecture. The walls you see here are of selected local stone and the stones are placed in a specific order. About the Therme Vals there are numerous architectural reviews that describe the stone and the order. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His awards are completely irrelevant. Don't use them to obfuscate the issue. I highly doubt the architect was selecting which particular stone slab goes where. That's what builders and stonemasons do. I searched numerous reviews of the structure and could find no support for this claim. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am really interested to see your "reviews", could you link to them? The stone is mentioned in the English wikipedia article rather prominently since years. The first google hit I opened gave me this basic architectural review that mentions the stone and how this stone influenced the structure of the building. The building is meant to imitate a quarry which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Here a review in German, in which the stone patterns are explained a bit more in detail (from p.739 onwards). Three layers with a different amount of millimeters result in slab of 15cm... But now the 3 layers don't go in the same order every time, they are laid one upon another in six different orders. And then those 15cm slabs have their own order again. Ever seen such a wall somewhere else? There is much more on the stone slabs in the article. Here another architectural review (in English) that has a lot about the stone. Here is another one (in German) that focuses on the stone and its changing color depending on the light that reflects on the stone and how Peter Zumthor decides (with his design) how much light gets to the stone... Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mittelschule Obermais.jpg

Weil ein qualitativ schöneres Foto zur Verfügung steht Schand19 (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wurde bereits geändert. Ist also hinfällig. Saerdna124 (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stimme dem zu. Dieses Foto passt so gut. Schand19 (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LAZ: Löschantrag selbst zurückziehen. Saerdna124 (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte an Admins: Es kann also sofort das alte mit dem neuen, qualitativ schönerem Foto ausgetauscht werden. Danke! Saerdna124 (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrightviolation --ManfredK (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, ich bin noch recht neu hier. Beide Fotos stammen von mir. Ziel: Das qualitativ schönere Foto soll veröffentlicht werden. Saerdna124 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Casinò di Campione

There is no FoP in Italy as is clearly stated at the category. Only photographs taken from Switzerland are allowed. The ones nominated are all close ups of parts and details of the building.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All these photos have been uploaded within the WLM initiative following an authorization by the Municipality of Campione d'Italia (see here). I don't see why we shouldn't consider the authorization valid. See also previous discussions here and here. Moreover, at least File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 10.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 11.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 2.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 6.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 9.jpg seem under the high italian ToO to me, for being too simple or for being merely functional parts of the building without an artistic character.--Friniate (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the authorization also counts for photographs uploaded on other months than September/during the WLM initiative? The key criteria to participate in the contest is that they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in September (2018). None of the files is from 2018, the year the authorization was given, at the time also for the future years of the WLM initiative. Only one was uploaded in September, the last one in September 2022. On the ToO I advocate for wikimedians not to get involved in questions of what has an artistic character and what not. No. 10 and 11 no artistic character? I strongly disagree, those stairs and their environment have in my opinion (as many of Mario Bottas works) a lot of artistic excellence. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the dates of the uploads, they are different from the ones of creation, most of the photos were taken in 2016 but uploaded in 2018, at first I overlooked that myself. All the photos were uploaded in or after 2018 and always in the month of September (I agree that the authorization doesn't cover photos uploaded outside WLM 2018 and the following editions). Friniate (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are right! Thanks. well then I withdraw my request altogether. Keep all per Frinitate Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate: Wouldn’t it be much better to have a link to this permission PDF on each file description page? Or even better have a copy of this PDF in the VRT data base? — Speravir – 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Speravir Well, there is a link to the authorization through the Template:Monumento italiano, although maybe it could be more visible. I agree that it would be better to have these authorizations in the VRT database, but that is something that should be discussed with the people from WMI who organize the contest (the issue was most recently discussed here by @Ruthven and @Paolo Casagrande (WMIT)). Friniate (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I do not see such a link in the template. — Speravir – 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a photo of a monument which is part of cultural heritage of Italy. This monument participates in the contest Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018. See authorisations" You have to click on "authorisations". Friniate (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Later insert:) Friniate and Ruthven, just as information: The template {{Monumento italiano}} was not up to date in German (the language I am speaking) and Macedonian – both lacked the link to the authorisations Friniate referred to. I’ve updated them both: German, Macedonian. If this were present I probably wouldn’t have asked here and in VRT noticeboard. — Speravir – 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Speravir Thank you! Friniate (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate Do you happen to have a direct link the to permission? Because the one in the file page is not specific enough. Ruthven (msg) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven [4] Friniate (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Friniate It seems that the permission is for WLM only. It's badly written, as I said many times. In any case,

Keep given that:

the correct link is used for the Files, and not the generic one as currently done
WLM only photographs are authorised

Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, it's for WLM only, but all the photos were uploaded within WLM so it's not an issue... As for the link, it cannot be changed manually, somebody more expert than me should modify the template in order to allow that... Friniate (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've added manually the links to the authorizations in all the images involved. Friniate (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mgr Tikno-1.jpg

copyright (https://www.sesawi.net/requiem-untuk-mgr-vincentius-sutikno-wisaksono-dan-pemakaman-jenazah-di-puhsarang-kediri/) Medelam (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ips-vs-ids.png

This file was initially tagged by Nyuhn as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: Ips-vs-ids-short.png — billinghurst sDrewth 09:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Jagersberger Headshot with Hat (2021).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Jagersberger Headshot Suit (2020).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Jagersberger Portrait (2020).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added duplicate image File:Joshua Jagersberger Headshot (2020).jpg. Consigned (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Jagersberger Sunflower Portrait (2020).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Jagersberger Sunflower Headshot (2020).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Twentie4 as Speedy (db-g7) and the most recent rationale was: g7 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional photo likely copyrighted. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please contact COM:VRT. Consigned (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yousuf Khane Mostashar al-Dowleh.jpg

منبع پرونده مشخص نیست Farhoudk (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The source of the file is not known". If we deleted every image where the original link did not work, because of link rot, we would not have many images left. The image is PD in Iran and the USA. --RAN (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets {{PD-Iran}}. Consigned (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corbicula fluminea veligers and early pediveligers.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Rasbak as Speedy (Speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published 1986 the current license {{PD-Old}} is false. I don't see a copyright notice in the source https://archive.org/details/americanmal4519861987amer/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater and can't find ISSN 0740-2783 at https://www.copyright.gov/records/, seems like it meets {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Consigned (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Couverture du livre d'Henri Cordreaux "Fabrication des accessoires de théâtre".jpg

1947 and "own work"? hm... Xocolatl (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely doesn't meet COM:FRANCE (70 years pma), author Henri Cordreaux died 2003. Consigned (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alexostrov (talk · contribs)

No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine.

Quick1984 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All photographs of artworks/sculptures presumably copyrighted; no COM:FOP Ukraine. Consigned (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Li Shizhen.jpg

Taken from the Internet, highly unlikely that it meets PD-Old Yinweiaiqing (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

蔣兆和作品--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Zhaohe's works

translator: Consigned (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@北極企鵝觀賞團: Could you please provide any evidence? Thanks. SCP-2000 13:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
原圖是這項張吧https://i1.kknews.cc/C4HhmOjj8zILSwHHPSr3Gg2NsqpYKJ1-Ig/0.jpg 北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@北極企鵝觀賞團: Jiang Zhaohe died in 1986 therefore the artwork is copyrighted for 50 years after 1986, per COM:CHINA. Consigned (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it is PD per COM:CHINA. If the artist is Jiang Zhaohe, then it likely does not meet the current license on the file (PD-Art|PD-old-100). Consigned (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charlotte gabris actress swiss.jpg

Doute sur les droits Le Commissaire (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. take a look Eliedion (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eliedion, COM:WEBCOPYVIO. Consigned (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-shirt.png

comment supprimer une photo sur wikimedia commoms Mardocheé Toni (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:פארק ואגם המרינה לקראת סוף עבודות הבנייה, מרץ 2024.jpg 01.jpg

Almost identical to "File:פארק ואגם המרינה לקראת סוף עבודות הבנייה, מרץ 2024.jpg 03.jpg" מקף־עברי (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uploader request, redundant with File:פארק ואגם המרינה לקראת סוף עבודות הבנייה, מרץ 2024.jpg 03.jpg Consigned (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cali Movilizacion por la Vida.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018 10 16 tridente manifesto 5895ac2636.jpg

Copyviol without permission Bramfab (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:YuvaSena Logo.jpg

Logo likely to be above COM:TOO India A1Cafel (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aaron Monument.jpg

Copyrighted 3-D object . See COM:FOP US. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre, Commons is not really my expertise but I got the image from Flickr and Commons allowed it to be uploaded. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm asking is why this particular image isn't allowed? Because there are a lot of images of statues which have been uploaded which are taken by amateur photographers as this one has been. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omnis Scientia, as Magog said, please read COM:FOP US. That will most likely answer your questions. If you read that and still wonder why other photos of statues are OK on Commons, it's because either those sculptures are old enough to be in the public domain or they were shot in countries that have commercial freedom of panorama for sculptures shown in public places. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, I did read it but but your last part explained what I didn't get. Thank you for that. Much appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. This stuff can be very arcane and frustrating. I wish Commons didn't require commercial freedom of panorama. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)

copyright violation; Georg Schönberger, artist of staines glass windows, died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 16:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)

copyright violation; stained glass windows by Georg Schönberger who died in 2017; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your reasoning is absolutely correct from a legal point of view regarding FOP in general. The technical quality of all those images is quite low; the glass windows as artworks are hardly identifiyable. They are mostly insufficiently balanced and overexposed. COM:DM should be sufficient for keeping those images. Msb (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocus Hall 2024.jpg

Although the Tasnim agency licenses its content with a free license, the photo used in the news does not belong to Tasnim. According to the image search, it has already been used in other media and the photo belongs to Maxim Shemetov from Reuters, so it could be a license laundering. Taichi (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem like a creation of Tasnim agency, presumably still copyrighted by Maxim Shemetov from Reuters. Consigned (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Журнал боевых действий 53 А за январь 1944 г. стр. 61.jpg

Logbooks of combat operations do not fall under PD-RU-exempt, they have not legislative, administrative and judicial character Alex Spade (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Spade: Maybe this text is {{PD-text}}? Also Vasily Babenkov died in 1944 so {{PD-Russia}} can be applied --Butko (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016

copyright violation; contemporary artwork on the wall; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo motif (award ceremony) would be perfectly valid in its information without the painting or with any other painting in the background. I plead for “unwesentliches Beiwerk". Elya (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yendifa (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio: The authors are cited in the descriptions, Watermarks on the pictures

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, désolé pour les désagréments. Ces images sont pas été prises par moi mais sont libres de droit, raison pour laquelle j'ai tout de même cité les auteurs des images Yendifa (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne suis pas sûr qu'elles soient libres de droit. Être publiées sur internet ne les rendent pas libres de droit. Si vous avez les autorisations, vous pouvez suivre les indications pour créer un ticket VRT : [5]. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non je n'ai pas officiellement les autorisations, donc on les supprime. Merci pour interpellation ! Yendifa (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category navigation 3

Mostly unused template, not needed Mike Peel (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new one for a specific situation I created prior to taking vacation. This function can perhaps be rolled into the main category navigation templates, but pending that actually being done, this should be kept. No harm in keeping it for the time being anyway. Thanks, Josh (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cem Karaca.jpg

While the video on youtube is marked with a CC license, this screenshot is from one of his video clips shown on the program, which TRT would not have the right to publish under a CC license. Only the footage of the studio parts shot by TRT would be eligible for screenshots, as they would only have the right to publish that footage under whatever license they want. There is another similar case here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Önay Alpago.png. File:Cem Karaca ve Annesi Toto Karaca (1988) - TRT Arşiv.webm should also be deleted on the same basis and because it contains a lot of clips that they would not have the right to publish with a free license. Tehonk (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the Youtube creator is not able to release third party content through their video. Without evidence of the third party content being PD, we should assume it's copyrighted. Consigned (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument Hawker.webp

Pas sûr de la Liberté de panorama du monument au mort Lanoe Hawker. Certe, il est mort en 1916, mais sait-on qui a fait ériger le monument ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient reason to delete. PeterWD (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moša Pijade 1968 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg

The licence is wrong. All those stamps contain drawings by w:Božidar Jakac (1899-1989). Not yet enough time from the death of the author. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates: "If issued from December 1, 1918 to June 30, 1991, any year can be uploaded." --Sporti (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. There was actually a DR related to Yugoslavian stamps a while back here and I think the closing administrator explains well and in pretty good detail why stamps from the country are probably copyrighted, or at least why we can't assume they are PD whatever Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates says about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lunchbreak by Prvoslav Karamatijević 1978 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg

The license in wrong. The stamp contains a drawing by w:Pivo Karamatijević (1912-1963). Not yet 70 years from death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Workers by Maksim Sedej 1978 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg

The license is wrong. The stamp contains drawing by w:Maksim Sedej (1909-1974). Not yet 70 years since death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Workers leaving factory by Marijan Detoni 1978 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg

The license is wrong. The stamp contains drawing by w:Marijan Detoni (1905-1981). Not yet 70 years since death. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Marina Kalezić

The license is wrong, those stamps contains a drawing by Marina Kalezić, who is alive. Copyrights apply. Contrary to the license, those were not published before 1966. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Funeral of Mohsen Hojaji in Tehran 09.jpg

Since the flag is so prominent, could it be that this does not apply for de minimis? Bedivere (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not de minimis in the photo, so if it's copyrighted, all rights reserved, the photo has to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Files found with Special:Search/Dan Schneider, 1988

No proof that this photo was published prior to 1989 without a notice. It cannot be assumed, it has to be shown. It is a scan of an original 35mm slide photo and according to the listing: This is one of a large number of entertainment photos, slides and negatives that we will be listing over the coming months which proceed from the Globe Photos archive.... Just because it was taken in 1988 doesn't automatically make it public domain. We need to see the full slide, as it could contain an author or a copyright notice. Since the author is unknown, unable to check for a copyright registration. Delete per COM:PRP

PascalHD (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marche contre l' antisémitisme Paris 12-10-2023 - 17.jpg

Pseudo-autorisation : Une "autorisation orale" n'a aucune validité juridique : Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, lors de la prise de vue, j'ai demandé aux deux personnes qui tenaient le panneau, celle se tenant à gauche (la photo publiée est recadréee) qui m'a répondu s'est présenté comme le directeur de la publication du journal et m'a dit que le dessinateur acceptait la publication en licence libre de son dessin. Vu les circonstances, je ne pouvais demander une autorisation écrite et aujourd'hui je n'ai pas l'intérêt impérieux de faire une démarche compliquée et ennuyeuse, donc pas d'opposition à la suppression. - Siren-Com (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPOUSTEGUY - Hydrophage, 1975 - Paris, Musée Quai St. Bernard - 86 - 143.76.jpg

Also, the redirect File:IPOUSTEGUY - Hydrorrage, 1975 - Paris, Musée Quai St. Bernard - 86 - 143.76.jpg.

Jean Ipoustéguy, the creator of this sulpture, died in 2006. In France artwork is protected for 70 years after death of author, cf. COM:FRANCE. This means the visible artwork is protected until 2077. Because there is no freedom of panorama in France the photograph has unfortunately to be deleted. Speravir 02:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Centre Le Corbusier

The house was designed by Architect Le Corbusier who died in 1965 and its construction was finished by Jean Prouvé who died in 1984. Switzerland has a standard of life + 70 years and has no FoP for interior views. The files nominated are of architectural models and a painting exhibited in the museum and some interior views of the building. Some interior views I did not nominate as they show primarily people or art I assume is in the PD.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any of the images which do not contain copyrighted models or other copyrighted 2D or 3D artworks. The building elements shown are extremely simple de minimis elements of a larger architectural work. Big glass windows, a few kitchen appliances and some benches. That's it. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deutscher spiele preis logo.svg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo (SH) Yann (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacific Mall Legazpi front (F. Imperial, Legazpi, Albay; 04-17-2023).jpg

Violation of building designer's copyright, considering the Philippines lacking FoP exception to allow commercial exploitations of architectural and monumental artworks still under their designers copyrights. The user who moved this file from English Wikipedia should have made strict review of the public landmark depicted and consulted meta:Pilipinas Panorama Community/Freedom of Panorama#Recent developments before making such file transfer actions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, building design is too generic and utilitarian to be copyrightable. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandmaster Huon I don't see this building as something generic. It is not something that is an ordinary warehouse or industrial complex (examples: File:Zama Philippines.jpg and File:Sucat Thermal Plant b.jpg). The Pacific Mall has some protruding walls on its façade and a cornice that surrounds its upper tip. It is no ordinary work of architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still below TOO in my opinion. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandmaster Huon for me, not. Bears design of the building designer. Copyrighted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olzhich2011.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1989. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Dipolog Cathedral

Not in public domain. There is no Freedom of Panorama for commercial exploitations of images of copyrighted monuments and buildings of the Philippines. The English Wikipedia article implies the façade has changed after 1960s, and its belfry is apparently 1970s. Worse, its façade as well as interior were altered during 2000s. Fails {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}} cutoff date of December 1972. No more traces of public-domain Spanish or American-era architecture, and the cathedral has become a copyrighted work of architecture.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see any evidence that the core architectural work has changed. The renovation information lists no new architect. New stonework and woodwork is not sufficient to create a new architectural copyright for the building. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle I think the renovations are sufficient enough to have altered architecture. An old image sourced from the city website (now hosted here as File:Dipolog Cathedral undated.jpg) apparenty shows a radically-different entrance. Combined with the noted bell tower that dates to the 1970s, it is reasonable to assume that the cathedral's architecture is no longer the Spanish-era architecture and is under architectural copyright (if anonymous, then 50 years from publication or completion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nl-hierarchie.ogg

Incorrect spelling. Correct spelling "hiërarchie" already exists Lotje (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In use, perhaps having two separate recordings are valuable. Link to the other file: File:Nl-hiërarchie.ogg.Consigned (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luang Chattrakankosol.jpg

According to COM:FoP#Thailand, artworks displayed inside building photos are not acceptable. Wutkh (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, if the uploader can state the statue's location, it could be reconsider to keep this picture or not. However, I presume that it is might cam from other websites, but I cannot trace to the original one. Wutkh (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently found that there is the full photo here: File:Wax sculpture of Luang Chattrakankosol, National Memorial, Pathum Thani, Thailand (2).jpg. So, could I withdraw my deletion request? --Wutkh (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Election Symbol Mike.png

Not own work as this image widely available in the internet, and some are copyright works ~AntanO4task (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@~AntanO4task: , See Category:Indian election symbols all are uploaded as own work. This issue is already discussed before in Commons:Deletion requests/Indian Election Symbols, Party Symbols and Logos. SamsonM2 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image available in the documents of Election Commission of India. See [6] 104 row Sriveenkat (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO: , @Sriveenkat: Quoted from official eci website Media Policy section: The Commission also publishes statistical reports and other documents which are available in the public domain. SamsonM2 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India websites can publish as free, but who was the owner of the original work. Some websites including flickr upload copyvio work as public / CC. --Antan O 09:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntanO: , There are numerous files published as own work in Category:Indian election symbols, so I simply followed the same procedure. I think you are having issue with publishing this file as own work, so I'm changing the licensing to public domain with ECI as owner of the original work and quoting the source also. SamsonM2 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inhambane stamp Ceres.jpg

Wrong license, this is not US work. No indication of free license. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The designer of this stamp was Constantino de Sobral Fernandes, who died in 1920. So this stamp is out of copyright and in the public domain.

Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lesotho stamp 1966.jpg

Wrong license, this is not US work. No indication of free license. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{PD-anon-50}} might apply. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Lesotho#Durations. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp1 of AOF.jpg

Wrong license, this is not US work. No indication of free license. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An 80 year old anonymous work would be in the public domain. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ИринаЯ

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

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)

No FoP in Russia for modern non-architectural artworks.

Sealle (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 05:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)

No FoP in Russia for modern non-architectural artworks.

Sealle (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of artworks, copyright status is unclear. COM:TOYS.

Quick1984 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, photos of COM:TOYS. Consigned (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:St-pierre-et-miquelon exposition coloniale 1931 stamp.jpg

Wrong license. This is not work published in the US before 1929. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old enough to be French PD, fix licence. --Zenwort (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajman State stamp Anna Vreizh.jpg

Wrong license. This is not work published in the US before 1929. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-United Arab Emirates stamp}} applies.

Keep. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NUK Babyflaschen.jpg

Copyrighted designs in the center bottles and the bottle to the right may be too large and subtantial to be de minimis. Commons doesn't allow T-Shirts with copyrighted character designs, even though clothing is utilitarian. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babyflaschen sind ein Gebrauchsgegenstand und weisen heutzutage (zumindest bei der betreffenden Marke) nahezu alle großflächige Drucke auf. Als Nichtjurist sehe ich den Druck als Bestandteil des Gebrauchsgegenstands (für den er erstellt wurde, da es sich nicht um ein Lizenzbild handelt) bzw. als Beiwerk, zumal durch die Rundung nur ein Teil des Drucks erkennbar zu sehen ist. Sky ffm (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They still are a prominent part of the bottle design. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Sky ffm German law argument. --Zenwort (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarrierCommandGM.png

Logo above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published by Rainbird, which was a label of w:Telecomsoft, a British company, so if that's controlling, this logo would indeed be above COM:TOO UK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Jean Prouvé

Jean Prouvé died in 1984 and the furniture are exhibited in a design museum in France that does not know Freedom of Panorama that fits for commons and has a standard of life + 70 years. Suggest to undelete 2055.

The first file is from a Museum in the USA, which also has a standard of at least life + 70 years. (added a day after Sailko mentioned the photograph taken outside of France)

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chairs and furniture are utilitarian objects that fall under Commons:UA (btw, it doesn't really matter, but some pictures are not taken in France) --Sailko (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry not to have mentioned the file exhibited in a museum in the USA. But my DR remains. Here a link to the SCE Jean Prouvé which holds all his copyrights. prior to reproduction, permission must be sought from the SCE Jean Prouvé and the ADAGP (Société des auteurs graphiques et plastiques) to whom the SCE Jean Prouvé has entrusted the management of its copyrights. Jean Prouvé is now a rather famous designer and architect and his furniture is very different than the vast majority. Just check his "school bench" (banco biposto (PP11) or the Anthony chair (Sedia Anthony, mod. 356). And in my opinion, for such cases there is an exception in UA.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously utilitarian objects. Per COM:UA: They do not have "artistic elements which [are] 'physically or conceptually' separable from the object[s]' functional aspects". IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unidad Demócrata - Symbol.png

Tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} but the shape of the logo is some complex, maybe reaches COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat complex, but considering the example in COM:TOO Andean Community, I doubt it's over their COM:TOO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Cantate-Domino-Kirche (Frankfurt am Main)

Church built from 1963 to 1965, interior not covered by FOP. One of the architects died less than 2 years ago.

Didym (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sehe ich anders. Meine Bilder zeigen meist nur die Orgel mit (nicht sonderlich extravaganter) weniger Umgebung, den Wandteppich und die Lichtkuppeln habe ich bewusst nicht hochgeladen. Eigentlich besteht Konsens, dass Orgelprospekte gezeigt werden dürfen (Spieltisch und Pfeifenwerk sowieso). Insofern Einspruch. --Subbass1 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any of the images which focus primarily on the pipe organ, as it is not an architectural work, but instead a functional object. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those in which architecture is shown and not only the organ and unavoidable surroundings. --Krd 07:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist m.E. keine spezielle schützenswerte Architektur (sind Architekten überhaupt grundsätzlich Künstler mit geschützten Werken, was auch immer sie tun? Kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, das ist (auch) Handwerk.) Ich muss mich schon wundern, wieso das auf Commons nicht geklärt ist, wie hier verfahren wird. Völlig lächerlich, dann müssten zigtausende Innenbilder neuerer Kirchen gelöscht werden. Man kann das auch pragmatisch sehen, wie gesaagt, kein Wandvorhang etc.... Wo kann ich mich eigentlich beschweren, wenn das gelöscht werden sollte? --Subbass1 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC

Pictures of the organ clearly COM:UA, strongly keep --Zenwort (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organ was built in 1970. In my opinion organs are also copyrightable. I doubt you will find serially fabricated organs in churches and usually each one is an original and designed for the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs) I added that comment before the reply by IronGargoyleParadise Chronicle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a utilitarian object (see COM:UA). The various qualities of the pipes, housing, and sound apertures are all designed to produce a particular quality of sound. There may be ornamentation, but we would have to delete hundreds of images of violins, guitars, pianos, and other instruments if no ornamentation was allowed to be reproduced on these utilitarian objects. The ornamentation here is not separatable from the sound-producing parts of the work (in the same way the sound holes on a violin might be creatively shaped but are not separatable because they are a functional part of producing sound). I should add that the threshold of originality for works of applied art (of which this would be one) is higher in Germany than in the US. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO Germany says that what is utilitarian can not be copyrightable.

Keep File:Frankfurt (Main), Kirche Cantate Domino (10).jpg, File:Frankfurt (Main), Kirche Cantate Domino (03).jpg, File:Frankfurt (Main), Kirche Cantate Domino (04).jpg, delete the rest. @IronGargoyle is correct, threshold is higher in Germany, but (copy paste from here (p5. paragraph 2)) "copyright protection is only granted if in circles familiar with art the design could be considered as “artistic”. The organ is under protection by the state (Denkmalschutz) and has won an award in 1962. It is (according to this source) also an internationally distinguished organ. Many files have artistic features, look at the ornaments surrounding the organ.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

File:Sri Lanka thaye.ogg

This file maybe copyrighted, summary source did not mention any free license. Metadata source from youtube (metadata link broken, I find from author name) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdsEER8IUsE YT also didn't mention any free license. Sriveenkat (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruno Iacoponi, Estadio, 1946-11-16 (183).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Carlos yo as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Bruno Iacoponi, Los Sports, 1923-09-07 (26).jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different color temperature. --RAN (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xenoblade 3 logo.webp

The rising dots and the complex pattern of the 3 make this logo above COM:TOO Japan, @VulcanSphere: create a new version of the logo that is TOO Japan compliant please. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, doesn't seem more elaborate than the Seafood Cup Noodles logo example as described in COM:TOO Japan. I think the Tokyo High Court statement regarding that logo also applies to this one: «although the shape is stylized, the text is in a normal arrangement and keeps its function of being read as a sequence of letters», as in the Xenoblade 3 logo, all elements are letters. The other listed court sentence could also apply here: «Copyright protection of fonts is limited only to those that raise artistic appreciation as much as artistic works do». I don't think simple artistic lettering is therefore ever considered above TOO in Japan. The shapes inside the 3 are polygonal, and just like in this example also listed in COM:TOO Japan, not subject to copyright protection. Nacaru (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to review other similar and conceivably more elaborate Japanese logos that have been discussed and then agreed to be kept as per COM:TOO Japan. Nacaru (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:City Center in Homs

No acceptable Freedom of Panorama in Syria. FoP in Syria is only valid for free uses of their public landmarks by broadcasters and not photographers or Internet/website developers. The only online mentions on this building claim that it is a modernist work, but no mention of when was it built/completed and who was/were the architect/s. I asked this matter on COM:VPC but got no response. COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle rolls in.

File:Al-Shuhadaa Square - Hims, Syria.jpg
File:City Center - panoramio (4).jpg
File:Hims City Center.jpg
File:Homs City Center building 3043.jpg* - can be cropped but uploaded as a new file and with different file name as the resulting image has a different context from the original, architectural copyright-infringing image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Homs City Center building 3044.jpg
File:Homs City Center building 3045.jpg
File:Homs City Center building 3140.jpg* ditto
File:سيتي سنتر - panoramio.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am somewhat non-plussed that someone seeks the deletion of the pictures who on the user page has “This user highly supports the introduction of w:freedom of panorama to the remaining "no FOP countries" — at least for works of architecture and 3D works like monuments in both exteriors and publicly-accessible premises!” If I were of that opinion I would let sleeping dogs lie. But maybe you want to test the case and expect me and others to come up with arguments to NOT delete them.

Luckily the whole terrain seems to have been destructed through war. As is so much of Homs that I would not recognize the town.

But in answer to your line of reasoning: I think “broadcasting” in the text you refer to should be interpreted in the more general sense of “to spread information to a lot of people:” I checked the text on the wiki-pages and did not find your text “FoP in Syria is only valid for free uses of their public landmarks by broadcasters and not photographers or Internet/website developers.” No reference is made to “photographers or Internet/website developers”. I instead find “not Internet media repositories that mandate commercial licensing” and I do not think Commons is such a place.

I tried to find the Legislative Decree No. 62/2013, but only found an article: The Syrian Law on the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 2013 By Sadeek Hasna. Its final lines are “The current situation in Syria makes the proper application of this law extremely difficult, if not

totally impossible. Furthermore, there are cultural and practical challenges that face the proper

protection of copyright law on the ground. However, introducing a new law that reflects the

reality of the digital work is a positive step towards creating a law more likely to be respected.”

My pictures are from 2008, when the current (?) decree was not yet in existence.

But not being a specialist in Syrian law I wrote a mail to the Sadeek Hasna. Dosseman (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dosseman to address your points:

Yes, I am supportive of FoP moves, yet I do not see any indication of a copyright law reform or update being pushed through in the legislature of Syria; more so, I do not see any attempt by Wikimedians based in the Middle East urging the Syrian legislature to bring their FoP in line with the Internet age. If there are no attempts or measures by both Syrian legislature and Wikimedians in the Middle East to improve Syrian FoP law, it is reasonable to remove all modern monuments and architecture of Syria from this repository site. Several other images of other copyrighted public landmarks of that country have been deleted from the site (see Category:Syrian FOP cases/deleted), so do not single out my deletion requests targeting copyrighted landmarks of that country.
No, commercial use should be required in all FoP laws. Per COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, images here should be licensed commercially to fulfill Wikimedia Commons' mission of providing free-to-use files that anyone can exploit, even without permissions from architects, sculptors, muralists, or their heirs. Syrian FoP is simply incompatible for Wikimedia Commons' licensing rules, so modern monuments and buildings of that country are not welcome here. Not allowing commercial reuse does not conform to the Definition of Free Cultural Works, which Wikimedia Commons strictly upholds.
"The current situation in Syria makes the proper application of this law extremely difficult, if not totally impossible." - it is not acceptable as per COM:Project scope/Precautionary principle. It is just like "because there is a conflict in Syria, the architect or his grandchildren won't find out that Wikimedia Commons users commercially-hosted his Homs artwork." Per COM:CARES, the copyright holder must be respected first.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a fourth point regarding your question on time of your photography and the prevailing FoP rule. The 2013 copyright law repeals the 2001 copyright law. According to the English copy of the 2001 law at WIPO Lex database, images of works of architecture and monuments can be presented to the general public on television and films, but those should not be the main topic (de minimis). Per Article 37(Fourth): "Reproduction of artistic, plastic or architectural work to show such to the public through cinema or television, if such works are permanently displayed to the public, their role in the program is secondary or extrinsic compared to the main topic." So even the former 2001 law has an incompatible FoP clause that Wikimedia Commons cannot benefit. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungry Papa Tallinn.jpg

По просьбе владельцев сети Hungry Papa. Фото сделано и загружено мною. Liilia Moroz (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cukurova Universität.svg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey probably has a low threshold of originality. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MLS Supporter’s Shield Trophy New England Revolution.jpg

Improper claim of public domain. The trophy itself is a copyrighted design, and any images of it are a derivative work and not a free image. oknazevad (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Series Trophy (48262268286).jpg File:Stanley Cup, 2015.jpg Question: Hi @Oknazevad, I included two examples of other trophies that not marked as derivative work, even though those should in theory have the same copyright protections. Is there a valid reason why those have been kept up without a fair-use rational? Brindille1 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their inclusion is questionable as well. Should be fair use on each Wikipedia, not hosted on commons. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan systemu metra w Warszawie.svg

Licensing status of the background map is unknown. 188.123.231.10 12:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Femme-voilee-fes.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Riad Salih as no permission (No permission since) Yann (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD in Morocco. Yann (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: the problem is the blog is not a reliable source to authentificate that the file is from 1952. Also if we consider it (also possible the file is from 60's ou 70's for example), we could not use a description from a blog here. Panam2014 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see here my opinion. Panam2014 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See here @Riad Salih: 's message. Panam2014 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital images didn't exist in 1952, so the EXIF data doesn't mean anything. It is only the date when the original picture was photographed with a digital camera. But yes, if it is more recent than 1953, it is not in the public domain in Morocco. IMO this is moot as it is also not in the public domain in USA. Yann (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I know, but the problem is a blog is not a sufficient source to prove that file is from 1952. For example, I have already seen a black and white photo claimed to be from 1962 but it have been taken in 2010. Panam2014 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the EXIF claim the file have been scanned in 2013 but the article from the blog is from 2023. Panam2014 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blog mentions that the images are from clichés of Bernard Rouget, a French photographer who passed away in 1988. In French law, there is a provision that works can enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the creator.

@Yann is someone more knowledgeable about French laws, he can provide further details.

Regarding the EXIF data, as I mentioned earlier, I am not referring to the digital metadata since EXIF data did not exist during that time. Instead, I am emphasizing that the image is a scan, likely from a physical source. The practice of scanning images from various sources and uploading them without clear information or evidence is indeed common here when dealing with old traditional clothes in North Africa. Riad Salih (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Une des images est de Bernard Rouget, mais celle-ci n'est pas créditée. Si le photographe était connu, ça serait plus simple. Pourquoi ne pas demander à l'auteur du blog ? Yann (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to be confident that this image is over 70 years old. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Immeuble, 7 avenue Jean-Janvier (Rennes)

English: The architect, Jean Poirier, died in 1969. The building will not be in public domain until 2040.

Français : L'architecte, Jean Poirier, est mort 1969. Le bâtiment ne sera pas dans le domaine public avant 2040.

VIGNERON (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aucun problème pour moi. Je remarque d'ailleurs qu'il avait une erreur d'architecte sur les photos que j'avais prises ("maison émaillée"). Sammyday (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Rabbit 2 The Runaway Logo.png

This logo is above the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom, where the film is from Di (they-them) (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of 唐納 (Tang Na) in Paris 1954.jpg

Not public domain until next year. Yann (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This portrait picture has been wildly used across internet,including the picture used earlier associated with Tang Na's wikipedia page .But none of them has been given reference to the original work from Tang Na's wife Anna Tcheng published book 《馬季良（唐納）》文集（1993）. I'm from Tang Na's family,and we don't protect this picture's right no more after the publication. I changed out the previous photo (the same photo without giving reference) and We simply just want to let the people (and the internet) know that where the original picture came from. BridjingDK (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who is the subject. The copyright belongs to the photographer. Yann (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only picture been put on internet so far that give valid information. Others (the same picture) don't even mention anything about the time being taken yet those pictures can be kept. So best to keep this one until next year when no need to bother with the 70yr copyright rule. BridjingDK (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

documentos de identidad

All documents show private personal information, some of them have Blur, but the information is also legible. Additionally, in Bolivia the use of the identity card is strictly personal and its reproduction or copy must be made by the owner for a specific purpose. In this case all the documents have been uploaded by a single person and there is no consent for their publication either --Caleidoscopic (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hasta Siempre, Comandante.ogg

Composer died in 1989, Cuba has a 50 years pma copyright protection. —Ah3kal (Talk) 20:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baswanthrao Patil TRS.jpg

This file was initially tagged by আফতাবুজ্জামান as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No such licences mentioned on the source (as "GODL-India" template says "The user must acknowledge the provider, source, and license of data by explicitly publishing the attribution statement, including the DOI" — billinghurst sDrewth 20:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

File:Ida Brooke.jpg

This file might be copyrighted, I know date of publish in IMDb, Check before deletion. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm14871940/?ref_=nm_mv_close Sriveenkat (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aire Cruz Collado.jpg

Ya existe una copia de más calidad 46.24.191.83 10:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campesina durmiendo. Cruz Collado.png

Existe una copia igual 46.24.191.83 10:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Piedad de León.png

Existe otra foto igual. Dejar solo una por favor 46.24.191.83 10:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:POCO M5 back.jpg and File:POCO M5 front.jpg

There is already a collage File:POCO M5.jpg -Мункач Варош (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The collage that was createad by @Мункач Варош is using photos made by myself and does not display that I am the author of original photos and that does not meet the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed. So the deletion of File:POCO M5 back.jpg and File:POCO M5 front.jpg is unreasonable. Maksdroider (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maksdroider, are suit now? --Мункач Варош (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the part with the authorship is solved. But also you can see that most of the pages about mobile phones have separate images of the front and the back of mobile phones. So it will be more reasonable to leave the separate images of POCO M5 sides and the collage could be used on other pages where it would be better to show both sides of the smartphone on the same image. Maksdroider (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:POCO M5 back.jpg. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:POCO M5 back.jpg

There is already a collage File:POCO M5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Мункач Варош (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:POCO M5 front.jpg and POCO M5 back.jpg. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Hölderlin2019 (talk · contribs)

None of these files is own work. Some may be old enough to be in the public domain, but proper source, date, author, and license must be provided.

File:CEPT Plan.jpg Delete no way to determine creator or age
File:Satelmond.jpg Keep by age
File:Padmavilasom2.jpg Delete house image not in public domain
File:Padmavilasom.jpg Delete house image not in public domain
File:A. Bhakti Vilas 0.jpg Keep by age
File:CVKarthikeyan.jpg Delete too recent
File:Amma-shakunthala-e1446875126846.jpg Delete too recent
File:SharadaS.jpg Delete too recent
File:CS large.jpg Delete too close to the cutoff date
File:Pvbh.png Delete too recent
File:Hariram Sastri + N Ram.jpg Delete too recent
File:C V Karthik Narayanan.jpg Delete too recent
File:N subrahmanyam.jpg Delete Composite image of fuzzy face on clear suit, not found on Internet
File:More sources.png Delete screenshot
File:Sources illustrative.png
File:Citation text.png Delete too recent, 1989 book screenshot
File:CP11 family.jpg
File:Sir CP + Lord Goschen + Royals.jpg
File:CVR mem.jpg
File:CVKS.jpg
File:CP Ramaswami Aiyar.jpg Keep by age
File:The Grove angle.jpg
File:GroveA.webp
File:BhaktivilasA.jpg
File:Bharati k.jpg
File:VN Srinivasa Rao.jpg Keep by age
File:2015.282902.Sundararamayana-And 0000 (1).jpg
File:S Sundrara.png Delete screenshot, the cropped image needs to be recaptured and reloaded
File:T Sambamurthi Rao edited.webp
File:LIFE Magazine on Goa invasion.png Delete LIFE magazine under an active copyright
File:T. Padmanabha.jpg Delete small image of unidentified person
File:Diwan Bahadur Secretary VN Viswanatha Rao.png Keep by age
File:V. Bhashyam Iyengar.png Keep by age
File:T muthuswamy iyer.jpg Keep by age, artist died more than 70 years ago
File:C. R. Pattabhirama Aiyar.jpg Keep by age
File:Madras Exec Council.png Keep list of names ineligible

Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: File:CVR mem.jpg - Source KSTTrust Youtube No reuse license.

No reuse mentioned at source for the below.

File:GroveA.webp - source

File:Amma-shakunthala-e1446875126846.jpg - source. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just an FYI: The keep/delete tags above in between the nomination have been added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and not by Yann. ─ Aafī (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I concur with the delete tags added by RAN, no opinion on his Keep by age tags.
- CEPT Plan.jpg is watermarked with a copyright symbol from CEPT Archives, which is presumably CEPT University – delete
- Hariram Sastri + N Ram.jpg is a recent photo, and one of the subjects is holding a copy of the book A Chequered Brilliance, published in 2019 – delete
- Sources illustrative.png is from Koothali Nair, so it needs proper attribution
- CVR mem.jpg is a screenshot from a YouTube video (a lecture given in 2006) – delete
- The Grove angle.jpg unknown age, this source says it is from the C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation, unclear of copyright status – delete unless Hölderlin2019 can clarify and properly license it
- GroveA.webp looks pretty recent – delete
- 2015.282902.Sundararamayana-And 0000 (1).jpg is derived from S Sundrara.png (delete), which came from the Internet Archive with a publication date of 1940.—Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Orgasms

AI art of some mythological characters, in use but of dubious accuracy and generally not informative especially since it’s in like 500 categories it’s apparently supposed to represent but clearly doesn’t (hence the weird bundle title)

Dronebogus (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I couldn't clearly understand what you mean. But if you mean that those files might have "orgasm" related contents, which might be "unsafe" for Wikimedia projects, then there's actually a misunderstanding. It was my mistake to put those files in the category:orgasms. Actually, the very ancient text "Panthoibi Khonggul" has the description of Lady Panthoibi & Lord Nongpok Ningthou secretly meeting in the riverside, multiple times, before they finally get eloped. This was clearly explained in the description as well. Besides, the English wikipedia article "Panthoibi Khonggul" as well as other websites on the very topic describes the very information. As of now (before uploading these files), there was no image representing this event in the Wikimedia Commons. I have done considerable amount of research in this topic. And to the best of my knowledge, the representations of the characters in the very images aren't dubious. During the creation, I took great care in the background (to be forest and riverbank), their dressings (traditional style), their looks, their hairstyle (to be suitable with the very ancient looks), etc. Thanks! Haoreima (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange category, indeed, but that can be fixed. The images are COM:INUSE in many projects.--PaterMcFly (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my above explanation. Haoreima (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series of images: Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 56.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 46.jpg.

File:Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg

"fabric designs initially created from paintings or drawings will be protected by copyright." [7] TimSC (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter, as FOP applies to museum exhibits in the UK. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the article on this topic, the creator studied archive photographs as research. Doing research and looking at past works does not necessarily make this a derivative work. I would need more evidence to conclude that this was was actually a derivative work of said photographs. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series of images: Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 56.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 46.jpg.

File:Overlord Embroidery 56.jpg

"fabric designs initially created from paintings or drawings will be protected by copyright." [8] TimSC (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series of images: Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 56.jpg File:Overlord Embroidery 46.jpg.

File:Overlord Embroidery 46.jpg

"fabric designs initially created from paintings or drawings will be protected by copyright." [9] TimSC (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does make you think this was created form a painting? Also, this is clearly not a 2D work, so FOP does apply. And FOP also applies to museum exhibits in the UK. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The D-Day Story museum stated they were based on paintings that were approved by the project committee. [10] The originals are on display in The Pentagon. Good point about FOP, I'm still learning!--TimSC (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Overlord Embroidery 6.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 1985.svg

no source no permission from company Hoyanova (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 1976.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP1 1976.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP1 1983-2.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 1983-3.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP1 1981.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A dois logo.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 logo.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 2002.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP1 1978.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 1978.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTP2 1998.svg

not "own work" but protected copyrighted image, no source no permission from company given Hoyanova (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nejedeš načerno?.jpg

Above threshold of originality in Czechia Trade (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Foreign Service logo.jpg

Which website states that this is the official logo of Indian Foreign Service. As per Government of India records and data, there is no official logo or symbol for Indian Foreign Service. If there is such a logo or stamp or seal, please provide official links or websource to prove what you are saying. The name of the image misrepresented and is false. This image should bhe deleted for falsyfying name, logo, symbol. This image also looks stolen from internet as well. If the uploader cannot provide licensing then this image should be deleted. Thanks. 122.171.19.135 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kristina Luzi et le président Nicolas Sarkozy.jpg

Image sous copyright Agencesolakom (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 27

File:WAHAT AL KARAMA 3.jpg

email address in the meta data by mistake Ryakan (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryakan: Please upload a new copy without the metadata, and I think that we can delete the earlier version and impact the metadata. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Artists-in-the-City-between-the-bridges-participating-in-a-group-exhibition-391757118592.jpg

The artist, Evald Björnberg, died in 1971, so the painting will be under copyrigt in Sweden until 1/1/2042 and longer in the USA/ . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can hold on to after easter, I'll upload a new version of this file with the artwork blurred out. If the painting is too large for de minimis to apply that is. /ℇsquilo 19:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seleucid Bronze Coin Depictinding Antiochus III with Laureate head of Apollo Circa. 200 BCE.jpg

Coin image taken from a cite with no indication of free licencing —Ah3kal (Talk) 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wahidullah Waissi UNGA 2013.jpg

Watermark indicated that this is a still image from the UN webcast, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: probably correct, though that still does not mean that it is in copyright, simply mislicensed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S00 155 »prohibido fotos«.jpg

Prohibatory sign may be copyrighted, black it out. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info, I have uploaded File:S00 155 »prohibido fotos« 2.jpg as a complaint version of the file. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very generic sign. Is there an individual who copyrighted it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be, delete this version per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:1950 film posters of Japan

All of these are movie posters created in 1950 in Japan, with copyright held by corporations as given by the information. URAA restoration (1996) hit before the expiration of the Japanese copyrights, which is 2001. All files were uploaded after 1 March 2012, and whether or not they are tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, fail to prove that they otherwise would be public domain in the United States. None appear to have US releases, or indication of the posters being circulated within the US.

These are eligible under NFCC on en.wiki (for those images that are used there), and may be eligible under ja.wiki's criteria too (I don't read Japanese and I don't trust machine translators for policy).

Sennecaster (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlosaguirre.png

per es:w, person shown died in 2018, so not a 2023 photo as claimed. Looks like scan from print source. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es porque esta foto es de cédula además, tiene razón, si esta escaneada y es de cuando la persona en la foto estaba joven y si tengo el permiso de subir esta imagen. Manuel C. Aguirre (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y por favor, no borren esta foto ya que mi única meta en Wikipedia es aportar de buena forma y no trato de lucrar en este sitio. Manuel C. Aguirre (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frog on a lily pad.svg

This image is not educationally useful. Conan Wolff (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The range of SVG frog art on Wikimedia Commons is currently rather limited. In particular, there is only one other SVG illustration of a frog on a lily pad present, despite this being a significant theme in depictions of frogs more generally. Furthermore, that image is in a significantly different style from this one. Thus, I believe that this image is educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject. Ilzolende (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Performance of CROW in the Gobi Desert, documented in the National Geographic China.jpg

possible copyvio (c) National Geographic China M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded without verifying the licensing.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without verifying the licensing.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without verifying the licensing.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded without verifying the licensing.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without checking the copyright license.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without checking the license.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without checking the copyright license.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without checking the license.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded mistakenly without verifying the copyright license.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Uploaded without verifying the licensing.--Oritsu.me (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

File:Armoiries Guy Desrochers Coat of Arms.png

Une nouvelle version, citant correctement le travail d'autrui, a été publiée. Jmpv Nau (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demonstration in Bamyan April 24, 2012.jpeg

This file was initially tagged by 61.5.198.226 as no source (No source) Krd 02:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced.--Threbirah (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alfonso Genaro Calderon as Governor of Sinaloa in the 1980s..JPG

The claimed license is that it is public domain in Mexico, but I'm a bit doubtful on that. The photo is from an anonymous individual and was taken in the 1980s, but I can't identify any particular rationale in the licensing tag that would apply to this case. The best guess is that the uploader claims the work is anonymous, but the source "Sinaloa State" implies to me that this is likely a government photo, which would be copyrighted. In line with COM:PRP, I'm bringing this file here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kath-ld.png

This file was initially tagged by Swatjester as Logo (above threshold of originality). Derivative of File:NBC Peacock (2020).png, so we may want to take a look at this at DR rather than actioning a speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Familiada.png

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo. Fairly simple logo, though COM:TOO Poland is relatively low. As such, sending to DR rather than actioning the speedy straightaway. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close-up of Baphometic Bowl of Wisdom with plaque.tif

This file was initially tagged by ProfGray as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: photo of artwork in a museum. If copyrightable, this would be a COM:FOP issue, as the United States does not have FOP for sculpture art. I lean towards this being copyrightable, as COM:TOO USA indicates that relatively simple sculptures (such as Chicago's "The Bean") are granted copyright protection, and I thus lean towards deletion. But I don't think it's quite enough for a speedy, so I'm sending it to DR rather than actioning the speedy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if the accompanying plaque would be allowed with just a cropped section of the sculture (helmet). FWIW, I've contacted The Satanic Temple for copyright permission.

In addition, I have an image of a Salvatore Dali print (Black Devil, 1963) as installed at the TST headquarters. I think this could be claimed as fair use for informational purposes and to add significantly to public understanding of how TST hq serves also as an art gallery in Salem MA. Thoughts? ProfGray (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded under claims of fair use are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I already heard back from The Satanic Temple. Their initial response (two hours ago) is favorable to images such as this Baphometic Bowl of Wisdom. They will get back to me and, at this stage, I still do not have direct written permission. ProfGray (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coa fam DEU ratibor herzoge.jpg

fehlerhaft, vgl. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Duchy_of_Ratibor GerritR (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo-topsport-a-lyga.png

Non-free logo of Lithuanian football league cannot be {{PD-Old}} and does not like too simple to be {{PD-Trivial}} WindEwriX (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A thengal kachari girl.jpg

Wrong information, this is not the traditional dress of Thengal Kachari's . This is creating wrong information among the public Aandyou (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filenames and image descriptions can be changed easily. You could even do this yourself! Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TameOne.png

Small image of a personality without EXIF data, PNG format, probably a screenshot, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consistent with the relatively few other photos claimed as own work by User:Penndyl, who seems generally good about indicating the provenance of photos that are not their own. Penndyl, can you explain the low resolution and lack of EXIF data (here and elsewhere)? - Jmabel ! talk 10:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my own image, however I utilized the snipping tool to crop out others faces before uploading, which is probably why the EXIF is non-existent. That also accounts for the low resolution. Penndyl (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arezzo-Scudi Medioevali-03.jpg

Errore nel Titolo (farò il caricamento dello stesso file un'altra volta con il titolo corretto) Ivan.Petrović.Poljak.001 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Вася Ложкин за Пушкина!.jpg

Commons:Derivative works from modern art. Should be removed to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have the painter posing for the photographer in front of his work (about a third part of which is hidden behind him). Formally it's not de minimis as far as about 2/3 of the painting is visible. But I would still keep it. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geen resultaten in deze categorie gevonden, SFA001004583.jpg

Please delete, since there is already a good version on wiki Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please link to the other version first. --RAN (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better version: File:Bombing of Kleykamp House, 11 April 1944.jpg Vysotsky (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JB2-Moved

Unused, Category:Files moved by John Bot II to the Commons is empty, bot has not been active since 2009 TheImaCow (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TimedText:Voiced uvular fricative.ogg.fr.srt

Firstly, subtitles for individual spoken sounds have been deleted uncontroversially before, but from a quick look I can't find the one I was involved in. It might have been on English Wikipedia. Let me know if you want me to unearth it.

This makes a popup show up even in other languages. For example, if you go to Wikipedia:Voiced uvular fricative and play the audio in the "Voiced uvular fricative" infobox, a popup appears even though there are no English subtitles. On the other hand, if you play the audio in the "Voiced uvular approximant" infobox, no popup appears. And for that matter, I'm not aware of any other sounds that have subtitles.

Secondly, I don't think these subtitles even need to exist in the first place. I'm not quite sure how to explain it, but basically, the point of the audio is to demonstrate what a sound sounds like, and normally it's going to be placed on a page that already has a transcription of the sound it's demonstrating ([ʁ]), so there's no need for an additional transcription in the subtitles. At best, for a deaf person, it conveys what vowel is being used, but the vowel is not what's being demonstrated, so I don't see the point.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [Previously posted prematurely at 16:46][reply]

I would like to add TimedText:Qc-fête.oga.fr.srt to this deletion request. For example, go to wikt:fête#French and play this audio (Abitibi) compared to the others. The same sort of idea applies: Normally this is going to be placed in context (like "this is a Quebecois pronunciation of

fête

") and the file itself is labelled accordingly. — W.andrea (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur - these aren't useful subtitles; they convey no information which isn't already implicit in the filenames. Omphalographer (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JulieBishop2009.jpeg

This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as no permission (No permission since) bjh21 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see https://tineye.com/search/2599bd193c7907de372a9af8cdf631b3e0cc93a3?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 - image can be found on the internet since 2008, before being uploaded to wikipedia in 2009 TheImaCow (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, I think you're correct. Our picture has a background that none of the external pictures has, and is of much higher resolution. On the other hand, Edwinski claimed in 2009 to have taken it "earlier this year" (en:User_talk:Timeshift9/Archive7#Your_Bishop_pic), which is inconsistent with the dates reported by TinEye. And then I spotted en:User talk:Edwinski#Bishop pic which links to a file archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20080727103807/https://www.liberal.org.au/_gm/20080121160945_Bishop120.jpg. Not the same photo, but the same outfit and hairstyle and a very similar background, and dated 2008 in two different ways. Well caught, TheImaCow! --bjh21 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't see any reason to doubt the licence applied by BotMultichill when it imported the file from English Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "Original upload log" it was uploaded 2009, but as shown above, the image is already on the internet since 2008 (while without the background, the pose of the women is 1:1 the same. Also the fact that this professionally shot looking photo has a very low resolution and missing exif makes it very unlikely to be own work. Also, the image is not used within articles, and many much higher quality photos exist at Category:Julie Bishop, so I see no reason to keep this one with very questionable sourcing. TheImaCow (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpaceX rockets.svg

Image is a fake SVG converted from a png Ergzay (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ergzay, nice ti meet you after a long time. Its not fake i gave cited ehere i got it. I have matched heights. What I have on Wikimedia Commons, I utilized it Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If its fake, then, @Ergzay I propose to delete File:SuperHeavyLaunchers.png, File:Falcon rocket family7 - 副本.png, File:Falcon9 rocket family.svg too also bro. Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are fine as they are not horribly distorted. Also I'm surprised you still have your commons account as I thought you were banned. Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Na 8 was just banned on english Wikipedia. All Wikipedia sister projects are unrelated to English Wikipedia. Though exchange of materials is common from one wiki to another.@Ergzay Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Code of arms letter germany.JPG

Vermutlich nicht eigenes Werk, sondern Abbild einer Grafik unbekannten Alters, könnte noch geschützt sein GerritR (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably cropped from this image: File:Letter From Germany.JPG, dated as 1939. Nakonana (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has uploaded several images and documents of the Leschhorn family, including personal documents such as a certificate of citizenship. The above coat of arms appear to be the family's coat of arms. The uploader's wiki name is also Alex Leschhorn (not that it proves anything, but they might be at least authorized to use those coat of arms; whether they are the copyright holder is a different question). Nakonana (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hosenbandorden KursächsischesWappen Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense 2023-min.jpg

Die Zusammenstellung und die Beschriftungen lassen mich zweifeln, ob es sich wirklich um ein "eigenes Werk" handelt oder ob das aus irgendeiner Quelle (Heft? Buch?) entnommen wurde. GerritR (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nachtrag: Als vermutliche Quelle kommt auch eine Postkarte in Frage, ein ähnliches Layout ist mir neulich begegnet.--GerritR (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quiet on Set logo.png

The scratched effect and torn letters don't exactly make it a simple design and it may reach COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The filters and the torn letters on the logo push it past the COM:TOO. Too many elements for commons. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inmate children at the Rab concenctration camp.jpg

Wrong description. The photo is of children at the Sisak concentration camp in Croatia, run by Ustaše. Original of the photo available from the Museum of Yugoslavia in Belgrade (inventory number 4846) and the Museum of the Revolution of the Peoples of Croatia in Zagreb (A-255/2). A replacement, higher-quality photo available on request. Everythingaboo (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everythingaboo, do you realize that you can edit file descriptions? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that this is about the title of the image? 186.174.168.209 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please read Commons:File renaming. The need to rename a file is no reason for deleting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rubbed my reply. Already wasted a lot of time here... I wish myself a good nice sleep. 186.174.168.209 02:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free not to post on deletion requests, and sleep well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're dying to know what i had written... :) 186.174.168.209 12:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is photograph from Italian concentration camp on Rab Island

Source is from 1946 Slovenian book Don't delete these photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone897555 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

File:Ymg 000.jpg

User duncanssmith claims authorship at the same time as noting photograph was taken by Wendy Smith, who doesn't appear to have given permission to use. Quilt Phase (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other files from the same people in this condition. 186.174.168.209 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, I would like to see how this request goes before tackling the others. Quilt Phase (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined and wanted to help you. 186.174.168.209 13:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have discovered a previous successful deletion request for the same user for the same reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_March_7#File:Ymg_003.jpg Quilt Phase (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Britanico lineas de tren principal diagrama.PNG

Es una imagen de baja calidad visual y con faltas de ortografía, que tiene un equivalente SVG traducido al castellano Marion Moseby (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PFLP Logo.png

Possibly exceeds TOO * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no COM:TOO Palestine. Which country's TOO would be relevant? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's still a very simple logo, though Commons:Copyright rules by territory/State of Palestine has nothing about TOO. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not look like a "very simple logo" to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. You were asked about TOO for Palestine which has none. I ask for this to be a speedy keep. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Commons has no information on a country's TOO does not mean that said threshold is infinity. It means we don't know what the threshold is. Per COM:PCP if we lack information we err on the side of deleting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we do have material on this after all. I change my vote to delete after having read Commons:FOP Saudi Arabia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Pppery is right, though I don't like it at all when files are deleted just because we're ignorant of whatever legal standard they use - or simply none. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if we don't know the TOO we assume it is low. Besides Palestine was a crown dependency and its copyright law was made in 1924 and modelled on British law. This would imply that Palestinian TOO would be quite low since British TOO is quite low (though there are exceptions, such as COM:TOO INDIA). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also COM:TOO Malaysia, COM:TOO Canada, COM:TOO Israel, and probably others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Israel abolished "skill and labor" standard in 1989 and now it depends on the Feist ruling, which is quite high as US threshold of originality. Canada also rejected "sweat of the brow" standards. Kys5g^talk! 09:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't their COM:TOO pages need to be updated, if their criteria are more cramped now? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't understand what you mean by "quite high as US threshold." If you're saying their thresholds are high, that's what I said. What else would the word "and" refer to, other than "there are exceptions"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:7Feb06Low9thMuralDwonedStopsign.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the photographer/uploader. I uploaded this in 2006 as illustration of the aftermath of a disaster, mural inclusion incidental. (Were I photographing the scene today, I would have made more effort to make photos including as little of the painting as possible.) I'll let others judge this one. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the painting be blurred? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Whatever "the others" say the closing admin will find a way to keep the colleague's work. KEEP per the admin-uploader. 186.174.84.65 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept please rename, correcting at least the typing mistakes. 186.174.84.65 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anon @186.174.84.65: Snark, I'll guess? I've had a number of my uploads deleted as DW problems - mostly from the earlier years of the project when I was less strictly aware of potential problems and the project as a whole seemed to be less often looking for them. It has included a few that I vigorously protested against deletion - very unlike this one. Are you really voting keep? And if so, on what criteria? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anon @186.174.84.65: - artefact of early years of the project, I'm not sure if it was Commons software at the time or interaction between my computer and Commons, but titles with more than 2 blank spaces wouldn't upload, and sometimes 1 or 2 were problems, so I generally didn't use spaces in titles. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep peer Infrogmation AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peer connect? 186.175.112.114 23:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NCAHP Logo.jpg

The logo of NCAHP used here is not genuine because government of India not released any logo yet. Citizen arindam (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a logo contest, but I can't find any winner yet. This image is also copyrighted. -- Valjean (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thessalonica Montage L.png

One of the file components of this photo collage (File:Thessaloniki music Hall4.jpg) was deleted for copyrights violation due to the absence of FOP in Greece. As a result, this montage should either be remodeled with the problematic-deleted photo in question deleted or replaced with another more appropriate one. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish I was notified prior to its nomination for deletion so that I would be given the chance to update it to remove the problematic source. Because it was nominated for deletion without notifying me beforehand, now I am not able to replace/overwrite with a new version. If can we cancel this deletion nomination, so that the option to replace becomes available (this option is unlocked only when a file isn't under nomination for deletion) so that I can replace it with this one: https://i.imgur.com/yAcTh1X.png. This will be appreciated. Edit: my comment was incorrect: turned out the ability to replace photo was due to not being logged-in at the moment I was trying to do so. My apologies for the confusion. --SilentResident (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been updated and the issue that had caused the nomination for deletion, has been addressed. My apologies for taking so long. I would appreciate if an admin can disable the earlier revisions of the image, so that no editors may revert back to the problematic versions of that file containing removed photos, in the future. --SilentResident (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: Unfortunately, there's still an issue with the file in question as the question here is not necessarily the copyrights status of the file itself, but rather the fact that Greece has no FOP. As a result, no photo of the Thessaloniki Music Hall can be uploaded, or even included in a photo montage as in this specific case, due to copyrights violation. Unless, of course, any law change happens in Greece regarding this issue, something, which, to be really honest, I don't really think that there is any chance to happen. PS. Here's the page with the relevant policy in order for you to get a better grasp of what FOP / Freedom of Panorama is all about ➡️ Commons:Freedom of panorama. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Εὐθυμένης, thank you for informing me, the Concert Hall has already been removed and replaced with the Science Museum. Feel free to check it out and let me know if there is anything else I can do. Have a good day!--SilentResident (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: Same thing, unfortunately. This museum, as well, is way too recent and unique in its overall design conception in order to fall out of copyrights. Maybe, some building from the "Golden Era" of the city, around the beginning of the 20th century, or something Byzantine, such as the Rotunda or the Eptapyrgion fortress, both of them being some very recognizable landmarks of the city... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, however, from a policy-based perspective, the collage isn't the proper place for contesting each of its individual sources; you will have to raise your concerns in their respective deletion discussions, not here. And if the admins or volunteers who will evaluate your points see there a problem with the landmark's photo, then I am positive they will remove them. If this happens, I will try find some time to update the collage to remove the Science Museum and replace it with one of your excellent recommendations such as the Rotunda. In all case, the collage itself is merely is based on pictures that were not found violating the policies and remain readily available for use, so the collage shouldn't remain nominated for deletion for as long as any of its sources isn't reportedly violating the policies. However, even if the Science Museum isn't nominated for deletion, please feel free to edit and update the collage by yourself to replace the Museum with another landmark of your choice using an image editor of your choice. You are more than welcome to make edits to the collage and my permission isn't required, at all. Have a good weekend! --SilentResident (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ο Κος Φάνης - panoramio.jpg

Out of scope (?) material. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patra - CTI (Snowing day - Feb 2006) - panoramio - Michael Paraskevas (2).jpg

A modern architectural creation. No FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patra - CTI (Snowing day - Feb 2006) - panoramio.jpg

A modern architectural creation. No FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Επιστήμη των Υλικών graffiti - panoramio.jpg

A modern art creation / work of art. No FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Επιστήμη των Υλικών graffiti2 - panoramio.jpg

A modern art creation / work of art. No FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 11:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo WTC Nieuwendijk.svg

no permission no author copied from https://www.wtcnieuwendijk.be/ Hoyanova (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S-Peterburg Poch gr.png

Original source of the photo is not provided, no indication the photographer released their photo of the 3D object under a free license, Quick1984 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:MacOS logos

Derivative work of copyrighted logo: en:File:MacOS original logo.svg#Licensing

Nutshinou ^Talk! 14:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:US National Archives series: Card Index of Moving Picture Theaters in Missouri, ca. 1917 - ca. 1919

Unused files, out of scope. The files contain nothing more than a single cinema name and the corrospondening town the cinema is in. The files are part of a NARA archive series, and the purpose of those records is/was to create a "database" of cinemas. However, we have only 11 27 of those index cards uploaded on commons - the entire set consists of 581 cards. (see https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5397795) Purpose of those cards is to create an index of all existing cinemas - entirety matters in this context. Therefore, those 11 files are out of scope, as they are utterly useless for any educational purpose on their own. Either the entire (linked) collection should be uploaded (althrough the educational value of this is still questionable), or those files deleted.

TheImaCow (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

temporarly I withdraw my nomination. I see there are a bunch more uncategorized images which are part of this series within Category:Media contributed by National Archives at Kansas City. I'll go through & categorize, and we'll see if it is complete of not. TheImaCow (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've went through all 8000 files at the linked category, and now we're at 27 files which exist of this collection on commons - way too few to be useful for anything, and consider the nomination reopened for those 27 files. TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:US National Archives series: Card Index of Licensed Bakers, ca. 1918 - ca. 1918

Unused files, out of scope. The files contain nothing more than a single baker's name and the corrospondening address. The files are part of a NARA archive series, and the purpose of those records is/was to create a "database" of issued baking licences. However, we have only 13 36 of those index cards uploaded on commons - the entire set consists of 706 cards. (see https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5111276) Purpose of those cards is to create an index of all issued licences- entirety matters in this context. Therefore, those 11 files are out of scope, as they are utterly useless for any educational purpose on their own. Either the entire (linked) collection should be uploaded (althrough the educational value of this is still questionable), or those files deleted.

TheImaCow (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

temporarly I withdraw my nomination. I see there are a bunch more uncategorized images which are part of this series within Category:Media contributed by National Archives at Kansas City. I'll go through & categorize, and we'll see if it is complete of not. TheImaCow (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've went through all 8000 files at the linked category, and now we're at 36 files which exist of this collection on commons - way too few to be useful for anything, and consider the nomination reopened for those 36 files. TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amar Bendjama, APS, 20240325.png

While the video is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution licence, the image in question is not taken by "Algérie Presse Service", but rather the UN Web TV, which clearly indicate that all rights are reserved, as mentioned by Reda benkhadra Riad Salih (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him on certain aspects regarding the origin of the images from the UN WEB. It is true that agencies possess the complete right to purchase, utilize, and distribute content from other media sources globally, which is the case as it is explained in the UNTV website (UN footage is not in the public domain, therefore, any use of the footage must be authorized by the United Nations and a license agreement must be signed between the UN and the requesting client. Licensing fees may apply). If the official agency APS published the content under a Creative Commons license, I believe that the government's official media is primarily focused on compliance with legal regulations. By including the screenshot with the company logo, I intended to signify that the images are being republished under the authority of that particular agency. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amar Bendjama, APS, 20240325 (cropped).png

While the video is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution licence, the image in question is not taken by "Algérie Presse Service", but rather the UN Web TV, which clearly indicate that all rights are reserved, as mentioned by Reda benkhadra Riad Salih (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him on certain aspects regarding the origin of the images from the UN WEB. It is true that agencies possess the complete right to purchase, utilize, and distribute content from other media sources globally. If the official agency APS published the content under a Creative Commons license, I believe that the government's official media is primarily focused on compliance with legal regulations. By including the screenshot with the company logo, I intended to signify that the images are being republished under the authority of that particular agency. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Maurice-sur-Moselle armoiries CG 39 45.svg

pour améliorer le dessin Rojac55 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Censor steam example.png

This depicts Yui Hirasawa from the anime K-ON! and is therefore derivative work. ㆀ (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it’s true I did use a free unofficial depiction of Yui as the base, but her hair has been changed from brown to black. I think that’s sufficient to differentiate the two characters since a particular style is not copyrightable and she has no other copyrightable traits of the character in question. For reference far more visually distinct characters explicitly referred to as the character in question have been kept as being below TOO, like File:Marisa get out.png. Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see any educational value here 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates a common type of “fan service” in anime and manga. Just because you don’t seem to see value in anything I upload doesn’t make it OOS Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S00 108 Abzw Bulnes, Wegweiser.jpg

Possible Derivative Work of copyrighted sign. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about {{FoP-Spain}}? I'm quite sure this applies. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:FOP Spain and the work is de minimis anyway. The text is illegible and the map is dark, blurry and unusable. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream to be reviewed

Although the source Flickr stream publishes under CC0, these three files have a copyright notice in the EXIF and are not work of the Moldovan Parliament.

Gikü (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domates fidesi.jpg

I want it deleted. I uploaded this photo but I don't want it to be on Commons. Kızıldeniz (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past the automatic courtesy deletion period and looks useful, but did you really take this photo in 1970? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No! :) I think the date is wrong... Kızıldeniz (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Ernst Heller

Martin Sg. (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Matthias Heller is the son of Ernst Heller and so should have the rights to license derivatives of these sculptures. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kompilatorr.tiff

This image is almost a duplicate of File: Kompilator.tiff uploaded about ten minutes earlier. The nominated image, however, redacts the user name partially matching the uploader’s username User: Beban. I have now removed this image’s only use. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Germany Trade and Invest Logo new.svg

Maybe above COM:TOO Germany. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on a precautionary basis per COM:TOO Germany, unless additional information indicates it's not above that standard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing but text. Yes, the text has a couple of different colors, but this is arranged in a simple geometric pattern. This is below COM:TOO Germany. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hampton va.jpg

I uploaded a higher quality version of this image Eehuiio (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

File:Temppeliaukion kirkon kastemalja.jpg

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Finland for copyrighted non-architectural works. The author of this 1969 bronze baptismal font, sculptor w:fi:Kauko Moisio, died in 2007, so the work is still under his posthumous copyright. Image is intentional to the work as the main subject. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moisio was a blacksmith, so the rough-hewn rocks are likely just rough-hewn rocks, making his sole contribution the pentagonal bronze dish. Per COM:TOO Finland, simple shapes are below the threshold of originality. I believe that is the case here. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the baptismal font be considered as a "utility object" because it has a distinct usage (baptism)? I.e. it is not "just" a work of art. If so, then the photograph probably should not be deleted. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:No globals

The module is not used anymore mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#strict. The seeming almost 3'000'000 transclusions result from slow update of this huge wiki. Deletion will not break those, still maybe accelerate emptying of that essentially dishonest list. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please demonstrate that it's actually unused. Otherwise, wait for the update. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After tracking it down, this is due to phab:T209310. Uses should be deprecated, but it will take a while. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the search link. It's obvious that it's unused. Please demonstrate how it is useful or where it is transcluded from. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the transclusions reduce, then we can be confident that it's not being included in some unusual way. They are going down. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this on other wikis before. The wrong transclusion count sinks asymptotically towards ZERO, thus it can take years. It's obvious that the module is NOT used anymore NOW. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to clear them by making touch edits by bot, let's see how the count goes down for now. There's no urgency here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the module should not be used anymore and deleting it would ensure that. However I think we should wait for the number of transclusions to drop down, to ensure that it is not used somehow. Another thing to consider is to maybe just leave it be after blanking he code and convert the /doc page to explanation of what the page was and what it was replaced by. That way in the future people can inspect the edit history, and the source-code itself. --Jarekt (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: I am sure the transclusion count issue is basically another version of phab:T243602 (despite it having been closed invalid) as the actual usage can be seen by searches like: all: contentmodel:Scribunto insource:/[Nn]o globals/. Remember this module exports an empty package (which gets turned into nil) with no functions so there is no need to search in wikitext for #invoke references (as doing such will only render a permanent script error). We can still wait and watch the transclusion count drain after the page is deleted (it is just harder to find then). An argument could be made for keeping it for historic purposes (especially since mediawiki:Module:No globals is different with Module:TNT) but remember its replacement strict is now a part of Scribunto and thus goes beyond WMF and keeping historic things for such value is questionable at best. —Uzume (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Historic things can be preserved at MediaWiki or a dedicated place, not if the form of an obscure module with instances on every single wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need the version available here, not at some unknown place. In Commons it's assumed that no space is saved by deletion. It's just a matter of visibility. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of project scope. Commons is a collection of images, videos and audio files with educational value, not a collection of dead code. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to ensure Module:No globals is not used, I alter it so any code that might call it will throw an error. Lets watch Category:Pages_with_script_errors for a bit to see if we see anything show up there. --Jarekt (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: Well now you have killed its historic value save its history (not that I am complaining). BTW, you might want to look at the spelling of "depriciated" vs. "depreciated" (you also might want to add "strict" in the error message instead of just do not use it). Your edit will requeue the page cache updates and cause the remaining links to drain faster. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzume: Good suggestions, I implemented them. As for historic value, what I meant was to preserve history of the page, and that is intact. --Jarekt (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: Agreed, but I notice you still have not corrected the misspelling "depriciated". —Uzume (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: "Depreciated" has a different meaning than "deprecated" (notice no "i"). Cool, your timely edits to this module may have removed more transclusion links than JarektBot did by replacing template redirects. This module is now finally down to less than a quarter million transclusions. Thanks, —Uzume (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed any edit accelerates the decay of wrong translusion claims. The module is obviously unused, and can be deleted. It's not about storage space (this silly discussion is now much more bloated than the code was), it's about maitainability. Any transclusion attempt should give an error and nothing else. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor 49:Actually, there is a storage space element to it. I recall not long after this was removed from usage here and it still had over 50 million transclusion links. That takes space in the database tables. Moving to strict and draining those obsolete links from the tables can improve performance across Commons (unfortunately there are many other elements in the opposite direction but every bit helps). Sadly due to numerous reasons (not the least of which is related to parser cache splits most commonly because "File:" pages want to render in the user preference language due constructs like {{int:lang}}, which can be different for every user/web request), the job queue cannot keep up with requests to update stale cached pages and thus they do not get entirely updated. —Uzume (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusions are now at zero, I think this can be deleted now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep per Jarekt. In the current version there is no risk it's being incorrectly used and the documentation is readily available and intact as outlined. Apparently nobody knows where the alternative would have been. Maybe we can focus on improving LUA instead, so other code can be simplified as well. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not submit multiple votes. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evil Dead 2 logo.png

Not own work, possibly too complex for pd-textlogo The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per COM:TOO US. This is for an American film. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scso-logo.webp

No evidence that this is older than 1929 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Shelby County Sheriff’s Office was formed in 1820. This badge has been used since the beginning of the department. Henryja1002 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, please provide link or source with evidence of that. At present, the logo's source is just to a webpage with a clear copyright notice. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost under the US constitution it is prohibits registering a trademark that "consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality," (15 U.S.C. § 1052) Given the badge of the sheriff’s office contains the seal of the state of Tennessee it can not be trademarked.

Secondly you can tell by checking https://shelbycountytn.gov/1264/A-Brief-History-of-Shelby-County that the county jail was remodeled in 1981 meaning the jail existed prior to that.

Thirdly, the Officer Down Memorial Page chronicles the SCSO’s existence back to July 11, 1904 (https://www.odmp.org/agency/3553-shelby-county-sheriffs-office-tennessee)

Finally under Tennessee case law (Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County v. Poe, 383 S.W.2d 265, 273 (1964)) each county sheriff is required to maintain the jail. This means that SCSO existed back then and maintained the jail as is required by state law.

With all these facts I find clear and convincing evidence that not only has the Sheriff’s Office existed past the date you stated, it is also covered in federal law that there can be no copyright on the badge due to the states seal being on the badge. Henryja1002 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1868 United States Presidential Election in Alabama Map by County.png

Wrong color shadings and replaced with File:Alabama Presidential Election Results 1868.svg 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1976 ND.png

The size of the state is too narrow. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion; all maps are distorted in some way. Mysteryman blue 07:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1976 ND.png

PNG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SD1996.jpg

JPG is a bad format for this type of image and it's redundant to File:South Dakota Presidential Election Results 1996.svg GraydenCat (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Disruption by sock. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:SD1996.jpg

JPG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1980PresidentialWestVirginia.png

I made a svg file of this map TylerKutschbach (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, an SVG version being available is no valid reason for deletion. The raster image can still prove useful and isn't at all out of scope. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1980PresidentialWestVirginia.png

obsolete, png and unused TheHaloVeteran2 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop claiming that maps of past elections are "obsolete." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:1980PresidentialWestVirginia.png

PNG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1964 United States presidential election in Oregon.png

I made a svg file of this map TylerKutschbach (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, an SVG version being available is no valid reason for deletion. The raster image can still prove useful and isn't at all out of scope. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:1964 United States presidential election in Oregon.png

PNG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PA 1992 pres counties.png

PNG is a bad format for this type of image and the state is misshapen in this file 2600:1009:B06C:30DC:AC0E:50C0:723A:7E94 06:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shona Moller in her Studio.jpg

Probably a copyright violation. I do not believe that the uploader is the author TheSwamphen (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murales (Jean Mercier).jpg

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murales est le titre de l'œuvre. Elle est constituée de photographies sur des tuiles de céramique installées dans un couloir du métro de Montréal. Il s'agit d'une œuvre d'art public. Je crois qu'à ce titre elle peut être intégrée à un article Wikipédia au même titre que toutes les autres œuvres d'art du métro de Montréal. Guerinf (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheonggyecheonview.jpg

No FoP in South Korea, artist Coosje van Bruggen died in 2009 A1Cafel (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep de minimis. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pirallahi 18.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan and the photo violates authors' copyright. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are not visible at all. Commons could use this picture in teaching newcomers what DM means and how to avoid exaggeration in deletionism. 186.173.178.146 20:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only photos are copyrighted, but Azerbaijani flag as well. This is not simple rectangular representation, but artistic implementation. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Tsarev (memorial plaque).jpg

Derivative of the copyrighted modern artwork, no FoP in Russia except architecture. Quick1984 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are you doing with deleting images?🤡 — ArtSmir (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist.jpg

Per [11], this ca. 1943 (Kleist is named as Generalfeldmarschall) German postcard shows yet another photograph by de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), who died in 1957. So it is still protected by copyright in Germany until the end of 2027, and the file should be deleted. Another version of the same photograph was deleted earlier with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Generaloberst v. Kleist.jpeg.

The file can be restored in 2028, unless it is found that the URAA did restore the US copyright for this photograph after all. The US copyright for a 1943 photograph would run to the end of 2038, so in that case the file could be restored in 2039. Rosenzweig τ 12:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph as such is dated here to May 30, 1942. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a higher quality scan of the original photogaraph, at the bottom left there's an "E. Bieber" watermark. I assume that the photograph was taken by an anonymous photographer working at the E. Bieber studio. Maybe the Hoffmann copyright refers to the postcard reproduction of the original image, published by Hoffmann? Meeepmep (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Bavarian State Library, which has bought Hoffmann's negative archive, credits it to Hoffmann. But even if it were by the E. Bieber studio, the photographer is not necessarily unknown or anonymous. After de:Leonard Berlin-Bieber, the founder of the "E. Bieber" studio in Berlin, that studio was sold in 1910 to a photographer named Julius Rosenberg, who was apparently still around in 1931 accd. to web searches. It's not (yet?) clear who was the owner and photographer in 1942, but as said that's not necessarily anonymous. A 1942 German postcard is also still protected by US copyright until the end of 2037. --Rosenzweig τ 18:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a 1942 German postcard is still protected in the US. Commons has a freely licensed Bundesarchiv portrait of Kleist (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1986-0210-503, General Ewald von Kleist.jpg); it does not need this one with a dubious copyright. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image is not Hoffman's postcard, the postcard is an edited version of the original image, with an additional Oak Leaves award to his Knights' Cross. Meeepmep (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台湾 Taiwan 台北 Taipei shop 林东芳牛肉麵 Lin Dong Fang Beef Noodles March 2024 R12S 26.jpg

New Taiwan Dollar banknotes. Solomon203 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台湾 Taiwan 台北 Taipei shop 林东芳牛肉麵 Lin Dong Fang Beef Noodles March 2024 R12S 27.jpg

New Taiwan Dollar banknotes. Solomon203 (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 永康街 Yongkang Street March 2024 R12S 607.jpg

copyrighted poster in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 永康街 Yongkang Street March 2024 R12S 652.jpg

copyrighted food menus in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 永康街 Yongkang Street March 2024 R12S 654.jpg

copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 203.jpg

Copyrighted screenshot in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 204.jpg

Copyrighted screenshot in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 206.jpg

Copyrighted food menu in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 251.jpg

New Taiwan Dollar banknotes. Solomon203 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 252.jpg

New Taiwan Dollar banknotes. Solomon203 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 大安區 Da'An 信義路二段 Xinyi Road 鼎泰豐 Din Tai Fung Restaurant March 2024 R12S 21.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 文山區 Wenshan 指南路三段 Zhinan Road 3 Section shop 手信店貓空茶屋 Maokong Teahouse 茶葉鐵罐 March 2024 R12S 01.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 文山區 Wenshan 指南路三段 Zhinan Road 3 Section shop 手信店貓空茶屋 Maokong Teahouse 茶葉鐵罐 March 2024 R12S 02.jpg

COM:PACKAGE Solomon203 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei Metro 松山站 SongShan Station map nearby March 2024 R12S 02.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei Metro 松山站 SongShan Station platform floor plan sign March 2024 R12S 01.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei Metro 松山站 SongShan Station map March 2024 R12S 14.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei Metro 松山站 SongShan Station map nearby buildings sign March 2024 R12S 03.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei Metro 松山站 SongShan Station route sign March 2024 R12S.jpg

Copyrighted map in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roboto.jpg

Per COM:TOY. The subject is based on a fictional robot from Transformers. IDCM (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2019 sdcc vacation 43.jpg

Per COM:FOP US. The subject is based on a fictional robot from Super Dimension Fortress Macross and Robotech. This photograph was taken at the 2019 San Diego Comic-Con. IDCM (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Adding Category:United States FOP cases/pending. --IDCM (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VF-1J (1982).gif

Per COM:DW. The subject is based on a fictional fighter from Super Dimension Fortress Macross and Robotech. IDCM (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aziziye-Marşı- instrumental.ogg

Not actually provided by the source under the stated licence. Polyna V. (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Images - 2022-06-22T144936.695.jpg

Logo likely to be above COM:TOO A1Cafel (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/Freiherr v Eelking

These pages taken from a 1934 German book were uploaded with the claim that there are "no known copyright restrictions". This is not true however. The book being published in 1934 means that it is still protected by copyright in the US until the end of 2029.

In Germany, copyright depends on when the author(s) died. The text of the book was written by de:Hermann M. von Eelking, who died in 1970. So the text page is still protected in Germany until the end of 2040. Per the immediate source, the illustrations of the book were done by Erwin Leiner (1903–1934) and Curt Bog (1900–1971). While Leiner's parts are already in the public domain in Germany (while still being protected in the US), I don't see any attribution to him for the drawings on the pages that were uploaded, so we have to assume that those are Bog's and still protected in Germany until the end of 2041.

So the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2041 (the text-only page 68) and 2042 (the rest of the pages).

Rosenzweig τ 20:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa Ana, california lopers gang map.jpg

Claimed as own work but the underlying map is blurry. This is most likely a screenshot from a low resolution image or a poor quality scan from a physical map. While it is possible the uploader has modified the original, the source of the map is not declared. The uploader is a frequent copyright violator and I don't think we can give them the benefit of the doubt that they created the map entirely as their own work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

File:SE Cup.png

There is no proof of this being the Balkans Cup trophy. No source given. this is the trophy given to the last champion Samsunspor. And this for example belongs to Fenerbahçe, 1966-67 season. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:1812:1104:c400:219e:70ce:1f1c:95b4 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Here are some proofs/sources of this being the 1963 Balkans Cup trophy: https://retrosport.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/1963-%CF%84%CE%BF-%CE%BE%CE%B5%CF%87%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%BF-%CE%BA%CF%8D%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BF%CE%BB%CF%85%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%8D/ https://www.olympiacos.org/tropaia/ http://www.redsagainsthemachine.gr/articles/121020/balkaniko-kypello-toy-1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaliver (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wu-Tang Clan - C.R.E.A.M. for Yo MTV Raps.webm

Video is freely licensed, but the music is copyrighted (Copyright Rules Everything Around Me :/) Bremps... 02:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would one know that is the case? Could the Wu-Tang Clan have given permission to MTV to distribute the performance further, including by releasing the recording with a CC-BY license? A similar deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy. However, in that request, a game studio rather than a TV studio was involved. It was assumed there that the game studio would have acquired any licensing from other parties (for items such as in-game artwork and sounds/music) allowing release of the videos as CC-BY.

Fundamentally the question which appears to be unanswered by policies/guidelines/etc of Commons (example: Commons:Problematic sources) is which types of individuals or types of organisations are assumed to understand and have obtained all required rights needed to release something with a CC-BY license. Past deletion request precedent appears to confirm that music labels and game studios are assumed to know what they're doing when they release something as CC-BY. Does MTV know what they're doing when they release a CC-BY video recording of a music performance? I don't know. But hopefully a gap in policy/guidelines can be addressed in some of the documents at Category:Commons licensing help. Dhx1 (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so dope if C.R.E.A.M by the Wu was freely licensed. That was why I didn't speedy it, and have opened a discussion at the Village Pump. Bremps... 02:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV definitely licensed the video components. The performers obviously allowed themselves to be recorded by MTV, so there are no performer's rights issues. The video is definitely a derivative work of the song, so there is a songwriting (and lyric) credit that MTV does not own at play. This is definitely not a license for the song itself; it would just be a license to use clips of this particular performance of it. It may come down to the contract between MTV and the band... does MTV have enough rights to license the video as they wish? The question is if we need a specific OK from the owner of the song's copyright to allow this particular derivative work to have the license, or if we think that MTV's license alone implies that the band authorized any further derivative works of the resulting video. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamhiep4.png

Video is uploaded in 14 April 2023. Per COM:FOP Vietnam, all uploaded photographs of architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam, uploaded on Wikimedia Commons from 1 tháng 1 năm 2023 onwards are not accepted in Commons due to Law No. 07/2022/QH15. Hide on Rosé (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé Bạn ơi tôi đọc rồi nhưng vẫn chưa hiểu rõ đâu. Vậy là bây giờ dù tôi có đi chụp hay lấy ảnh video thì tất cả những thứ như cổng làng, đình chùa, giếng nước, văn bia, chuông đồng... đều không được up à? Giả sử bia 800 năm rồi vẫn dính bản quyền ư? Ban đầu tôi đã hỏi là đình chùa cổ thì có được up không đó. Vậy là giờ ảnh sẽ bị xóa phải không? Vậy bạn xóa luôn hộ tôi ảnh cổng này, đều từ video đó: Tamhiep10 Tamhiep6 và hai ảnh này do tôi chụp và sửa Tuongphieu1 Tuongphieu2. Cũng nhờ bạn xác nhận cho món cà dầm tương. Cái này là món ăn thì không sao phải không? Nt5974 (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974: Bạn lưu ý
Các hạn chế COM:FOP Vietnam chỉ áp dụng đối với tác phẩm được tạo ra kể từ sau 1 tháng 1 năm 2023; có nghĩa là những tác phẩm (ảnh chụp) được tạo ra trước 1 tháng 1 năm 2023 thì không bị ảnh hưởng bởi hạn chế này.
Cà dầm tương, trên quan điểm cá nhân của tôi (IMHO), không được coi là tác phẩm mỹ thuật, kiến trúc, nhiếp ảnh, mỹ thuật ứng dụng được trưng bày tại nơi công cộng.
Ngoài ra, nếu có thể xin hãy sử dụng tiếng Anh để tiện thảo luận với các thành viên tham gia thảo luận khác. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé Rất xin lỗi vì tiếng Anh của tôi rất tệ. Vậy ý là tôi đi xin ảnh cũ rồi up lên và điền ngày tháng trước 1/1/2023 thì vẫn được đúng không? Nhưng làm thế nào để các bạn biết đó là ảnh ngày xưa với ảnh bây giờ đã bị dùng hiệu ứng cho cũ bớt? Tôi muốn hỏi cho rõ vì trên này hướng dẫn toàn bằng tiếng Anh, không cẩn thận dễ bị cấm quá. Nt5974 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974: Có nhiều cách để cả người tải lên và tuần tra viên kiểm tra ngày tạo ra của tác phẩm:

Kiểm tra ngày mà tác phẩm được tải lên hoặc tạo ra được ghi chú trên trang web nguồn;
Kiểm tra ngày tạo ra của tập tin, được ghi trên metadata của tập tin, nếu có.

Đối với quy định, mặc dù các tình nguyện viên đang hỗ trợ dịch các quy định (bạn sẽ thấy liên kết Tiếng Việt ở hầu hết đầu trang quy định), tuy nhiên số lượng quy định là lớn và không phải lúc nào cũng có tình nguyện viên tích cực tham gia biên dịch. Bạn có thể sử dụng các chương trình dịch tự động như Google Dịch. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé Vậy giả sử tôi có bức ảnh đình làng ngày xưa và nó ở dạng hiện vật (giấy in), không phải dạng file (trên thiết bị). Hôm nay tôi lấy điện thoại ra chụp lại thì data sẽ tính theo ngày hôm nay và ảnh không được chấp nhận trên này đúng không. Phiền bạn trả lời nốt câu này thôi. Xin cảm ơn! Nt5974 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974
Tôi chưa nhìn thấy bức hình đó, cho nên không thể khẳng định được điều gì.
Bạn có thể tải lên Commons, và nó sẽ được một thành viên khác xem xét. Nhanh nhất thì trong vài phút, còn lâu thì có thể dẫn tới vài năm. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on RoséVâng, tôi sẽ đi xin file trên thiết bị thôi cho chắc ăn vậy. Một lần nữa cảm ơn bạn! Nt5974 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of the above conversation between me (Hide on Rosé) and Nt5974

@Hide on Rosé I've read it but I still don't understand it clearly. So now even if I take pictures or videos, all the things like the village gate, pagoda, well, stele, bronze bell... can't be uploaded? Suppose a tombstone is still copyrighted after 800 years? At first, I asked if an ancient pagoda could be uploaded. So now the photo will be deleted? Please also delete photos of the temple gate for me, it's all from that video in YouTube: Tamhiep10 Tamhiep6 and these two photos were taken and edited by me Tuongphieu1 Tuongphieu2. Also please confirm about the "cà dầm tương", this is a dish, so it's okay, right? Nt5974 (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974: Please note
COM:FOP Vietnam restriction only applies to the works created after 1 January 2023; that means work created before 1 January 2023 won't be affected by this restriction.
"Cà dầm tương" IMHO, is not considered as architectural and artistic works in public spaces from Vietnam..
Also, please consider using English. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé Apologize for my very bad English. So that means if I ask for old photos and upload them and fill in the date before January 1, 2023, it's still okay, right? But how do you know if it's an old photo or a photo that has been used with effects to make it look old? I want to ask clearly because the guidelines and policy here are all in English. If I'm not careful, I'll easily get blocked. Nt5974 (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974: There are several ways for both uploaders and patrollers to check a work's creation date:

Check the upload/creation date of the work where it was first uploaded or created;
Check the creation date in file metadata, if it has.

As for the policy and guidelines, although volunteers are helping to translate them (you will see the Vietnamese link "Tiếng Việt" at most of the top of the policy page), the number of policy in Commons is large and not always available volunteers actively participate in translation. You can use automatic translation programs like Google Translate. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé So let's say I have a photo of an old village communal house and it's in physical form (printed paper), not in file form (on a device). Today when I took out my phone to take a photo, the data will be recorded as today's date and the photo is not accepted here, right? Please answer this question. Thank you! Nt5974 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974
I haven't seen that picture, so I can't say anything.
You can upload it to Commons, and it will be reviewed by another user. Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on RoséYes, I will go ask for the file on the device just to be sure. Thank you again! Nt5974 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hide on Rosé Bạn ơi, nếu phóng to bức ảnh sẽ thấy tấm băng rôn đỏ ghi dòng chữ "tháng 3 năm nhâm dần (2022)". Vậy có thể coi là bức ảnh được chụp từ thời điểm đó (trước 1/1/2023) không? En: Dear friend, if you zoom in on the photo, you will see a red banner with the words "March of the Year of the Tiger (2022)". So can it be considered that the photo was taken from that time (before January 1, 2023)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt5974 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nt5974: Tôi vừa xem lại quy định thì thời gian để tập tin được chấp nhận là ngày tải lên đây, không phải ngày của tập tin gốc hay ngày xuất hiện trong ảnh/video. Phương Linh (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ồ vậy là khỏi tải nữa, cảm ơn bạn! Nt5974 (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022 Image Ewout Genemans.jpg

no author no permission no metadata Hoyanova (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nt5974 (talk · contribs)

As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tamhiep4.png.

Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Το ενυδρείο στη Ρόδο (1934-35).jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aquarium of Rhodes, 2023.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023-09-17 Rhodos-Stadt 14.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023-09-24 Aquarium Rhodes 1.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023-09-24 Aquarium Rhodes 5.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akvárium és múzeum - Acquarium and museum - panoramio (1).jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resilient Lady passing Aquarium of Rhodes 22 August 2023.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then we need to cover the Aquarium of Rhodes with a protective net like this and we have to wait for the expiration of the copyrights. I can upload the new version of this file, Aquarium covered with a net. What do you think, Εὐθυμένης? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cruise ship is main topic, green grass lawn with benches in the foreground and the flag of Greece on the roof of Aquarium (not focused on this building) on the right are contingency, accompanying items, I just didn't make it to the shore, lens focal length 12,5 mm, long distance, I think, captured from the street clock, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @PjotrMahh1: Then, you just have to cut off - crop out the building (which is in first plan and evidently in the center of attention btw) and focus solely on the passing ship... 🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:@Εὐθυμένης: , Καλησπέρα, well, see also cropped version of this file, if already replaced → . How long will this building be under copyright in Greece? Ευχαριστώ, --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PjotrMahh1: Well, if we take into consideration the fact that its architect, Armando Bernabiti, only died in 1970... --🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 16:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Συγνώμη, sorry, Rest in peace (R.I.P.), ευχαριστώ (thanks),--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uppindschthess.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too simple? No copyrightable elements here that I can see... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kremasti City Hall Headquarters Leoforos Eleftherias Kremasti Rhodes 26 August 2018.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a standard rectangular building without architectural frills, a mass-produced structure (serial administrative building) or not? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodi CasadelFascio17mm.JPG

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Színház - Theater - panoramio.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 07:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:40ΑΡΑ.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too simple? --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20211105 athenes033.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DM? Focus is on street. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the work of architecture is incidental (not the main or intended subject). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit dubious regarding the point of focus. The building (former Hilton Hotel) covers the largest part of the photo and can be considered as being the point of interest of this specific photo. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athens 2018-02 06.jpg

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt to photograph the yellow cabs; any building in the background was accidental, not the focus, and I tried to avoid capturing entire buildings if I could avoid it. But fair enough, might be difficult to defend on de minimis grounds, in hindsight. Julle (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle: Just made an attempt at cropping the file so to focus on the taxis and avoid the FOP issue. Feel free to revert me if necessary. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! Thanks. Julle (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gagged222 (talk · contribs)

No evidence that permission has been given from the person depicted, out of scope.

Spinixster (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:THEORY OF SHOCK WAVES AND INTRODUCTION TO GAS DYNAMICS.pdf

This file was initially tagged by Jan.Kamenicek as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Translated from 1946 Russian original (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:THEORY_OF_SHOCK_WAVES_AND_INTRODUCTION_TO_GAS_DYNAMICS.pdf&page=3) by Yakov Zeldovich who died in 1987 and so still copyrighted.in both the US and the source country Yann (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. In this case, a regular DR is better. Yann (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halva mini bars at supermarket checkout (cropped).jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure offhand that I see anything copyrightable here, can you please be more specific? - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe after cropping out the ramen. I think any copyrighted elements on the mini bars are below the threshold of originality. The ramen package is more complex, but it does not seem important given the title of the image. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear educational scope if the copyrightable ramen packet is cropped out. WHy do we need blurry/cropeed images of these bars?--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018 Disobedience Awards at the MIT Media Lab (31227033007).jpg

This is me and this picture causes embarrassment Jamiraburley (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly fine image taken at a public event. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1946 Ho Chi Minh Leclerc Sainteny 2.png

This file was initially tagged by DHN as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: license laundering Yann (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not appropriate here. This is in the public domain in Vietnam. Yann (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have verified the issue of LIFE, 1968 Mar 22, Vol. 64, No. 12, which is also included below the photo of Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny (1946) on Flickr.

There was no credit given to the photographer, who was thus unknown. An old historical photo like this one, with no known photographer, would belong to the Vietnamese people and the public, for which the licenses {{PD-Vietnam}} and {{PD-1996}}—such as used in the photo c:File:Le_Grand_Etat-Major_des_Troupes_Caodaïstes.jpg dated in 1948—would be appropriate.

On Flickr, there was a note on the photo of Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny (1946) saying "Note: There is no license history before July 17, 2008."

The blanket copyright on page 5 of this LIFE issue (below the table of contents) was for this whole issue, which could include photos that LIFE did not own the copyright. Images with specific copyright were indicated, such as the advertisement of Nabisco on page 8 in this LIFE issue.

Moreover, this Flickr user Manhhai has uploaded a large number of media items, not all of them have the free license CC BY 2.0 Deed, such as the 1969 Sep 12 issue of Time Magazine on Ho Chi Minh, appearing just a few months after the above LIFE, 1968 Mar 22, Vol. 64, No. 12.

Please let me know if there are any objections to using the licenses {{PD-Vietnam}} and {{PD-1996}} for the photo of Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny (1946).

Thank you.

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE/Time does NOT own copyright: Solid evidence 1

@Racconish: @Yann: @JJMC89: @DHN:

Below is solid evidence that LIFE and Time do NOT own the copyright of the photo File:1946 Ho Chi Minh Leclerc Sainteny 2.png.

Google has archived millions of historic photos from the LIFE photo archive.

LIFE photo archive hosted by Google: Search millions of photographs from the LIFE photo archive, stretching from the 1750s to today. Most were never published and are now available for the first time through the joint work of LIFE and Google.

LIFE image collection by Google: Any image in the LIFE photo archive has the name of the photographer and the copyright by Time.

For example, the photo titled Underwater Fashion Show was taken by LIFE photographer Sam Shere in February 1947, with the Copyright Time Inc.

The following search indicates that LIFE (now Time) did have and own the copyright of many photos of historic figures such as US Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and French General Charles de Gaulle:

LIFE image search: Roosevelt: Many images
LIFE image search: Truman: Many images
LIFE image search: Lyndon Johnson: Many images.
LIFE image search: de Gaulle: Many images.

On the other hand, LIFE or Time did NOT have and own the copyright of ANY photo of Ho Chi Minh in the period of 1945-1954 (except for some 1957 photos of Ho Chi Minh in Poland), ANY photo of General Leclerc, ANY photo of Sainteny, and ANY photo of Nguyen Ai Quoc (former name of Ho Chi Minh).

LIFE image search: Ho Chi Minh: Three images UNRELATED to the period 1945-1954 (First Indochina War), except for some 1957 photos of Ho Chi Minh in Poland; NO image owned by LIFE of Ho Chi Minh with Leclerc and Sainteny in 1946.
LIFE image search: Leclerc: NO image of General Leclerc (except for photos of the ballerina Tanaquil Leclerc)
LIFE image search: Sainteny: NO image of Sainteny.
LIFE image search: Nguyen Ai Quoc: NO image.

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite obvious license washing at immediate source. The photo was taken by a photographer working for The French Army and published in 1952 in Adrien Dansette's Leclerc, p. 142, with credit to Service Presse Information, the French Army's photographic agency. French copyright applies here. Since there is no personal attribution it is a collective work which has now fallen in the public domain. — Racconish ^💬 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE/Time does NOT own copyright: Solid evidence 2

@Racconish: @Yann: @JJMC89: @DHN:

I borrowed Devillers (1952), Histoire du Viet Nam, from the library again, and noted that there was this mention regarding the photo of Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny (1946) on Flickr: "Ci-contre: Leclerc, Ho Chi Minh, Sainteny. Hanoi, 18 mars 1946. Photo S. C. A." This fact supports the finding of Racconish in Section #Image search method, French archives/publications that there was no credit given to a photographer.

NOTE: S. C. A. = Service Cinématographique des Armées (Motion-Picture Service of the Armed Forces), a branch of the "Service Presse Information," mentioned by Racconish, who recommended to KEEP the image c:File:1946_Ho_Chi_Minh_Leclerc_Sainteny_2.png close to a month ago on 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE/Time does NOT own copyright: Solid evidence 3

@Racconish: @Yann: @JJMC89: @DHN:

In the issue of LIFE, 1968 Mar 22, Vol. 64, No. 12, which is also included below the photo of Ho Chi Minh, Leclerc, Sainteny (1946) on Flickr, the image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png was published without credit.

Based on the careful search in the LIFE image archive as documented in Section "#LIFE/Time does NOT own copyright: Solid evidence 1" above, LIFE does not hold the copyright for the image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png.

In the award-winning history book by Logevall (2012) below, the image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png was published at the top of p.86 with the credit given on p.802 to a "Private collection" ! The photographer is clearly unknown.

Logevall, Fredrik (2012) Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America's Vietnam^[12], Random House, New York, 864 pp. Winner of the 2013 Pulitzer Prize in History: "For a distinguished and appropriately documented book on the history of the United States, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000). A balanced, deeply researched history of how, as French colonial rule faltered, a succession of American leaders moved step by step down a road toward full-blown war" • Winner of the 2013 Francis Parkman Prize from the Society of American Historians • Winner of the 2013 American Library in Paris Book Award • Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations 2013 Gold Medal Arthur Ross Book Award • Finalist for the 2013 Cundill Prize in Historical Literature.

In the book based on w:The_Vietnam_War_(TV_series) by

Geoffrey C. Ward & Ken Burns (2017), The Vietnam War: An Intimate History^[13], Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2017.

the same image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png was published on p.15 with the credit given on p.609 to "Alex K. Thomas papers, Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan." Major Allison (Alex) K. Thomas, commander of the w:OSS Deer Team, sat on the left of Ho Chi Minh in the image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png.

See a detailed documentation on this photo in Section "Update on misprint in EW p.86, 2024.05.04" in Notes on Vietnam History, version 2024.05.04, or for future versions, go to Notes on Vietnam History, Internet Archive.

The unknown photographer cannot be a French colonial-army personnel, who was not allowed in the Viet Minh stronghold at Tan Trao in 1945 Aug or in the Bac Bo Palace in 1945 Sep when the Ho Chi Minh Provisional Government occupied it. Thus this photographer can only be either a Viet Minh photographer, in which case the {{PD-Vietnam}} license applies, or a member of the w:OSS Deer Team, in which case the {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} license applies.

So I used both templates {{PD-Vietnam}} and {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} in the image c:File:Ho Chi Minh and OSS Deer Team, Bac Bo Palace, 1945 Sep.png to cover both cases.

Updated Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC) ◉ Started Egm4313.s12 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Claridgesmontford (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author:

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Quality is too high for a photo 'without author' (the situation after uploading) - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality being high is not grounds for deletion. There is no copyright violation. Claridgesmontford (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did Christie Goodwin who took the picture give you the permission to upload it? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that Christie Goodwin’s client has received an unrestricted license to use the specified photos. This license has been extended to Wikimedia Commons, allowing the use of these images freely in accordance with Wikimedia Commons’ policies. Any further correspondence and evidencing regarding this matter will be handled via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. @CoffeeEngineer Claridgesmontford (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That same user made this nomination. So obviously, there is no evidence. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

evidence has been provided and is in queue.@Inertia6084 Claridgesmontford (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeEngineer: Maybe you have to close this DR, it can take up to 30 days until VRT is ready. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) @Claridgesmontford: For this (maximum) 30 days, the file should not be a main photo on Wikipedia. You can place it back, when you have the permission from VRT. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to do it, could you please guide me? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeEngineer: Hi, I see that the other two files are not VRT-pending (as far as I can see), so I just remove the file name, and remove the deletion request on the file page. Grtz. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Claridgesmontford: - Hi, did you send permission for the other two pictures to VRT? If you didn't, they can be removed after 7 or more days, from the day you uploaded them. So please provide the right information, or ask VRT for more information and questions. Grtz. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by His2ry (talk · contribs)

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gandabahali. Uploader is a sock of Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs) who uploaded the files from that past discussion, and has already been blocked on enwiki.

Some of these new files are sourced to "Facebook, unknown author" or "Google", others to "Ganesh Puja Committee" or "Gandabahali Development Authority", all with no evidence of permission. The one file straightforwardly claimed as own work (File:The Elephant Stone, Gandabahali.jpg) appears on Google Maps' photos of that location credited to a Pradyumna Meher and taken in 2020, it's not clear if this is the sock user or just a common surname in the area.

Belbury (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JASDF General Yoshitaka Tsunoda.jpg

1967年に日本で公表され、2017年に日本における著作権保護期間が満了した写真。1996年時点で日本における著作権が存続していたため、ウルグアイ・ラウンド協定法により米国における著作権が回復され、2062年まで保護される。よってWikimedia Commonsには受け入れることができないファイル。 Taisai429 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JGSDF Lieutenant General Masatoshi Tsukamoto.jpg

1966年に日本で公表され、2016年に日本における著作権保護期間が満了した写真。1996年時点で日本における著作権が存続していたため、ウルグアイ・ラウンド協定法により米国における著作権が回復され、2061年まで保護される。よってWikimedia Commonsには受け入れることができないファイル。 Taisai429 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A photo published in Japan in 1966 and whose copyright protection period in Japan expired in 2016. As copyright existed in Japan as of 1996, copyright in the United States was restored under the Uruguay Round Agreement Act and will be protected until 2061. Therefore, files cannot be accepted by Wikimedia Commons. --RAN (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JGSDF Lieutenant General Masahiko Takeshita.jpg

1966年に日本で公表され、2016年に日本における著作権保護期間が満了した写真。1996年時点で日本における著作権が存続していたため、ウルグアイ・ラウンド協定法により米国における著作権が回復され、2061年まで保護される。よってWikimedia Commonsには受け入れることができないファイル。 Taisai429 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JGSDF Lieutenant General Iwaichi Fujiwara.jpg

1965年に日本で公表され、2015年に日本における著作権保護期間が満了した写真。1996年時点で日本における著作権が存続していたため、ウルグアイ・ラウンド協定法により米国における著作権が回復され、2060年まで保護される。よってWikimedia Commonsには受け入れることができないファイル。 Taisai429 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JGSDF Lieutenant General Shinobu Takayama.jpg

1962年に日本で公表され、2012年に日本における著作権保護期間が満了した写真。1996年時点で日本における著作権が存続していたため、ウルグアイ・ラウンド協定法により米国における著作権が回復され、2057年まで保護される。よってWikimedia Commonsには受け入れることができないファイル。 Taisai429 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fritz Koenig - Porträt - 1970.jpg

Urheberrechte sind nicht geklärt. Tocquevillosia (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source seems like it is reliable. It says the work is CC0 (needs to be changed from CC-BY-4.0) and mentions the chain of custody as a family donation to the archive. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugo-Hofmann-Straße 14 Straßlach 1.jpg

Falschinformation Artikel verfasst ohne Einwilligung der eigentümer Tassilopapp (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veröffentlichen ohne Einverständnis der Eigentümer Tassilopapp (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Einverständnis nicht erforderlich, siehe de:Panoramafreiheit und de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wenn beim Fotografieren das Grundstück nicht betreten wurde, gilt de:Panoramafreiheit --Rufus46 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wie ich schon geschrieben habe, habe ich das Grundstück NICHT!!!!! betreten. Das Bild ist ja auch von der Straße aus gemacht worden. Sieht man doch!!!!! Edelmauswaldgeist (talk) Edelmauswaldgeist (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Mike12332

All those files have been uploaded by yet-another-sock-puppet of a well known cross-wiki spammer and long term abuser (identified also by Check User on it.wiki). This specific user, as all of his known sock puppets, is currently globally locked (see also this request, this request, and this request on Meta). He's a teenager trying to promote himself as "musician", "photographer" and "record producer" (all home-made). In particular, he's using Commons as a kind of "photobook repository" to gain visibility on the web. Since these uploads are first of all useless (no educational purpose, no usage on any Wikimedia article), with a dumb description (kind of lines of poetry) but most of all by a LTA escaping from a global lock, the request is to remove them from Commons ("Commons as personal repository", "self-promotional intent"). These files were originally requested for speedy deletion, but since the rationale behind was not evident, the SD request was reverted. A regular DR is opened instead. --Superspritz (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. Since the uploader is not globally locked, a warning on his user talk sounds useless. It was added anyway just for tracking purposes.[reply]

Files in Category:Museum MMK für Moderne Kunst (Museum)

copyvio; contemp. photos of dancers; no fop (due to non-permanence).

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These files seem like good candidates for blurring since both are in use and the advertisement is not essential to the building image. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:58-Cam-Guthrie-683x1024.jpg

No sign of open license at source: https://guelph.ca/city-hall/mayor-and-council/mayors-office/. Also no record in the City of Guelph open data portal for this photo: http://data.open.guelph.ca/. Copyright likely belongs to the City. The contact email is there if anyone would like to inquire, otherwise delete it. PascalHD (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence the photo was released under OGL-ON, and the copyright likely belongs to either the city or the original photographer. RA0808 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Almerindo d'Amato.jpg

This file was initially tagged by CoffeeEngineer as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10. That is not true, the pianist is more or less notable, but the source and authorship of this picture (originated probably in 1970-ies) must be disclosed. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attribution and license fixed. --RAN (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This set of licenses implies that the photograph was created before 1976. I am not sure this is the case (though it is possible). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matilde de la Torre (cropped).jpg

Several issues, https://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Discusión:Matilde_de_la_Torre said that is a fake photo and possible copyvio Ezarateesteban 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is in use across several projects. It also seems to be an allowable derivative work per COM:FOP Mexico. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/03

March

March 12

March 18

March 19

Files uploaded by P0su0h (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:St. Matthäus (Augsburg-Hochzoll)

Files in Category:St. Petrus (Augsburg)

Files in Category:St. Petrus (Augsburg)

Files in Category:Interior of Michaelskirche, Waiblingen

Files in Category:Interior of Friedenskirche (Düsseldorf)

March 20

Files uploaded by Epichippo (talk · contribs)

March 21

Files uploaded by AHMSAbdelwahab (talk · contribs)

March 22

Files of Forviz

Files of Rudard

Files uploaded by Derkoenig (talk · contribs)

Files of Shivayeeimagebot

Files of Yutingstar

Files of 199515sesar

Files of 마이산

Files of 161803cesar

March 23

Files in Category:Heilige Familie Schoeftland

Files in Category:Bruder Klaus Basel

Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg)

Files in Category:Allerheiligen Zürich

Files in Category:Katholische Kirche Münchwilen

Files in Category:Therme Vals

Files in Category:Casinò di Campione

Files uploaded by Alexostrov (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)

Files in Category:Interior of St. Rupert (Munich)

Files in Category:Verleihung Art Cologne Preis 2016

Files uploaded by Yendifa (talk · contribs)

Works by Marina Kalezić

March 24

Files found with Special:Search/Dan Schneider, 1988

Files in Category:Centre Le Corbusier

Files in Category:Dipolog Cathedral

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by ИринаЯ (talk · contribs)