Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

April

[edit]

April 1

[edit]

File:Club Nintendo logo.svg

[edit]

I question if this is really below the threshold of originality, it clearly depicts Mario's hat. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above Ahri.boy (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete - You may also want to consider nominating File:My Nintendo logo.svg. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep TOO in Japan is considered to be pretty high. "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts" are not copyrightable - the "hat" is way too simple to be considered an artistic work in this context. {{TOO-Japan}} applies. TheImaCow (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete rises above TOO. The hat is not "merely geometric shapes" any more than a raster image is merely a collection of small circles. 50.227.250.114 11:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:ד"ר יהודית המנדינגר.jpg

[edit]

Way better source info is needed 45.74.67.64 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Weak keep I suspect the image creation date is incorrect based on the information about this person. The lack of EXIF is also troubling. This looks to me to be a scan of an old photograph. All that said, I don't see the sorts of problems that should necessarily result in a COM:PRP delete (not web resolution, no indication of multiple violations by the uploader, etc.). I could of course be swayed to support deletion if there was some better articulation of the problem with this image. 50.227.250.114 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ortinopoda.jpg

[edit]

This image represents an outdated paleoart illustration and has a secondary version, the image is low quality and rough and is not used in articles in any version of wikipedia. Just to clear up possible confusion, that image is my own, the user Paleonychus was an account that I used in the past. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norway chess 2023.png

[edit]

Maybe PD-textlogo but not sure. Obviously not a CC. I am smiling (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Telecom Italia Mobile (2014-2016).svg

[edit]

Complex logos can be in Commons only with VRT-permission. Even if the red part of the logo is simple (not sure), the blue part has 3D effect, which makes the logo complex. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment COM:TOO Italy is a high threshold, and there is no link to the AC Parma logo that was deleted, but if it's this, that would support your point. I would strongly urge someone who knows which AC Parma logo was deleted to link it, because as things stand, COM:TOO Italy is silent about 3D effects. To be clear, I assume you're right, but there's no actual evidence for that provided on COM:TOO Italy, only the absence of examples with 3D effects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep COM:TOO Italy Appartei (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dúo Dídyma.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Picture on this flyer in January the same year https://duodidyma.com/images/alloz.jpeg CoffeeEngineer (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian Pilot Primo Gibelli.jpg

[edit]

This photo needs to be deleted: It is not an Italian photo because Gibelli was not in Italy at the time, he was in the Soviet Union so Russian copyright laws apply. The provenance of the photo is known - the first known publication is Ogonyok magazine No 36 of 1965, meaning it will not be PD in Russia until 2036 and PD in the US in 2061. Kursant504 (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It looks like a studio image and it would have been "made public" when it left the custody of the photographer and went to the sitter. 1965 Ogonyok magazine would be first appearance in a magazine. --RAN (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Wrong. You are falsely applying your interpretation of American copyright law on Russia. Russian copyright law is not bound to the American legal definition of publication. No Russian court has ever accepted such a broad definition of published. This photo has all the signs of being a private/personal photo (since he is smoking, the angle of his body towards the camera - this is obviously not an official portrait) and the historical context of the photo, being a photo of Primo Gibelli, further supports the notion that this photo was not made public (ie, available to be seen by the Soviet public, not just a few people in a private setting) since Gibelli was involved in lots of top-secret work, being a test pilot and participant in the Spanish Civil War when Soviet participation in the war was a state secret. So unless you can show that this photo was made public to the Soviet people (not just a few family members of Gibelli or other private situation) we cannot assume that this photo was legally published durin Gibelli's lifetime. Kursant504 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We apply US case law against the wishes of other countries based on rulings by the Wikimedia Foundation. See: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp and National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, where we apply US case law to images from the United Kingdom against their wishes. See also Monkey selfie copyright dispute. --RAN (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "We apply US case law against the wishes of other countries based on rulings by the Wikimedia Foundation" has NEVER been done on deciding on a different copyright countdown on photos based on differing definitions of publication, it has ONLY been done when Wikimedia contends that something was never copyrighted in the first place (like the Monkey selfie) or that there was not enough sweat of the brow to constitute a derivative work. I cannot emphasize this enough, the WMF does not disregard other countries definition of PUBLICATION and respects each countries copyright countdown rules. Russia is a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, not a US state, and forcing the US definition of publication here is denying the sovereignty of the Russian Federation.Kursant504 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting here: The WMF respects always different countries FoP restrictions. For example, while buildings in the US are covered by FoP, photos of new copyrighted buildings from countries like Belarus and France are not allowed on Commons, even though the US has FoP for buildings. And while the US does not have FoP for statues, the WMF respects other countries more lenient rules that provide FoP for statues in those countries. So we know for a fact that the WMF does not always apply US copyright law on foreign countries.Kursant504 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Interesting question. I would say that the American definition of publication certainly matters for the US copyright; if it was published per American standards in 1931, it will be in the Public Domain in the US no later than 2027. However, I also agree that for the Russian copyright, the American definition is immaterial, and the source country seems to be Russia from whichever angle you see it. Therefore if we agree that this has left the photographer's area of control (publication in the US sense), then in my mind we can undelete in 2036. If we are unsure of that, we will have to wait until 2061. Felix QW (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Павел Александрович Ермилов.jpg

[edit]

Clearly not "own work" Kursant504 (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament.bg

[edit]

False claim about Creative Commons on the website of bulgarian parliament, which in reality is clearly marked as "© 2021 Народно събрание на Република България" ("© 2021 National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria"). Though terms of use say: The contents of the portal of the National Assembly may be used freely, unless it is explicitly stated that it is subject to protection under the current Copyright and Related Rights Act. , I believe that marking the content with "© 2021 Народно събрание на Република България" explicitly states that it is subject to protection under the current Copyright and Related Rights Act, because what else it is supposed to mean? Additionally may be used freely doesn't define precisely whether the content may be re-used, modified and so on. Summing everything up: no evidence for Creative Commons (so marking these files as CCed is wrong, disregarding their legal status), content is explicitly marked as (c), therefore free use (according to the terms of use) cannot be applied, and finally, lack of definition of the "free use". All linked files shall be also deleted. Masur (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masur, the exact text in the copyright information page of the The National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria states the following:

The National Assembly is the holder of the copyright of the software ensuring the functioning of the Internet portal and its design. (Hense the © 2021 Народно събрание на Република България in the footer.) The content of the portal of the National Assembly can be used freely, unless it is explicitly stated that it is subject to protection under the current Law on copyright and related rights. Therefore, the use of textual content, photos, video materials and other visual elements found on the portal is public and requires only citation. All web portal content is accessible in real-time via a public REST API. View API documentation - click here.

Thank you for considering and taking stance on this information making the final judgement. Pelajanela (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masur I carefully read the teams and conditions and my opinion is the same as the one of @Pelajanela. The use of textual content, photos, video materials and other visual elements found on the portal is public and requires only citation.
I want to ensure you that I carefully considered the license terms before uploading the pictures. There were informal disucssions with other members of the bulgarian Wiki community and other bulgarian NGO members that has focus on copyright related to state institutions. Dbalinov (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key question to me would be what connotation the Bulgarian for "is public" and "can be used freely" has. I see no reason why this should disallow commercial use, so it remains to consider whether it considers derivative works. This is hard to tell from any translation. In any case, if kept it should be marked with {{Attribution}} rather than asserting a specific CC license that clearly isn't there.

Files in Category:US National Archives series: Photographs Relating to Agency Activities, 2001 - 2016

[edit]

All images are extremely similar, and therefore out of scope. ("Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" per COM:PERSONAL)

File:David Halberstam 2001.jpg and File:David Halberstam 441-GD-01-092-A-03.jpg are enough.

TheImaCow (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment not seeing a consensus to delete, and it is not an admin's job to have their preference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess then it needs to stay open until there is a consensus to keep/delete. (Note that I don't see a consensus to keep either, and a process like w:WP:RELIST might be useful for stale DRs) TheImaCow (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arne Duncan at the Council of Chief State School Officers' Teacher of the Year event (April 28, 2010)

[edit]

All files listed are extremely similar to other files within the category, therefore de facto duplicates & out of scope (the images were likely made in very quick succession). Listing them all with what exactly is the duplicate would be a lot of effort, but just look at the category itself, the duplicated files are all next to each other.

TheImaCow (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my experience, this is not usually considered a valid reason to delete files that come from a GLAM. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any practical nor policy based reason why GLAM files should be except from normal COM:SCOPE/COM:HOST rules - per COM:SPAM "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" are not realistically useful for an educational purpose and therefore out of scope. Large amounts of very similar files (or even defacto duplicates in this case) are difficult to navigate, maintain & use - and resulting, they also put the GLAM in a bad light, even if the majority of uploads are excellent (like here). TheImaCow (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep They are not identical, just similar. Let the end user decide which of the two or three similar ones to use. We do not actually delete the images, so no space is saved, the images are just hidden. --RAN (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So similar that they are basically the same and it wouldn't make any difference if one uses one or the other. I know that they are "only" hidden - that is exactly what is needed in this case. There is absolutely no value in maintaining de facto duplicate collections, it is actively disruptive to both editors and potential re-users of the images. TheImaCow (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it "actively disruptive", you just choose the one you prefer. How is any different than the number of similar images at Getty Images. --RAN (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it makes finding useful images harder. If you want to find pictures of this event, you need to go through a category with almost 200 images - and half of them are basically duplicate. This is not useful for anyone - for example, let's look at this and this image - this is a random unidentified person speaking. Not "Arne Duncan" as it's stated in title, categorisation or file description. If we have those two images of this unidentified person speaking at this event, why would we need more pictures like this, this, this or this, which are from exactly the same angels? All files on Commons are generally supposed to be in scope - and "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" are not in scope. Those 4 files mentioned here, and all other nominated do not add anything "educationally distinct". Quality goes above quantity.
    Also, note that the entire event is in itself is likely not notable - nothing of even slightest significance happened there apparently, there is no Wikipedia article on this "Teacher of the year" award - and there is just no realistic educational use for hundreds or hundredthousands of images of random people at random events. The only person of intrest there is Arne Duncan, the rest are apparently random people standing next to him. We also don't need thousands of selfies of people standing next to celebrities, and this is just the same situation here. TheImaCow (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per the nominator and guidelines. There's no legitimate reason we would need multiple images of the same subjects and from essentially the same exact angles. A two inch difference in head tilt doesn't magically make it a different image and duplicates just aren't helpful at this scale or type of subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I am not seeing a consensus to delete. Historically we have played easier on Wikimedia sourced events. Also comment, you cannot expect an admin in a close to make the determining decision on which they prefer on behalf of the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if DR closes like "No consensus" on enwp exist on commons (which means "no action taken", ultimately I don't care if this bunch of duplicates is here or not, but if you ask me: there is consensus to delete, as no good policy based reason with more weight than COM:SCOPE nor any practical reason on which value these images provide that the other non-nominated ones don't was given). TheImaCow (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say its 50/50 for or against deleting the images. But literally nothing is lost if we do and a lot is gained by not turning Commons into a dump of extremely low quality duplicate images. Common sense as to if these images are actually useful is a thing no matter what the "consensus" might be. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Al Kamal Al Azra (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible problem? The file names seem to imply the different photographers of the images, and all are uploaded under one account. Supposedly, one account should be good for one person. Possible need for COM:VRTS confirmation of photographers' identities and of their commercial CC licensing choices?

Note that the different camera models of some images also imply the images are not taken by a single photographer/uploader.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete we need permission(s) from author(s)
  • -- already deleted image with modern architecture because of no FoP in UAE.
— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarolinaWren23.jpg

[edit]

Very low quality, the lowest by far, of over 400 photos of this species on Commons, with misleadingly bad colour balance as well as minuscule size MPF (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Per COM:PERSONAL, "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" are not realistically useful for an educational purpose and therefore out of scope. This image is a perfect example of that. {{Low quality}} images should be replaced with higher quality versions, and if no longer in use, deleted (as they are out of scope then). TheImaCow (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The relatively precise geolocation makes the image more educationally useful. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IronGargoyle: It isn't geolocated at all, let alone relatively precisely. USDA photos like this were frequently used on multiple different USDA, USFWS, and USNPS websites from a shared library. Just because this file was obtained from the Ouachita & Ozark-St. Francis National Forests website, does not mean the photo was taken at that site. - MPF (talk) 16:28, 16 May 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:GRAND MOSQUE.jpg

[edit]

no FoP in Abu Dhabi / UAE Ralf Roleček 20:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:GRAND MOSQUE.jpg

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sharjah Mosque. No FoP in U.A.E., and this commercially-licensed image infringes mosque architect's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharjah Fish Market Road - panoramio (3).jpg

[edit]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.A.E.. The building dates to 2005. This commercially-licensed image infringes the building author's copyright; the author of the mosque is Architectural Academic Office per English Wikipedia article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bandera de grecia.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Greece.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandera de belgica.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Government Ensign of Belgium.svg. Fry1989 eh? 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Low-quality images that were not used and were replaced by high-quality vector graphics. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anti-ISIL Flag.jpg

[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep i oppose this reason. because it is parody version of ISIS flag. we can still use this image. for example, that category: Category:Countryballs , you can find so much images that you would put them into deletion request, but actually they are in project scope. so, that image is also in project scope. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ if that image gonna deleted, im gonna do every necessary action to bring it. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 15:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Iitdharwad (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Logo seems above TOO; discussion needed

Эlcobbola talk 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State flag Parody.svg

[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's vandalism. Speedy. 186.173.202.52 02:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Islamic State of Iran.png

[edit]

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A suspected IS militant has been dragging out of rubbles of Mosul by Iraqi army soldiers.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. The user who uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons is not the author of the photo. Julie13666 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State Of Morocco.png

[edit]

Not educationally useful Julie13666 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISIL describing how they defeated the Chakamari citizens.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyright infringement. The copyright holder is ISIS. Julie13666 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Topeka, Kansas (1977–2019).png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flag was created in 1977 and would have required a copyright registration, which does not exist. If it was created after 1989 registration and displaying a copyright symbol on each perceivable copy was no longer needed. See for instance File:Flag of Kansas City, Missouri (1992–1995).svg which has a copyright symbol. --RAN (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Shreveport, Louisiana.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Bossier City.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of North Yarmouth, Maine.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lincoln, Maine.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hyattsville, Maryland.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The flag consists of simple geometric forms and text and would not be eligible for a copyright. The center is just the Maryland state flag which is not under an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of College Park, Maryland.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The flag was created in 1962 and would have required a copyright registration and a copyright renewal, non of which exist in either database. If it was created after 1989 registration and displaying a copyright symbol on each perceivable copy was no longer needed. --RAN (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Winthrop, Massachusetts.gif

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Whately, Massachusetts.gif

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Tisbury, Massachusetts.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Swansea, Massachusetts.gif

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.211 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page still applies. User appears to be nominating multiple flag files for deletion despite license tags checking out. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Buckland, Massachusetts.gif

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). License already present on page is appropriate. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Faribault, Minnesota.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Too simple for copyright protection. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Comprised of standard non copyrightable elements. --RAN (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Jennings, Missouri.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Too simple for copyright protection. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Frivolous DR. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Comprised of standard non copyrightable elements. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Kansas City, Missouri (1972–1992).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Current license on page is appropriate. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Frivolous DR. Current license on page is appropriate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Superseded by a PNG. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is deleted Tgbsww (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lexington, Massachusetts.gif

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). Seal has likely lost copyright protection due to age. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The flag consists of simple geometric forms and text and would not be eligible for a copyright. The central line drawing of the minuteman statue is not copyrightable and appears and several flags we host as public domain. --RAN (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Needham, Massachusetts.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 188.170.86.237 as no permission (No permission since). License currently on page is valid. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 15:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files by FalparsiParsifal

[edit]

I am afraid but these photos depict stage designs that are protected by copyright, and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder. --Gnom (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SuShi-Portrait.jpg

[edit]

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

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

File:Mircea-geoană-2023.jpg

[edit]

Copyright symbol is on the bottom left of the image's archived webpage here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200810201021/https://mirceageoana.ro/index.php/bio-mircea-geoana/ Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villa Maxim-Gorki-Straße 1.jpg

[edit]

Dublette VSchagow (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Rama with arrows (2).jpg

[edit]

Invalid source. This file was was moved from File:Lord Rama with arrows.jpg where it was overwritten, but now since it is independent file, please provide appropriate source. Sreejith K (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rene-heinzl-a1.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio (c) A1/APA-Fotoservice/Juhasz M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Душан Николић Сима, Ретроспективна изложба, Народни музеј Шабац, 2016-.jpg

[edit]

Copyright infrigement. Author of paintings died in 1998, field of panorama does not apply as it is temporary exhibit inside a museum Ђидо (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use copy is present on Serbian Wikipedia. This file is not used. Ђидо (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сима Николић.jpg

[edit]

Unclear copyright status. Image has to be created at least before 1998. Serbian Wikipedia has a fair-use copy Ђидо (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use copy is at sr:Датотека:Душан Николић Сима.jpg Ђидо (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wren.jpg

[edit]

Tiny, very low quality, blurred, no location data; over 400 better photos of the same species MPF (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeoDocto.png

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HYCM Logo.jpg

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside abandoned sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Miss Planet International

[edit]

These three files have the same information, so two of them should be deleted as duplicates. The remaining one should have spelling and grammar checked.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 1 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:Crocus City Hall amphitheater after terrorist attack (2024).jpg

[edit]

From COM:AN/B: "I ask you to remove the protection from the file early, as this makes it impossible to apply for the removal of an image that is not in the specified source and that violates copyright. A better replacement has already been uploaded under a free license and can be used in all language sections of Wikipedia to illustrate the facts stated in the article. Thank you! — ArtSmir (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)". I have no opinion on this request. Bedivere (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
An archive of the source page shows it was on it.
Where is the better replacement?
Greetings, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Sidney.Cortez. Bedivere (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep per uploader's evidence. --Quick1984 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: evidence by uploader is sufficient. --Bedivere (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocus City Hall amphitheater after terrorist attack (2024).jpg

[edit]

Unfortunately, I was not given time to respond in the first discussion. Therefore, I am forced to nominate this image again - I reported this in COM:AN/B.

This file is not on the site, that is, it is not there statically, it is presented only temporarily to update the news agenda and is positioned solely as a link to the profiles of representatives and the government organization itself on the VKontakte social network, and the archive of the site page confirms the fact that these previews are constantly are updated and are not located directly on the Moscow government website. Take a closer look, if you click on any of these previews, you will immediately be transported to the Russian social network VKontakte, where these full-fledged files will be located, from where their use anywhere under the free Wikimedia Commons license is prohibited. Believe me, I am perfectly familiar with the licensing policy of the VKontakte website, which does not provide for and, accordingly, prohibits the placement of files published on this social network anywhere under free licensing conditions. Thank you!

By the way, here is a high-quality replacement: File:Elimination of the consequences of a fire in "Crocus City Hall" (March 25, 2024).jpg, that was requested in a previous discussion by the participant who uploaded this file. — ArtSmir (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question The file was generated/produced by VKontakte or the Moscow government? If the response is the latter, the terms of VKontakte are irrelevant to the discussion because the file's copyright is still owned by the Moscow gov. Bedivere (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This file was created by the Moscow government, but hosted on a different platform. Please understand that it is not possible to publish content under a valid government website license on another platform that has a different licensing policy, in which case it may be considered a conflict and violation of licensing rights. The situation is exactly the same with the official telegram channels of government officials, the materials of which are not posted here. But they are posted from their official websites, which provide for the distribution of full-fledged materials on the site under a free license, and are not published temporarily as a link to the final material in any social network, messenger, etc.
Also, in the context of our conversation, I would like to remind you of the global practice of licensing agreements on the Internet, when when interacting with most information services, the end user is asked to accept the terms of their licensing policy or find out better. I think this was done for a reason. — ArtSmir (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty clear:
  1. The file was generated by the Moscow Oblast Government
  2. The file was published and appeared on the official Moscow Oblast Government
  3. The Moscow Oblast Government website is released under a free license, and so it is free to be uploaded here
  4. The file was published on VKontakte
  5. VKontakte, just for merely hosting the file, does not generate a new copyright and certainly cannot restrict how the legal copyright holder releases their material under a non-restrictive license
  6. VKontakte's terms have nothing to do with the legal status of the file's copyright
Bedivere (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I just gave a little read to VKontakte's terms. "7.2.4.By posting his/her Content in any part of the Site, the User automatically grants the Site Administration free of charge the non-exclusive right to use it by copying, public performance, reproduction, processing, translation and distribution for or in connection with the purposes of the Site, including for the purpose of increasing its popularity. For these purposes, the Site Administration may produce derivative works or insert the User’s Content as components in relevant collections or take other actions for these purposes". Where exactly does that mean VKontakte owns or forbids relicensing materials? Could you please elaborate citing specific articles or legal documents? --Bedivere (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colleague, you were probably in a hurry, because I don’t know where you found such text in this paragraph, but I just went to the VKontakte license agreement and found the same sub-clause 7.2.4, where the following is written verbatim: do not otherwise violate intellectual property rights The Licensor in relation to the Social Network or any element thereof, in particular, the Licensee does not have the right to copy, broadcast, distribute, publish, or otherwise distribute and reproduce materials posted by the Licensor on the Social Network (text, graphics, audio-video) without written consent of the Licensor. — ArtSmir (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on your 6 points:
  1. The file was created by the Government of the Moscow Region.
  2. I deny the existence of a full publication of the file on the website of the Government of the Moscow Region, since it was used exclusively as a preview with a link to a third-party source (VK) on which it was posted.
  3. The website of the Moscow Region Government provides the opportunity to distribute files located directly on its website under free licensing conditions.
  4. The full file is published on the VKontakte website.
  5. VKontakte does not create new copyrights, but acts in accordance with its licensing policy, according to which the distribution of any materials of the VKontakte social network that are the subject of user copyrights is prohibited. Despite the fact that there is not even a hint about the admissibility of using free licenses.
  6. The social network, as an organization, regulates user relations on the basis of agreements, which means a priori related to the legal status of copyright for all files located on this social network.
    . — ArtSmir (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag Sukhum City.jpg

[edit]

the coat of arms is real but the flag is fake and has no source, if it is real confirm it by a real source Tgbsww (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 261asourabh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Kangaroux Online Emporium.jpg

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company rep, no use outside wikidata and out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment. Wikidata usage is sufficient for an image being in scope. Should the Wikidata entry be deleted? Probably. But until it is, this should be kept if we believe the image was released by a legitimate representative of the company. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Next Level Diplome.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Diploma CoffeeEngineer (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Presidential Palace in Abudhabi ($490M) - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

The building appears to be the central focus here and is being used on Wikipedia articles about the palace itself. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates. This means this 2017 building cannot be freely photographed for commercial Creative Commons licensing distribution. A licensing permission from the building designer is a must. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will vote  Keep for this composition, IMO the palace is not the principal subject on the image. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyolf77 no, it is right the center of the image, and the building is the central theme. Not incidental or trivial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Segregated water fountain.png

[edit]

Smithsonian says the photograph is from 1950, the uploader did not provide a URL where the license could be verified. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ziah615 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, as per the metadata

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Easter Bouquet.webp

[edit]

Low-res version of File:Multicolored tulips alstroemeria Peruvian lilies roses spider mums in blue mason jar glass vases with napkins and decorative Easter Egg on counter in kitchen.png Adeletron 3030 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

[edit]

Files in Category:PD Cartoon - Mighty Mouse

[edit]

Mighty Mouse's original cartoon, Mouse of Tomorrow, is still under copyright as seen here. This means the character is still copyrighted until 2038.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sales tax by county.webp

[edit]

Copyright violation per https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/local-salestax-map. X5163x (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this map using Datawrapper https://www.datawrapper.de/_/8eRB7/ --Wikideas1 (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikideas1 @X5163x
So how does this end? How long will it take to decide?
I need to know because this file was needed in a page on the Italian Wikipedia, but the CommonsDelinker took off it.
regards LucaLindholm (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source and data are from the linked website, which is copyrighted. X5163x (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The map itself is not the map that is used on that website. The salestaxhandbook website displays an interactive map, with different colors than here on Commons, and seems to be subject to updates (see that rectangular state between North Dakota and Idaho: the salestax website has two counties in it with a tax whereas our map still shows three counties).
Furthermore, there may be a misunderstanding: yes you can copyright a database, but The key point is that while a sufficiently creative and/or original arrangement or selection of data can be protected as a compilation by copyright, the factual content will not be.
I DO think that a case can be made for the data-source table below the map (to make sure, I think that one should be administratively version-removed), but there is no creativity in the "selection and arrangement" of the US counties (note how both maps may look similar, despite having different basemaps). On the other hand, the uploader showed creativity in using the datawrapper with this color choice and map labels. --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with @Enyavar: with everything (btw, when will this request end?). --LucaLindholm (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teyfik.o.png

[edit]

copy right violation Arnd 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Т.Ю.Редько.Кисловодск.1963год.Семья..jpg

[edit]

Татьяне Юрьевне Редько в августе 1963 года не было даже одного полного года от роду. Грудной ребёнок на фотографии - это она. Автором фотографии она не является. Jim Hokins (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Всё правильно , но это фото собственность Татьяны Юрьевны Редько , то есть моя собственность , а посему я выбрала , как источник единственно близкое к реальности слово - собственная работа , то есть работа фотографа это фото и это фото является моей собственностью . Можете судить меня по законам США , но я не гражданка США , я гражданка Независимой Грузии и свободно пишу на русском , родном языке о самой загадочной дате моего рождения . ВикипедиЯ удалила маленькую статью , в которой я писала свою автобиография , так как единственная цель моя зарегистрироваться на Википедии есть написать единственно верную свою личную автобиография и использовать свой собственный семейный архив , а также свои фото своей акварели , графики , живописи и скульптуры . На этом фото я с моей матерью сфотографирована впервые в жизни и на этом фото сфотографированы мои самые дорогие люди в жизни. Я художница-акварелистка , написала икону Спаса , своей личной рукой создала из камня памятник на могиле моей мамы Феофании-Ларисы Константиновны Денисенко с изображением Пресвятой Богородицы и Болнисского Креста . Я собиралась оставить собственный след в Википедии , так как уже прожила большую половину своей жизни и у меня не так много времени . Я уже пенсионерка . Других целей регистрироваться в Википедии у меня нет и не будет . И нет у меня желания править чьи-то статьи , если я не могу написать свою автобиографию и выложить свои собственные фото , свои работы в акварели , графике , живописи , камне , напечатать свои стихи , цитаты из своей прозы , а также написать сколько и какие картины мои находятся в каких частных коллекциях во всём мире . Вышлите мне , пожалуйста , на почту вами удалённый мой текст , который я напечатала рядом с этим фото и я удалю свои данный с вашей страницы Википедии . С уважением художница , писательница , критик христианского искусства Татьяна Юрьевна Редько . Будьте здоровы и благополучны . Будем считать , что я ошиблась адресом и Википедия не та платформа , которая мне нужна . Извините , всего доброго ! Прощайте все на Википедии ! Я ухожу от вас . Мне не интересно с вами , потому что вас не интересует то , что интересует меня . Прощайте ! Татьяна Юрьевна Редько (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bachibouzoukiste (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Diliff (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Continued presence here presents a clear and present danger to our reusers of lawsuit threats by Diliff and their proxies Pixsy, Fossick OU trading as Fossick Pictures, Owerk LTD, Owrek Ltd, Tom Corser, et al.

list of files

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
See also COM:VP#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling. It may be archived to a second instance of Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling or to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling. As a precedent, I cite Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by Marco Verch.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the discussion in the VP archives… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: It hasn't been archived yet. The latest comment was just 1 day ago.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Regrettably. There is conclusive evidence that Diliff has been using Commons to copyleft troll via proxies (i.e. demand payment via legal threats rather than allowing good faith reusers to correct errors in attribution). For the sake of our reusers, we need to remove these images from the project. If Diliff announces that he will no longer copyleft troll, we will of course restore them. Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I am no longer active on Commons and Wikipedia and it seems that, from reading your comments on my talk page, that you made no effort to inform me of the reason for your line of questioning or your perspective. I don't consider a content creator who operates on a commercial basis but in parallel, offers their images on a 'free' licence that contains specific stipulations about re-use, to be a "copyleft troll". Seems like your lack of an initial explanation on my talk page and then leaping to conclusions about my motivation is in bad faith. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then a simple main question here: Did you send bills for license violations to nonprofit reusers without prior request to comply with the license requirements? If you did so do you agree to not to do so in the future? GPSLeo (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The questions you ask are not the right questions to understand what has been happening here. Firstly, no I didn't send bills myself, I engaged the services of a company who manages the investigation of infringements on my behalf. And secondly, no, I don't agree to that because I have every right to defend copyright and license violations. You have to understand that my images, while they may be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, licensing and enforcement is not managed by Wikimedia Commons and it is not their business as they don't have copyright ownership. Further, Wikimedia Commons has no right to strongarm content creators to try to prevent them from parallel-license their images with both Creative Commons licenses and other licenses of their choice. Diliff (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then your files should not be hosted on this project. Gaining money from nonprofit reusers how made a mistake when using a file without giving them a chance to correct their mistake is against the idea of Wikimedia Commons and the Wikimedia Movement Charter. Using Wikimedia Commons for commercial purposes is without approval is also against the Terms of Use. GPSLeo (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What specific part of the Terms of Use has he violated? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Why so hasty? We are still discussing at Commons:Village pump#Guidance re possible copyleft trolling and are far from a consensus. – Aristeas (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are facing a fundamental problem with this deletion request: it is based more on personal criticisms of the user than on an objective evaluation of the content itself. Each image has been rigorously examined to verify whether it meets our criteria for relevance and proper licensing. If these conditions are satisfied, there is no legitimate reason for their removal. Proceeding with this action would not only unnecessarily harm the project but also seem more an attempt to punish the user than a measure based on valid concerns about the images. It is imperative that we maintain our focus on the integrity of the content that is published, something I have personally ensured by making all my work available in the public domain to avoid future legal complications Wilfredor (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should give the author 30 days to respond to this accusation. If we do not get any response we shuld  Delete. GPSLeo (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with User:GPSLeo not to be hasty and to give at least 30 days to somehow resolve this. However, if Diliff intends to treat even minor, accidental online violations of his copyright and license as legal matters where he demands payment and gives no chance to "cure" them violation, then no matter how good these photos are, we should not be hosting them.
It is one thing to go after a large corporation (especially a media corporation that should no better) when they violate a copyright, especially commercial use in a print medium where "cure" is impossible, repeat violations after prior warning, or refusal to remedy an online credit. It is another thing entirely to go after a small non-profit or "some guy with a blog" because they got an online credit wrong (e.g. attributing to "Wikimedia Commons" rather than the correct photographer) and are completely willing to fix the credit or remove the image. If the latter is an ongoing pattern (and it appears to be), we cannot continue to host these images. Contrary to what User:Wilfredor says, it does not matter how good these images are. If a certain minor harm to the project is the only way to avoid an ongoing danger to the general public, we need to simply accept that harm to the project. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this to be the first wave of deletions of all contributions by professional photographers? In the past, we told photographers that they could license their photographs also differently. The main purpose of publication on Commons having been to make them available for Wikipedia. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I use a photo from Commons under the terms of Creative Commons and then the photographer claims I didn’t pay them, then I do t see how this could even work. Once an original image is uploaded to Commons, the copyright reverts to Wikimedia with the CC terms going into effect. How could Dillif even sue someone? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris.sherlock2: Once an original image is uploaded to Commons, the copyright reverts to Wikimedia with the CC terms going into effect. No, it doesn't. The copyright still rests with the photographer or image designer. What makes you think the copyright reverts to Wikimedia?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff G. I stand corrected. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike regular deletion requests because of Copyright issues, this time we have images that are in use all over the projects connected with Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata, and are also correctly licensed there. Deletion is only necessary as the precaution to deflect harm from future re-users - this harm must be averted, either by deletion or by the user stopping the legal threats.
    The correct step is not to delete first (which means these featured (!) photos will be summarily delinked from thousands of articles without much notice), but to first replace all these photos with "actually free-to-use" photos. Also yes, GPSLeo and Aristeas are right with the argument for an extended limit. Let's not be hasty, instead wait for the esteemed but inactive photographer to respond. But yes, failing a convincing response, and after replacing these works, we should ultimately  Delete edit: changed vote to keep with enforced watermarking, see comments below. --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To set the record straight here, my photos are "free-to-use" as long as the licensing terms are respected. It has long been the case that I have offered and allowed commercial use of my images -by request- without any CC-BY-SA licensing restrictions, and by agreement for a fee. This, I have always believed, was still in keeping with the aims of Wikimedia. If Wikimedia wanted to ensure that all hosted images were truly "free" without any use restrictions whatsoever, it would not have settled on the licenses it has chosen. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As GPSLeo says, the author should be given time to respond to the allegations. If nothing is heard, however, I strongly believe we have a responsibility to protect end users from situations like this and the images should be  deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntster (talk • contribs)
  • Doesn't deleting all these images expose anyone that used them to copyleft trolling, since the original image source and Creative Commons licence will no longer be available? If so, is there a safer way to address this issue e.g., disabling image downloads? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps all the images should be replaced with blank placeholders so that the file pages remain. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blank placeholders do not help at all with this problem. Users need the original image to be present on the file page in order to prove that the image they have used/are using was/is available there under the given CC license; when the file page shows a placeholder, this is no longer possible, so everybody who has ever used such an image would be much more exposed to copyleft trolling and other accusations than now. @Julesvernex2: You are right, this is a big problem and an important argument against deleting the files. Yes, there are many other possible ways to deal with the problem, see the original discussion. – 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeas (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep as premature. The VP thread is ongoing. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Updating at the bottom — Rhododendrites talk |  15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep All the files are properly licensed and in scope. The damage to Wikimedia projects, if we decide to delete, would be disproportionate. Correctly attributed external usages would link to non-existent source pages, too. If we allow us to produce such a mess, I really wonder where are we going to end up someday, sorry. --A.Savin 21:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep. We don't delete duly uploaded and licensed files because of the later behavior of a former contributor. Edited to add that the precedent was set with User:Livioandronico2013, who was blocked for incivility and inveterate socking. So not deleting images because of behavior is the rule, although I just found out a few minutes ago that there was an exception: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with marco verch. I have no idea how good marco verch's images were, but Diliff's are great, and I don't see how the spread of freely-licensed photographs that merely require attribution would be helped by deleting many of the all-time best images on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: Just FYI: Marco Verch’s photos are good, but much simpler than Diliff’s ones. Most of them were quite (IMHO) boring stock photographs which are easily replaceable. And what is more important, the evidence of “questionable” behaviour was much stronger. I am still not convinced that Diliff knows or has realized the full extent of the bad things which happen in his name; but the evidence was strong that Mr Verch must have know what was going on. So the fact that we have deleted Verch’s photos does in no way imply that we should or must delete Diliff’s photos, too. – Aristeas (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that many low-level and barely-commercial users have regrettably been caught up and I have historically tried to intervene and/or significantly reduce the fee being sought for retrospective licensing. I hope you can also see my inherent dilemma, however. Firstly, there are huge number of legitimate large commercial users who have used my photography illegally and I feel that morally speaking, they should be accountable for acting illegally to deprive me of income. Secondly, I don't have the resources to pursue these individually and need to rely on external resources. Thirdly, it is difficult to identify the extent of the misuse or potential loss to myself simply from the location of the image on the internet, which therefore makes it difficult to focus resources only on the most egregious misusers. Fourthly, the resources expended on tracking the images down and contacting the owners is not negligible, even if -potentially- the damage to my photography income is negligible. For the process to be viable, it seems reasonable to at least be able to recover the costs incurred. Fifth, as you would likely be aware, what is sought in damages and what is settled on are often very different things. All of the above may not persuade you that I am within my moral rights to do this, and it may also not persuade you that doing so is in keeping with Wikimedia Commons licensing (I firmly believe it is), but I do want to make it clear that I am sympathetic to those who have been inadvertently caught up in this due to accidental misuse, and that this is not, as Nosferattus implies, the actions of a heartless copyleft troll. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to ask you to clarify one bit here: there are huge number of legitimate large commercial users who have used my photography illegally and I feel that morally speaking, they should be accountable for acting illegally to deprive me of income - since the images are CC licensed, how is failing to properly attribute depriving you of income? — Rhododendrites talk |  00:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have always parallel-licensed my images. They can be used with restrictions (CC licensing and correct attribution etc) for free, or (often by request or negotiation) they can be licensed without those restrictions by commercial users for a fee. Therefore when someone uses the image commercially and doesn't attribute correctly, they are depriving me of the licensing fee for unrestricted use. Given the Creative Commons licenses don't prohibit this and Wikimedia Commons has never discouraged dual-licensing, I don't feel I've done anything wrong here. There are moral arguments for and against of course, but that's a separate issue to what is being discussed. Diliff (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose where the criticism is coming in is kind of based in this idea (Therefore when someone uses the image commercially and doesn't attribute correctly, they are depriving me of the licensing fee for unrestricted use). That's well and good for Apple or Conde Nast, but for most commercial uses (e.g. Bob's Travel Blog, which is technically commercial but really just a hobby), they're not depriving you of a licensing fee -- they just didn't made a mistake when using the CC version. If an image had a fee, they would've just used a different image because that's not a realistic cost for the vast majority of small businesses. For a lot of people getting by paycheck to paycheck, even a reduced fee could be devastating. You and I are not in the same league in terms of photography, but I know that I see my work used all the time -- sometimes it's by popular publications/companies, but most often it's by the huge number of people who rely on WikiCommons because they can't afford things like licensing fees. What people are objecting to at VP isn't getting the fee that Apple would've paid if they did things properly -- it's the extracting a fee from someone who never would've used it if they knew a fee was involved, who likely just made a fixable mistake, and who would rather just shut down their business. The dilemma, as I framed it at VP, is that there's no suitable middleground between spending all your time chasing people down and hiring a firm that will act unethically. I think that latter, however, is deeply uncomfortable for a lot of us. The solution to "the Pixsy problem" proposed by Cory Doctorow is just to update licenses to CC4, which builds in a 30 day window to fix attribution. Maybe if you did that, it would rein in Pixsy's ability to go after smalltimers? — Rhododendrites talk |  13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1
[edit]
  •  Speedy keep Per others. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot - very similar case, has been resulted as "kept" Юрий Д.К 07:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (already voted ‘keep’ above) This could be the prelude to a new era of Commons inquisition. Imagine some greedy lawyer sends in your name an invoice to somebody who has used one of your photos without 100% perfect attribution. (This and similar things have happened, at least here in Germany. The attribution is often not perfect, and there are corrupt lawyers.) Imagine that the upset ‘somebody’ may complain here on Commons about this issue. Then other Commons users will urge you to proof that you did not authorize that lawyer. But it is very difficult to proof that you did not do something (that’s a general problem of epistemology), and so the other users may not be satisfied by your assurance that you are innocent and do not have authorized that lawyer. So all your files would be deleted … Or imagine you are ill and just not able to respond to the inquiry in time. Then all your files would be deleted … Or imagine that corrupt lawyer sends the invoice in the name of the heirs of one of our deceased contributors. The heirs may not be present at all on Commons and not easily reachable, so nobody will defend the photos of our deceased contributor and the photos will be deleted. That would be a shame. Therefore we should not open this can of worms; deleting Diliff’s images could be the beginning of the end of Commons. – Aristeas (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fully agree that closing this DR as "deleted" would be beginning of the end of Commons Юрий Д.К 07:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we call Apocalyptse Now? here, let's take the other route: If word gets around in the media that Commons is the premier platform to commit Copyleft Trolling without getting restrictions or blowback from the community, and that you need to lawyer up every time you take a photo from Commons, THEN THIS is just as easily the end of Commons. Even if just 10% of our photos turn out untouchable four reuse, the public takeaway is "Commons is a Paywall platform".
        Let's first wait and see what Diliff's reaction to all of this is. As far as I see it, this affair is going on for less than a week by now. There is plenty of time to respond. Also, we're NOT dealing with the hypotheticals that Aristeas describes (most avid contributors are available for comments more easily and/or would publicly refute to work with copyleft troll firms; any claims on "inherited CC photos" would be ludicrous; and finally, the photos may get undeleted upon request) while Nosferattus says there is strong evidence that the lawyer IS acting in Diliff's name and interest and not a rogue. (And sure, I'll be happy to learn that is not the case.) --Enyavar (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't approve of the behavior described in the linked thread, but is there any evidence anyone was harassed for using his photos with attribution? Commons photos are supposed to be used with attribution unless they are public domain. I don't support bullying, but I also don't support denying attribution to photos provided by volunteers as Copyleft files. Either linking them to Commons where they are attributed or downloading them and including the name or username of the photographer in the attribution is required under the terms of the Copyleft license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is the page that Diliff uses as the basis for the alleged actions. So what must a honest re-user do? First, place a link to the full URL next to the image. Second, also place the licence text that Diliff prescribes there, with both his name and the license. He gives a "suggested" attribution, but it seems he went after everyone who violated either of the two required terms on this special page.
        Still, I want to learn about his side. If he can present evidence that he didn't pursue each case to the full amount he demanded, and only went after big companies who should have known better because they have the people to scrutinize details like his license page - then I would be okay with the whole thing. But hounding people for innocent first-time mistakes which they are willing to fix, and collecting their money? That idea leaves me in a sour mood. --Enyavar (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Diliff, thank you for the comments you have provided so far. Regarding the point Enyavar makes above, can you clarify if you or any of the agents acting on your behalf have ever demanded payment from users that have used the suggested attribution text ("Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0") verbatim i.e., without a link or the full text of the license you require elsewhere in your terms? Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree that this DR is a bit premature, and there are other solutions that deleting these. I would support 1. Blocking Diliff unless he provides evidence that this inacceptable behaviour stopped. 2. Add a big red warning on each file description page informing reusers of the potential issues. Yann (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yann: Everyone reading this subpage should now be aware of what Diliff has done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perhaps useful to treat those two proposals separately, as: #1 is specific to Diliff's case; #2 should be part of a broader policy to be reused in future cases of copyleft trolling to ensure they are dealt with swiftly and consistently. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent proposal – simple, effective, fair. I would be happy to help with adding the warnings, if necessary. And yes, we can treat the two parts separately. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a big red warning on every non-public domain photo? It's bad that Copyleft photos are routinely stolen. I've seen quite a few COM:DR nominations in which photographers have requested deletion of photos because they are frustrated by repeated reuse of them without attribution. Such deletion requests are not granted, but I think we should sympathize with the photographers thus victimized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work, since it grabs the viewer's attention. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The one thing I have not seen in this discussion is anyone questioning whether this actually broke any policies. I still have my doubts over whether David Iliff still knows any of this is going on, given the murky attribution of the copyright claims and the fact that all they can provide is a digital signature with a now-defunct company. But let's put that to one side for a moment and imagine that Mr Iliff did sign this agreement with Pixsy/Fossick. He gave permission for his photos to be reused under specific conditions - with specific attribution that conforms with all Commons licensing policies. If someone reuses his photos with that attribution (which need be no more than 'By David Iliff. License: CC BY-SA 3.0'), there is no problem. Was there, at the time Mr Iliff uploaded his photographs, any Commons policy against attempting to use a third-party agency to enforce against misuse of attribution requirements? If there was not such a policy - and as far as I can tell there still is not now - then what we are doing here is finding something we don't like and making up policy on the hoof to deal with it, which doesn't seem at all fair.
I think what this points at is a larger problem by which authors have to either accept that their work will be frequently used under conditions completely violating the Creative Commons license with which they shared it, or they can seek to enforce it but only through the medium of very questionable companies that demand arbitrary fees against those who have improperly reused them. I don't know how to solve that problem. But deleting many hundreds of photos that, if they are attributed correctly, can be used freely and in accordance with all Commons requirements - especially when the author is not here to defend himself and explain his choices, and has not been regularly active beyond tiny and very sporadic edits to Wikipedia articles for many years - is categorically not the solution. If this deletion request passes it would hugely impoverish the project by removing a large amount of high-quality Creative Commons licensed content. It would also send a message that Commons can make up new policies at random and delete many years of work by trusted users if they do not conform retroactively to those policies.
I think Yann/Aristeas's proposal of adding a template to inform future reusers of these images of the importance of conforming with the license agreement is fair and reasonable.Cmao20 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It has been noted that it has been quite a while since this user uploaded anything new at Commons and he has not edited Wikipedia for 6 months. His Talk page there has inquiries about lawsuits and demands for payment from the various entities, including those listed at the top of this discussion, going back at least a year. Most of his Commons image descriptions include directions to interested persons to post a note on his Wikipedia Talk page with any questions about licensing. Many have done so, including those sued and dunned purportedly on behalf of Diliff, but the user has never replied. I doubt that he will respond here in light of his inactivity. At best, his images have been hijacked by extortionists without his participation, which the lawyers call misfeasance. At worst, he is an active participant in a scam to earn money from CC images, which would be malfeasance if true. As devastating as it might be to remove so many high-quality images, and regardless of his involvement or lack thereof in the scams, how can we condone the actions of the companies seeking fees from those who used the images in good faith, relying on the CC copyright provisions under which they were published on Commons? Geoff Who, me? 23:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was a user in very good standing for many years and has FPs dating back to 2006, I think there is no realistic way in which you can assume he joined Commons to participate in a copyleft trolling scam. As for ‘those who used the images in good faith, relying on the CC copyright provisions’, no one who complied with the Creative Commons license provisions has been contacted by Pixsy. Only people who did not properly attribute the images, or attribute them at all. If the images are attributed according to the correct license then there is no problem using them.
    To be quite frank, and I mean this as a statement of fact rather than as a form of blackmail, if these images are deleted I will retire from Commons. I don’t like what Pixsy is doing and their scare-tactic method of doing business any more than anyone else here, but to delete these images would set a precedent that Commons simply does not care about anyone’s work, and that the community can unilaterally decide to delete stuff on a whim in order to protect those who have used the images improperly and illegally. I don’t see why anyone who wanted to retain at least some rights over their images would ever contribute to a project like that. Cmao20 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was approached by Fossick a couple of years ago asking to license my images. I a) asked them for a copy of the actual contract and terms they would propose to use, and b) emailed David Iliff to ask what was up with Fossick. I got no response from either. What prevents us from advising people who've gotten demands from Fossick and come to Commons that they should simply correct the licensing to the correct CC-by-SA format, adding a notice about that to all of Diliff's images? Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Reply: I'm just a troubled as Cmao20 and everyone else who expressed concern at the potential to lose so many excellent (many of which have been featured) images. Acroterion's idea sounds like a good one to address the issue, if such a note could be added to all the image descriptions fairly easily. It's clear that directions in the descriptions to contact a user on his Talk page, who is rarely present, about use issues are insufficient. Looking back again at the notes from users on Diliff's Talk page over on Wikipedia, I see that many, but not all, mentioned that they failed to provide attribution and hadn't been aware until Pixsy or one of the others contacted them with a fee demand. I note that all or most of the images are licensed under both Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation Licence, Version 1.2 or any later version. I noted that at least one user reported about a year ago that a court action had been commenced against them by Fossick. The insidious nature of copyleft schemes is that the cost of hiring a lawyer to advise on copyright (and to tell the Pixyss and Fossicks of the world to "pound sand") is prohibitive to most small organizations and part of the extortion scheme. Anything we can do to protect the creators' rights and the ability of the users to use the images as provided by the licence is good. Geoff Who, me? 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd want advice from someone actually familiar with the relevant law. who could advise if the "cure" I'm talking about is actually legally useful before we start offering advice to people, but it's worth asking. And we need to steer as clear as we can from direct legal advice per WMF policy, so the WMF will need to have a say. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I didn't respond to you at the time. I don't actually recall seeing your email but there have been times where the account hasn't been actively monitored. I am surprised that you didn't get a response from Fossick but perhaps there was a bit of suspicion in both directions there. I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't believe the proposed suggestion to correct the licensing and ignore the threat is good advice, as it does nothing to prevent the argument of retrospective damages which is generally what is being sought in the first place. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not considered the retrospective damages issue. For my part, I've found that it pays to be suspicious of someone who contacts me out of left field. My response to Fossick was not negative, I told them I'd want to check with you, and I absolutely wanted to see what their terms were before further consideration. I write contracts for a living, so that's important. I would not want somebody to go after de minimis or naive use, and I wanted to see how one might reconcile previous release under CC with enforcement of the CC license in that context. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The worst that should happen here is forced watermarking a-la Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot. Deleting the entire set is pure grudge-bearing. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forced watermarking would be a pity, because it would spoil great photos. If people couldn't follow a big red warning that could be added to all Copyleft images, isn't that on them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose to damage photos, adding a warning message for reusers would be a good solution. Юрий Д.К 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Support this idea: I see this for the first time. That looks like a good, workable idea, which leaves the wonderful images intact, keeps them on the same site here, but adds a text that warns off re-users. Yes, it spoils the images, but doesn't damage them. --Enyavar (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it spoils the images, but doesn't damage them"? How do you mean that? --A.Savin 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the examples: The image content itself remains unaltered (i.e. undamaged). All that gets done is adding a footnote right below the image:
    Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
    Hardcoding such an addition into the image spoils it for many use-cases (that was what I meant), but it also alerts the re-users to check the terms of the image. They either accept the image as it is, or they get creative, remove the tagline and work the attribution into their publication in another way. The attribution can remain unobtrusive - white background and small but clearly legible font. If we want to follow the example of Larry Philpot to the letter we might also add another line:
    David Iliff sued users of his work for minor attribution errors, keep this attribution intact.
    which leaves nothing unclear to the re-user. The second line can maybe left out this time, depending how minor the actual attribution violations have really been. At the moment, we have no clue how many and how severe the cases of attribution violations were, but Iliff allegedly sued private (!) website owners who made honest mistakes, like taking multiple images and just crediting "CC Wikimedia Commons" for all of them, instead of mentioning him personally below his image. Sure, these re-users were doing things wrong, but "you-are-my-legal-adversary-fork-over-cash-500" wrong? --Enyavar (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be clear I am not necessarily in support of forced watermarking, but it was done before and is clearly preferable to deletion if something needs to be done. No opinion on whether something needs to be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I 100% oppose this. There is no need for watermarking in any way. The idea is preposterous. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would a watermark help, in any case? All it does is make the image very unattractive for any practical use. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dillif, I don’t have a huge issue with you charging for infringement, but clarifying what you are doing would be great. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I'm not persuaded that there's actually a problem that requires deletion. It might be worth adding information to the description page of Diliff's images that he's rather litigious about the attribution. I think a broader issue is that many people are sloppy about attributing Creative Commons-licensed images because they don't take a "free" license seriously. (I note in passing that the journal of the Swiss Railways Society often reuses Commons images and is meticulous about crediting the author in each case). Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree. I'm sorry for the people who have received unpleasant communications from this rather nasty company and I think we should protect them if possible, but that doesn't change the fact that if they are attributed properly, no one will have any issue with using these images. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that (sloppiness/carelessness about correct attribution adherence) is the entire reason why I have been frustrated, and have pursued external help to protect against misuse of my images. I absolutely see valid arguments on both sides of this debate, but I do think it should be made clear that this would be a non-issue if people treated copyright ownership more seriously and were more diligent with adherence to licensing terms. Diliff (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion would be a dreadful response. Those reusers currently validly providing attribution via a link to Commons/Wikipedia would no longer be compliant with the licence. Please do not disregard the interests of these reusers. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If we can come up with a template to add to these images pages warning future reusers of the importance of attributing these images properly, I will happily add it to all pictures this user has ever uploaded. Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent idea. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be added to all our CC-by licensed images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I favour deletion. Things can be put back if necessary, but we should not take the risk. Deb (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that avoids risk. I read that even a temporary licence infringement before CC4 put the reuser in breach thereafter. The licence will "terminate automatically upon any breach".[2] Thincat (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What risk? There is no risk as long as the images are correctly attributed. This logic if followed to its extreme will eventually mean that Commons can only host Public Domain images because it is asking authors to give up all rights over their images and all hope of ensuring that Creative Commons licensing is actually followed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Speedy keep per Commons:Deletion policy. There is absolutely no "I don't like how copyright infringements are being handled" heading under Commons policy to support deletion. Deletion is and must be based not on a vote on ethics, but on breach of some Commons rule. And there is none.
David Iliff was for many years a prolific supporter of Commons, and one of our few reliable sources of professional-quality images. These he uploaded in significant numbers, and even now – nearly seven years after he stopped significant uploads – he is still in the top 10 of Featured Picture contributors. So far as I know, all of his images were uploaded years ago in good faith, are correctly licensed and appropriately tagged, and they always have been. Although I don't know why he stopped contributing, I suspect that he simply got fed up with people repeatedly breaching the CC licence conditions, and accidentally or otherwise omitting the required attribution. That happens to all uploaders of reasonably decent images, and because of his professional-quality pictures he will have seen it more than most.
It's not relevant to this discussion whether he has some years after uploading placed his images with a third party to deal with copyright infringements. If he has not, the fault is with the company, not with him or his images. If he has placed them, he is perfectly entitled to do so, whether we agree with his approach or not. No-one has suggested that CC licensed re-users are being unlawfully approached. He is in breach of no rule of law, CC licence term, nor Commons policy.
We should bear in mind that Commons is supposed to be a permanent repository of freely-licensed images and media, and we shouldn't under any circumstances start deleting properly-uploaded and licensed images on the basis of out-of process moral outrage directed at the photographer. If we do that, Commons ceases to be a reputable repository, and all professional-quality contributors run the risk of losing their contributions simply because they enforced the very licence that Commons has approved. If we don't want lawful enforcement to happen, we should change policy so that we don't allow CC uploads rather than pretending that the licence incorporates some sort of enforceable but unwritten moral element.
Deletion of these images would harm not only Wikimedia and Wikipedia users in many languages, but also all those external users who have the opportunity to use these wonderful images under the CC licence conditions. And that is what Commons is here for.
If third party enforcement is considered undesirable by the Commons community, I'd support a new warning tag to be applied to these and similar images to make it absolutely clear to re-users the legal consequences of breaching the stated licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we want to delete some correctly licensed images merely for ethical reasons, then I'd say let's start with war criminals. --A.Savin 19:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That would open up a massive can of worms – if we are going to do that, shall we delete the files depicting transphobes, too? --SHB2000 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope we'll never going to delete anything due to depiction of someone or something... except maybe very few special cases such as child porn. --A.Savin 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, except when it's required by Virginia and US federal law, there shouldn't be a need to delete photos of such kind. SHB2000 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelMaggs, A.Savin, and SHB2000: This isn't about enforcing morality, it's about protecting our good faith reusers from being extorted for huge amounts of money even when they are more than willing to correct attribution mistakes. (And even if you don't care about our reusers, the prevalence of this practice does not help the reputation of Creative Commons licenses or Wikimedia Commons. A media archive that no one uses is not a very successful project.) Nosferattus (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the bread you make is stale, you don't stop making the bread altogether – instead, you work to fix the bread. Likewise, if our reusers who have been extorted for huge amounts of money, you don't delete the files altogether, you try to ensure that our reusers understand what needs to be done to ensure such abhorrent copyright trolling never happens again. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it extortion though? All Dillif asked for was attribution. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: No, he demanded large amounts of money (via proxies) regardless of whether attribution had been corrected or not. If the reuser did not pay the money, they would be sued for statutory damages (according to the threat letters), which in the U.S. is $30,000 per work infringed, or up to $125,000 for willful infringements. That sounds like extortion to me. Maybe Dillif agrees that Pisxy's practices are unethical, but he's still using them and is thus responsible for the actions they take. Nosferattus (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extortion implies they violated the law. I see no evidence of them violating the law. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2
[edit]
  •  Keep Commons may be the only source that shows an image was uploaded under a CC (or other) license. Consequently, I want the file to be kept so someone who is accused of a copyright violation can easily see the information. If we learn that an uploader is behaving like a copyright troll, then we can flag the uploads with a black box warning that users should be especially careful about licensing requirements. That should be enough warning to future users; it does not require taking down the image. In the past, we have also added the required licensing text to the image itself. Deleting the image is too big a step. Glrx (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep initially my gut reaction was that this was very wrong, but really the only issue is that the people who use the photos weren't providing attribution. It's not much to ask for them follow the only criteria for reuse, so I'm not in favour of deletion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have similar sentiments as Chris. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. I don't see how any Commons policies have been violated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This doesn't seem like copyright trolling to me? He just seems to be particularly interested in enforcing the terms of his license, which is perfectly within his rights as the creator. I think for small creators he could probably benefit from not swinging so hard out of the gate (ie ask them to correct it before legal threats), but he didn't break any rules. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We currently have no guidance or positions on how users may enforce compliance with Commons licensing. I encourage anyone to propose a policy. Our licensing has always insisted on attribution and I am grateful that this user is one of fewer than 10 of all the hundreds of thousands of uploaders who has explored an enforcement option. I am not sure how we should manage enforcement but we encourage people to try new things, and this discussion is overdue. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a proposal there. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Having read Diliff's explanations - and I will point out that those on the original village pump discussion who were so sure, contrary to all evidence of this user's years of good-faith contributions, that this was a scam/extortion that they were very insistent the author would almost certainly never reply to this discussion, have been proven wrong - I am more convinced than ever that this discussion needs to be closed. I still don't like Pixsy's business model. It would be better to ask for the attribution to be fixed first before demanding payment. But then again, I don't know how viable their business would be in that case, or what % of likely violations would be successfully enforced. Ultimately Commons needs to decide whether it is more interested in protecting the rights of content creators or protecting people who misuse images without proper attribution. I don't see how we can hope to attract high-quality photographers if we basically insist they give up all rights over their content and all hope of enforcing that it is properly attributed. Besides, the license conditions (one short sentence plus a link to a URL) are hardly onerous. Deleting these images would take Commons backwards, make it worse and less useful as a media archive, and make it a project that is honestly much less worth taking part in. Cmao20 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cmao20: You are the one who kept insisting it was a scam by Fossick and that Diliff could not possibly be involved. So maybe we were both wrong. This has nothing to do with asking anyone to "give up all rights over their content" or give up "enforcing proper attribution". Of course people should enforce proper attribution, even by suing if necessary. But they must give good faith reusers an opportunity to correct mistakes. If attribution is actually the goal rather than making lots of money from extorting people, what is the problem with this requirement? Why do you oppose letting reusers correct their attribution before suing them (or threatening to sue)? That is all we are asking for. Nosferattus (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you appear to be highlighting here is that there are two extremes that are possible with images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on Creative Commons licenses: One in which content creators happily release their work without any concern for how it is used afterwards, and the other where the entire purpose of uploading is with malicious intent to create a honeytrap for reusers who inadvertently fail to meet the obscure and complex terms of the license. You seem willing to accept that there are many situations within this spectrum in which the content creator has the moral right to pursue reusers for monetary compensation, so what remains is a debate over what specific situations warrant this. The main issue I have with the assertion that I should have been satisfied with a promise to fix the attribution is that it doesn't take into account the sunk costs incurred just to identify, investigate and contact these reusers. The fact is, it isn't easy for me (or anyone) to identify which situations warrant pursuing legal actions without investing considerable resources to investigate. A reasonable parallel here is the right to seek costs in law cases where considerable costs are incurred to pursue a successful claim. I accept it isn't a perfect analogy, but I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified for a couple of reasons. Firstly to reimburse the sunk costs that are incurred in order to investigate, contact, pursue and negotiate the merits of the claim, and secondly to act as a disincentive for reusers to not pay due attention to copyright and/or licensing terms in future. Just as penalties still exist as disincentives in law even when it's potentially arguable in certain cases that it was a 'victimless crime'. Again, I accept that this is an imperfect analogy but hopefully you see the moral argument. What you also need to consider is that while in many cases a large figure for damages is initially demanded, negotiation can and usually does take place, and a lesser amount is often agreed upon. I deliberately have avoided being involved in such negotiations, but that is my understanding based on outcomes. While that may not change your position about the validity of a claim, I did feel the need to correct the assumption being made by many here that all reusers involving minor breaches are being 'extorted' for the initial asking figure as I don't believe that is the case. Diliff (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It is indeed an imperfect analogy, and one that I think adds very little to this discussion. The objective here should not be to define the morality of these actions, but instead to determine if they break the spirit of Creative Commons law and the policies of Wiki Commons. The former has been firmly established with the creation of CC4, which includes a 30-day grace period to prevent exactly this sort of situation. In my view, the latter has also been broken. The buck stops with you: as the photographer, you are the ultimate responsible for any action that Fossick, Pisxy, or other agents take on your behalf. The good news is that you also hold the power to end it, by upgrading your images to CC4. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would also add that this kind of commercial use of the projects damages the reputation of the project. This project is mainly run by volunteers how give their time and also their money to the project. GPSLeo (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, this applies to Diliff too; at least some years ago when he was active here. --A.Savin 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that this isn't about the morality of my action; clearly it is. The 'spirit' of the Creative Commons laws is very much open to interpretation IMO, and in any case, what the spirit intends and what the license actually allows for are two different things. If there was any indication that my actions break any laws, I would have been accused of it already. The only actions that have broken any laws are those of the reuser who has failed to follow the license terms. A lot of people seem to be suggesting that CC4 solves all the problems. I don't believe it does, at least not from the photographer's perspective. It removes the photographer's ability to claim retrospective damages. Let's say a very high profile company illegally uses my image for a very high profile but short-term publicity campaign, in circumstances where I could potentially have licensed it for a very considerable sum to them. If by the time I notice the misuse, organise a representative to respond to them and demand a response, I simply allow them to 'fix' the error within 30 days by amending the attribution then they will have benefitted from the licensing error and will not have to offer any compensation for this deliberate act. It effectively gives a reuser the 'get out of jail free card' that allows them to break the law egregiously knowing that there will be no recourse other than requiring a fix that only needs to be applied AFTER the image is no longer useful to them. I don't think these CC4 license terms are fair and reasonable, and have not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them. Diliff (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Diliff: Hi, That's the case if you primary objective is to make money from your pictures. That's clearly not the objective of the CC license, which is to allow free use of content with attribution. I did once sued someone because one of my picture was used without the license requirement, but that was only after 3 failed attempts to get properly credited. And that was clearly someone who had a budget for the use of images, not a poor NGO or a blogger without money. Yann (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "spirit" of the Creative Commons licences are documented at Enforcement principles. Of course, one is can read the licence and come up with one's own principles but there is an agreed set of principles. I think your thinking is all wrong about this. Some important mistakes
  1. The "sunk" cost of you or your agent seeking violations, investigating them, writing, and so on are not the mis-user's responsibility. Those are entirely yours and indeed may make the business model uneconomic, which is your problem not theirs.
  2. The deterrent effect or disincentive is only applicable (and justified by CC principles) if addressing the problems of a repeat offender or one who refuses to comply. Thinking that you, Diliff, or Pixsy, might single-handedly educate the world on how to reuse CC images is cloud cuckoo land.
  3. CC4 only "doesn't fix the problems" if you are wedded to a model where the cost of seeking violations itself requires payment for time incurred from (nearly) every violator. If it makes Pixsy's business model uneconomic, for CC4 images, that isn't CC4's concern. The principles are specifically that nobody should be running a business collecting fines for CC images. I don't have a problem with Pixsy collecting fees for non-free works.
  4. Your explanation of why 30 days gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card is very much not in the spirit of CC or Wikipedia. We exist primarily as a free content project. It is way way down the list of our purposes to attribute works. It is entirely none of our business about the morals of the re-user. Whether someone "takes advantage" of our generosity is not something any of us should lose sleep over or seek compensation or revenge for.
Imagine for a second that Wikipedia Foundation decided it needed another income stream, and chose to seek and fine all those who every copy/pasted some text from Wikipedia without attribution. It would pass on 50% of the recovery to editors, in proportion to text contributed. How long before Wikipedia Foundation gets "cancelled" and ceases to raise donations or attract any editors? Days, I reckon. So, Diliff, this is one of those "if everyone did this, the world would be shit".
Part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't attribute well. Pretty much any website that does it properly, puts the attribution below the image in the caption. A book may have a chapter at the end with image credits. But on Wikipedia it is hidden. As a UI experience, this is a hidden feature that many readers may not be aware of until they accidentally click on a picture. On mobile it is even worse, as the CC licence details are yet another click on the tiny (CC) image. If all our images had attribution captions, I think the world would be far better informed that these images are only licenced and still copyright. I don't think Diliff demanding £900 from some random person somewhere is going to achieve anything about the problem. Indeed, if it puts people off re-using images from Wikipedia or Commons, then that's a negative wrt our mission.
Diliff, you say you are a professional photographer? Really? That isn't the Diliff I remember. Is this really paying your mortgage and putting food on the table? Or just buying the latest Canon lens you lust after? I think you have spent too many nights in bed worrying about people misusing your images without correct attribution and thinking about all the money you could have got if only they had paid you first for permission to do that. What percentage of Pixsy's clients are corporations with photo licencing departments? I suspect almost none, as they know what they are doing. Fine if the only copy of the images is on Shutterstock or Getty and someone really is nicking them. But sending the heavies round to collect for CC images from individuals and small businesses is imo as morally bad as those car parks we have in the UK that appear "free" but charge people £70 because they stayed 10 minutes too long when their child had to go to the toilet, or because an old person typed in the registration of their wife's car, or put an O instead of a 0. I'm not impressed. -- Colin (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding sunk costs for identifying who's not worth it: how much time and money could that really involve? So you have a variety of searches that would be done regardless, to look for uses of the images. There's no additional search which would need to be done. Once you find a website, I have a hard time imagining that it takes very long to understand if we're talking about a for-profit company with resources or a small-time blog. It would be helpful, I think, to understand what sort of costs are involved in looking at a website and making that call. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Diliff outsources that work to Pixsy, as he’s said before, because it would be too demanding on his own time. So it’s Pixsy that carries out these (automated)searches and incurs anybody‘sunk costs’, which motivates Pixsy to do all it can to maximise the money it gets from the people it hits with demands. Rather than Diliff deciding whether a transgression is carelessness or deliberate theft, or a transgressor a commercial enterprise or an amateur blogger, that is what Pixsy should be doing for him. But we know that’s not the case. Look at the cases cited from Diliff’s own page which all this started from. And from personal experience as well as that of others I can verify that Pixsy is uninterested to the point of being dismissive, in any excuses, personal circumstances, explanations, apologies, counter-arguments, counter-offer, any attribution you add, or any information you demand of them in return. They may reduce their demand after a time, but it will not be because they are interested in you, it’s purely a ‘take this offer now before we withdraw it’ ploy. So yes the company has a reputation for unethical behaviour and a photographer who uses them must have decided a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable for the sake of attacking the people who use their photos in commercial ads or try to resell them as their own. Then there are the Marco Verches of this world who make this their business model. Normanlamont (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The images are in scope and in many cases in use. No policy based reason for deletion has been advanced. Our lesson from this case should be that we need to explain better to re-users (including those who take images directly from Wikipedia, where no attribution or image-licence is displayed to the reader) what are their obigations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested a related change, at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Adding notice about image copyright and mw:Extension talk:WikimediaMessages#Adding notice about image copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete it's clear from their replies that User:Diliff does not see any harm in requiring significant payments for simple one-time mistakes by random unknown people who might simply have a blog or other website they're already operating at a loss, refusing to give them the chance to first correct the mistakes. While I fully support licence holders enforcing their licence terms, this does not have to mean pursuing actions in that fashion which is actively harmful to both the free content movement, and Wikimedia COmmons. Diliff is free to distribute their material elsewhere if they desire, but there's zero reason we should assist in such harmful actions, which are in fundamental opposition to everything the free content movement, and the Wikimedia Commons should stand for. Baring deletion, we should forcefully watermark their images and do whatever else we can to try and stop this incredibly harmful behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As of now we have no policy at Commons that would allow us to delete the uploads of a contributor on the grounds how they choose to defend their copyright outside of Wikimedia Commons. We have some precedents like that of Wuestenigel where people came to Commons primarily for mass uploading of questionable images in apparent bad faith to make profit even from minor mistakes in regard to the license (in case of Wuestenigel see this discussion). I think we can agree that Diliff came to Commons for contributing excellent images in good faith since 2005 (2848 images in total). Still, I think it is heartbreaking to read letters like this one or that one where, as it appears, license fees of £ 450 where asked for from charities or other non-profits by obscure companies, apparently without giving an opportunity to fix mistakes without a fee. While Diliff has every right to pursue this merciless but legal option, this gives Wikimedia Commons a bad reputation. And this is in conflict with the mission of Wikimedia to “develop educational content under a free license [..] and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” People do make mistakes and as long as people are willing to fix them, we should help them and continue to spread the knowledge about how images can be correctly re-used. But right now we have no policy encouraging and, where necessary, enforcing a practice where the copyright is defended with a less hostile approach where opportunity is given to fix errors within some reasonable timeframe. I am against deleting these images which were uploaded in good faith as long as we do not have a policy in place that expresses our expectations how copyright should be defended in good faith. We should, however, take a case like this one as a reminder that we need to find a consensus for such a policy. I am likewise against watermarking which is discouraged per COM:WATERMARK. I wouldn't mind against a warning template that is added to the respective file description pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment where could that template be placed and how should it look to alert every re-user? Currently, even the most prominent flashy red template would only appear well below the image in question, and people can overlook it just as they seem to overlook the licensing template that Diliff does place well-readable in all his image descriptions. I do think that watermarks are the best solution here, as they hardcode attribution into the image. We discourage watermarking, but there is precedence where we chose doing this instead of deletion. The watermark doesn't have to be huge, it just has to be present so people will notice it. --Enyavar (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: I know that precedents exists but in my opinion they should be reverted as well. The proper way to include a credit line along with the license close to the image is to include it in the caption on all projects using it (as it is done by no.wikipedia.org). I would love to see this implemented across all Wikimedia projects but unfortunately we cannot enforce this. A warning template on the file description page can still be helpful as even re-users find the file description page in most cases to download larger images. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I only have a vague idea what’s going on here but “I don’t like how this user is behaving offsite” is not a legitimate deletion rationale. Besides the listed precedents there’s also the fact that the only legal restrictions on uploading a file are “is it legal in the US?” “Is the copyright statud acceptable?” And “is it under a valid license?” Everything else is strictly “let the reuser beware”. We can place warnings, but we can’t delete something in-scope that isn’t isn’t in violation of those principles, even if the uploader isn’t upholding thr spirit of them. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion about image crediting on WP. Copied to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where it can continue.
  •  Comment For those who would want to see photos better credited on Wikipedia, I occasionally come across that on the Norwegian Wiki, [3] [4] [5]. It's not done on every image, so I don't know what their policy for this is, but it's worth a look. I think it looks very professional, and it doesn't disturb the article. I don't know if there are other Wikis with this practice. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Interesting – thank you, Cart! I have never seen this in other Wikipedia editions. I guess most of our photographers would appreciate this kind of attribution very much, but maybe not all Wikipedians would like that idea … Of course we normally argue that attribution of individual images is not necessary in Wikipedia articles. But the absence of any attribution in Wikipedia may contribute to the misunderstanding of many re-users of images that “Wikipedia images” are public domain. If we would attribute all photos in Wikipedia articles in this unobtrusive manner, more people could learn that not all “Wikipedia images” are PD, but that they must be attributed properly. – Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was worth mentioning. It could be optional, and you might toy with the idea that professional photographers might be more inclined to donate some of their images to a CC license if they were credited in this way. There are arguments to be had both pro and con. --Cart (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a good page on enwiki arguing for photo captions here: en:Wikipedia:Image_citation. I think if enwiki in particular is going to buy-in, it's going to be on the basis of verifiability, citing sources, and providing information without the need to go to a sister site. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These day with all the AI-generated images and fake news, I think that in some cases it can help the article, if the reader immediately sees that the image comes from a trusted photographer, a museum or a photographer affiliated to some institution, without having to click away to get that info. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have always wanted that on enwiki, just because I like checking for photographer names and I don't like clicking to do it. It's nice for verifiability reasons. The way Norwegian Wikipedia does it is nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the idea is nice, however if hardly anyone maintains it and as a result some pictures are attributed correctly, some incorrectly and some not at all, that's definitely not nice in the end, and I would say better let it be completely. IMHO --A.Savin 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's what would happen; and already is happening at the Norwegian Wiki. I think they try to go by the letter of the CC license and actually credit the photographers, and failing just like A.Savin says. So in the end we on the WikiProjects are/would be just as sloppy and inaccurate as everyone else using our photos, yet we are the ones throwing stones here. I regard any photo I upload on Commons as a "lost" photo, and I live with it (like Korda did). It's always interesting to see where my photos turn up, and I'm not losing any sleep over if my name is on it or not. So many of my designs and artistic ideas have been stolen over the years, and if you don't let go of it, you will go crazy and bitter. I give this as my advice to Diliff and others. If you want to get paid for your work, make a hard copyright from the beginning and don't mix your profession with your hobby. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true … Theoretically attribution hints like the ones in the Norwegian Wiki could in most cases be generated automatically by the Mediawiki software. When an image looks like a photo (has the usual Exif values etc.), has a single entry in the ‘Author’ field of the {{Information}} template and this entry has the standard form of a user-page link, the software could automatically add “Photo: <username link>” at the end of the image caption. In all other cases the software could show a small warning instead: “Fellow editors, please add the attribution to this image manually.” This way the need for maintenance could be reduced drastically. – Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the same technical solution as in the "Favorites" userpages (such as yours User:Aristeas/Favorites), then I'd have to oppose -- the attributions are not always correctly generated, apparently there are problems at least with file imports such as Flickr. --A.Savin 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any solution would need to involve no effort on the part of Wikipedians, and do the credit line automatically much like you get in the Media Viewer one sees when one clicks on a Wikipedia image while logged out (or if that's your preferred setting if logged in). It isn't perfect, relying on the photographer/uploader/commoner to get it right wrt templates and such, but it is better than expecting Wikipedians to do it.
The Wikipedia style is technically within the CC law, but requires a click to show any credit info. The Norwegian style isn't explicitly correct either, giving just the author name, and relying on clicks for the rest. So someone copying a Norwegian image and sticking "Diliff" below it, would very much still be using it illegally.
This has the unfortunate effect that the most popular and likely place anyone will see your photo is somewhere that does not explicitly get the licence details right, and the image can be copied without ever seeing the attribute or licence details. It is this that sites like Pixsy make their CC money from, and Wikipedia imo should take responsibility for enabling the copyleft-troll business model to exist. If the images explicitly had "© User:Colin Licence: CC-BY-SA-3.0" on them, there'd be less excuse that one didn't know it wasn't free and didn't know what one was supposed to do to reuse it. Wikipedia could also help by having a little "reuse this image" button on each image that took you to a page that explained what you need to do. Currently the Media Viewer is an example of how to do it right but there's no Help Page link explaining what is necessary.
If Commons images were all self made, we could impose conditions on uploading them wrt pursuing individuals for incorrect attribution. But most licenced images on Commons come from elsewhere, and as long as our model is hoovering up whatever appears to be free, we are susceptible to abuse.
I suspect Wikipedians will not be interested in correct explicit attribution. The text-based project they spend most effort on is collaboratively built and they accept their contribution is a drop in a hidden list of many. They also don't really view themselves working on a free-content project, vs just writing Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia is free to read; they don't realise it is also free to reuse). And the collaborative model that discourages any ideas of ownership of articles, also discourages a mindset that gets terribly upset when people copy the text without getting licence details right. Our single-creator free-to-use-anywhere image model is alien to them. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to end this important discussion, but as this goes far away from the deletion request itself so we should move this to another place. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, you are absolutely right. Since I was the one who derailed this thread, I'll copy-paste the last bit of this to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where I'm sure the discussion will continue, and fold up that part here. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Or there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: Please suggest another place, or as requestor I am fine with keeping the discussion going here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service: There have been some proposals on how to deal with copyleft trolling once we keep the images (in this discussion, and in related/future cases). --Enyavar (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I think it is stupid if he is having some company send people pissy messages about unattributed use of his image. On the other hand, attribution really isn't that hard: I have spent hundreds of bucks and hiked many miles and climbed on top of very shaky things to take photos that I make absolutely no money from, simply so that other people may benefit from having nice pics. Sometimes they use my photos on websites and in newspapers -- which is fine, it doesn't bother me that save hundreds of bucks in doing so and I don't get anything -- but I feel like mentioning the name of the photographer is the absolute least you can do in return. Of course, simply going directly to a demand letter seems quite rude and cavalier. But I think it is stupid and pointless to try to police how people respond offsite to license violations, and to the extent that it's possible it's bad. JPxG (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 3
[edit]
  • A month has gone by since the last comment, and many of the above !votes came before Diliff's responses and the now-stalled discussions on the village pumps, so I think it's time to revisit this and reflect on what we know so far. For me, I initially voted keep as premature. In the end, I think I'm leaning towards...
    Forced watermarking, as annoying as that is. It really all comes down to this statement by Diliff: I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified. Trying to force money out of absolutely everyone, including small-time/independent reusers, for even trivial license violations is directly contrary to the creative commons enforcement principles and, IMO, the principles of WikiCommons. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites I understand your frustration but the problem is these are CC licensed images. Commons can not "force" a watermark on the images as they are not our images, they are Diliff's. Commons is not a publisher, but a repository. Our policy on overwriting is clear: a contentious change requires a forked image file. The very moment someone disputes your watermark, say, we require two files, one with and one without. Wikipedia would not be at all happy if ideologically angry Commoners put watermarks on their thumbnails. Wikipedians generally don't consider themselves part of a free content mission, vs a free-to-read encyclopaedia. If Commons insisted on this, Wikipedia would fork their own un-watermarked versions and we'd have achieved nothing except to piss off Wikipedians. -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple things in response. First, it's a good point that the creator could dispute the watermark and a second file would be necessary. In that case, I would support deleting the original once the derivative is created. We are not obliged to retain the original, after all. Second, I just wanted to point out that you can display a crop within a Wikipedia article pretty easily without the need for an additional file. Yes, there will be complaints, but that seems preferable to outright deletion. If a local Wikipedia wants to host its own unwatermarked version, they can, of course, but here on Commons we're obliged to think about all of our media reusers and not just Wikipedians. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious: Who is going to make hundreds of file versions with forced watermark and upload them all? --A.Savin 00:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone has a way to automate it, I imagine it'll have to be multiple people. It's not like we don't already make decisions that take a while to implement, though... — Rhododendrites talk |  01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for this, and I'd volunteer too if it's a manpower problem. This is not a rushed process (this debate lasts already for two times the maximum grace period of CC4.0!), and if it turns out that only one or two people are implementing the watermark-decision and it takes weeks to do it, then so be it. I commend Rhododendrites for the Draft of the help page. --Enyavar (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Two months into this, I think three things have become clear: 1) Diliff's actions violate Wikimedia and Creative Commons principles; 2) These actions are hurting users; and 3) Diliff has no intention of stopping. The fact that the images are good, the effort required to replace them in articles, the effort required to remove the Featured Picture status many of them have, the effort required to leave behind a placeholder that does not orphan the licence, and any other implementation hurdles should not stop us from doing the right thing. I favour deletion over forced watermarking because i) it is more effective (particularly if we end up cropping the watermark in the version displayed on articles), ii) it does not split photographers into two groups (those that enforce the licence and those that don't), and iii) it is consistent with Flickr's policies, presenting a strong unified front. Whether it's deletion of watermarking though, we need to do something. Right now we're part of the problem, and the message we're sending to copyleft trolls is that we're not willing to take this matter seriously. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we ought to do something, and the above reasoning. Doing nothing sends the wrong message to present and future copyright trolls. I favor forced watermark which still allows us and others to use these images. I guess that forced watermark would de facto remove the QI and FP badges to these pictures, and that many will be removed from articles. Yann (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't a consensus to delete/watermark in this discussion, which has been running for nearly two months. And if you had a similar discussion on Wikipedia, which I do think is necessary, I think it would snowball close keep and only demonstrate hostility towards Commons. The precedent of a handful of concert photos likely succeeded because nobody cared much. We are dealing here with 1500 photos, nearly all of which are in-use on multiple Wikipedias on articles that get a lot of visibility. The photos are world-class and can't be substituted without huge loss to Wikipedia. If Commons deleted or watermarked the images, Wikipedia would shift them over to local copies in a day. (Rhodo's idea of a crop wiki markup isn't easy when many uses are inside infoboxes and it would be beyond tedious to do that for 1500 photos x multiple Wikipedias). And then there would have been zero effect on David's practice since, lets face it, nobody is discovering those photos on Commons: they are discovered via Wikipedia or Flickr (where they remain). You can see here someone asked him today on his Wikipedia page about correct licensing and were thanked for asking. We have to weigh the fact that we have 1500 images serving both a free-to-view mission on Wikipedia and a free-to-use mission on our projects, where if re-users actually obey the CC licence, everyone is happy. The evidence we have here are that a handful of people "didn't read the instructions" and got a hefty bill. I am not at all happy about that but people do get hefty bills for carelessness in life all the time.
    I have a few further concerns.
    • Watermarking may just encourage some of our more egotistical photographers to behave badly in order to get their images watermarked. After all, we generally remove watermarks, so putting them back on because you've been a naughty boy seems backwards. If 1500 photos on English Wikipedia have "David Iliff" prominently on them, lots of other photographers will be asking why they can't get that level of publicity too.
    • I don't think this is something Commons should do without gauging if Wikipedia agrees. We are a repository for them, plural, which means our role is simply to check the image has educational value and a free licence. We aren't the CC morality police. It is not our role to affect the content displayed on Wikipedia pages - that's for editors on those pages to decide.
    • Deletion may have a negative impact on those using the images and relying on a link back to the image-description-page in order to meet their licence obligations (which is exactly how Wikipedia gets away with not attributing the images properly on its pages).
    • David Iliff is a living human being. Wikipedia has rules about making negative comments about living people. Sticking a notice (as was done with the concert photographer) that "David Iliff has sued users of his work for minor attribution errors" onto 1500 Wikipedia pages might not only raise BLP concerns but also potentially a lawsuit against Wikipedia for defamation or whatever. Our "proof" in that VP discussion isn't at a "reliable sources actually explicitly saying this" level that would convince any Wikipedian to make in-article accusations about a living person.
    • And I'll repeat that last bit. David Iliff is a human being. No matter how upset we may be that he isn't acting how we think he should, I am concerned that doing something like this could escalate into news coverage of a kind and we end up with a So You've Been Publicly Shamed scenario with bad consequences. A common theme in that book is when Jon Ronson asks people who did the shaming how they feel about how it turned out, they nearly always deeply regret it.
    I think instead we should explore how to get Wikipedia to better display attribution and to inform potential reusers about their licence obligations. That would help all of us too. Have a look at File:St Patrick's Cathedral Exterior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg (you may need to log out of Wikipedia to get the image page that non-users see). It does have a pretty prominent notice about licence conditions. What could be done to make that more helpful and more scary? If we do feel Diliff's photos need even more warnings, can that licence notice be amended? Or could we argue for some way of tagging certain Commons images so that when a reader clicks on them they get a really big "WARNING" notice. I don't think this is people stealing thumbnails (is it?) so I think the people who got into trouble clicked on that Wikipedia link and downloaded the image. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Wikipedia discussion bit. Yes, Wikipedias should get a warning that this is going to happen (if it's going to happen, of course), and that warning can include "If you want to host a local copy of an unwatermarked image at the risk of users, that's up to this local community". We're making a decision here about what's right for Commons, though.
    Regarding the more prominent attribution instructions/warnings, I 100% support that, and would support getting rid of any watermarks that are added if the system improves.
    Regarding BLP, the wording of the watermarks isn't set in stone. I would imagine something like "[correct attribution] / If you use this image, make sure to copy the attribution above to the letter. The owner of this image employs a license enforcement firm that may threaten legal action for any mistakes by any media user." No need to name the uploader, and there's nothing there that hasn't been verified by Diliff himself.
    Regarding zero effect on David's practice since, lets face it, nobody is discovering those photos on Commons: they are discovered via Wikipedia - When you click the image or try to download it, it will have the watermark. Presumably it's not terribly common for someone to use Wikipedia images by using some screen capture device on the thumbnail...
    The people hunted by Pixsy on Diliff's behalf are humans, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Diliff may not be engaging in public shaming of other users, but silently demands €/$ ~450 for each photo if his name isn't mentioned. That's affecting people harshly, Colin, and also falls back directly on Wikimedia. If we can't sanction this in some way, then a) more people will jump on board with the moneymaking scheme, and b) more people will be affected by copyleft trolling. "7 reasons why Wikipedia is just a big scam" is not a headline that anyone here should want to read. --Enyavar (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that if Wikipedia takes local copies sans watermark, then clicking on the link wont give you an image with a huge watermark. All you've done is make work for a lot of Wikipedians. You really need the Wikipedians to mass agree to it, and I'm not sure "Village Pump (idea lab)" is going to get that. I think this also breaks the trust/contract we have with Wikipedia that we are just a repository of images that meet certain licence conditions.
    What we are responding to here is, AFAIKS, one person who isn't a Commoner or a Wikipedian and has actually given very little detail about how they misused Diliff's image. They are pissed off that they made a mistake and one could argue are now looking forward to us taking revenge for them. They say they used four pictures that were "public domain", though we don't know what they are, and didn't check Diliffs image licence details at all. This person hasn't indicated what they used the image for. It might be if they did tell us, we'd be less sympathetic. They then listed nine other "cases" but we don't really know how those resolved. One is a vet, which in the UK should be well aware of the effect of giving huge bills to people who didn't expect it.
    What we aren't seeing and have no idea about really, is all the people who do use Diliff's image correctly along with the many thousands of people who see Diliff's images on Wikipedia and enjoy looking at them in all their huge detail. So those suggesting we/Wikipedia should delete them aren't really weighing up the cost to both Wikipedia and careful re-users by doing that. That because a handful of people were stupid on the internet, tens of thousands of people get denied fantastic images when reading Wikipedia, dozens of book authors denied the ability to include a world class image for no more effort than an attribution line. Punishment is historically a rubbish way of preventing bad behaviour, and in this case we are punishing ourselves more than Diliff. It's a shit situation, but I don't think this is the solution. -- Colin (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin, this has nothing to do with punishment or shaming. I've uploaded 3,900 images to Commons and re-used only a handful of photographs from others, so my natural bias leans towards Diliff, not the users. Yet, when I set aside emotion and ignore the annoyance of sometimes bumping into my images without proper attribution, I see how big of an issue copyleft trolling is. Diliff's case is just the tip of the iceberg, and if you doubt that just have a look at how seriously Creative Commons and Flickr are dealing with it. No photographer and no image is irreplaceable, nor is the need to sync up with Wikipedia an insurmountable obstacle. Let's take this matter head-on instead of following the path of least resistance. Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, this isn't about punishing Diliff, not at all. He got singled out here, but there have been other cases before, and it seems like this DR leads to a policy change, in how this may be handled in the future. When I see that Diliff's user page has had maybe a few dozen anxious queries by sued people over the last years, and if those people are also just a tip of an iceberg AND if Diliff is also just one among maybe a dozen people on Commons... all of these are rather lowball assumptions: Then we're talking already about several thousand cases and a multimillion enterprise that is leeching fees from supposedly "free" material that we're hosting on Commons. I don't begrudge anyone making money (hey even Paid Editing can have a few upsides), but license trolling is not a honest business that Commons should enable. --Enyavar (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, if we delete Diliff's images, we're not punishing Diliff who is out here since long time and probably doesn't care much anymore, instead we're punishing ourselves. Regards --A.Savin 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you are considering the many hundreds, if not thousands, of successful reuses of Diliff's images. The idea this problem is "several thousand cases and a multimillion enterprise" is for the birds, frankly. Diliff's images are rather exceptional in their professional quality and reuse potential. As he noted, when people wish to use the images without the CC conditions, he ask for and earns a small fee, but many many more are happy to comply with the conditions and get great images for free. We really here have no idea of the numbers of those and especially what portion of those who didn't obey the conditions were large commercial enterprises stealing CC images they should really be paying for? Diliff above claims there are a huge number of such enterprises blatantly abusing the CC licence conditions because they can. We get a sob story by some random internet user, who won't say what his case actually was and suddenly folk start talking about vandalising our project in protest, as though that might actually fix anything.
    Most of us think this isn't morally right. That at the very least Pixy should set a bar for misuse that forgives and helps personal users or tiny businesses, churches and tiny charities to get it right. And Diliff said he has historically intervened in such cases. I don't think many of us here would be sympathetic for LLoyds Bank PLC if they ran an advertising campaign using Diliff's images and didn't credit or pay him. Most of us who use CC licences would agree Diliff would be right to challenge that. And while few of us get many such opportunities, most of us would be perfectly happy with Diliff's dual-licence model where people asking to use an image without the attribution get asked to pay as small fee. This isn't a clear-cut copyright-troll scenario where (a) there is prior intent to dishonestly publish supposedly CC images and (b) Diliff is personally running a business off of that. It's disappointing, like finding out a good friend voted Tory. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're going around in circles, so I'll just reiterate the key points where I don't agree with you and then I'll shut up: 1) Copyleft trolling has nothing to do with large enterprises, which very rarely use CC images (why would they, if it's safer/easier to pay for the copyright royalties and use it without attribution?), it is about going after small users and demanding money even after the image is taken down or the attribution corrected; 2) Diliff has clearly stated this is what he/Pixsy are doing, which is a direct violation of Wikimedia/CC principles. This is the only thing that matters, everything else is fluff; 3) For instance, quality and quantity shouldn't matter, unless we want our own version of 'too big to fail' ('if you're a small-time uploader we'll have no issue in blocking you and deleting your images, but don't worry if you're one of the big ones'); 4) This is not (only) about Diliff, it's about setting a precedent for how we will handle future cases, and it's about sending a message to copyleft trolls kicked out from Flickr that Wiki Commons is not an alternative. Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree why would they but they do. Even large enterprises employ stupid people. But I'll repeat what I wrote on the Wikipedia discussion. Right now we don't actually have any evidence this case is anything more than someone who stole one of Diliff's photos for commercial use without the slightest concern for licence terms because they thought everything on the internet is free and abusable without consequence. Well there was a consequence and they feel butthurt about it. As for "principles", I'm not aware that Wikimedia has an opinion on this. And if you think Flickr is an example to follow: Diliff's Flickr page is alive and well. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julesvernex2 and @Rhododendrites I'm concerned by this edit which makes a claim about "someone that engages in copyleft trolling, would hate to see more small-time users extorted for €400+." This is a potentially libellous claim against a named individual stated without any evidence. Is our random internet complainer actually a "small-time user"? They certainly didn't make a careless small mistake in the format of the attribution: they just saw a photo on the internet and assumed it was public domain and have told us this themselves. And use of criminal language like "extorted" is seriously unacceptable as that's illegal.
    I don't have a problem with people opposing dillif's images and writing something like "per this discussion" and linking to this page. But we need to stop this business of making libellous claims of criminal activity on the basis of an anonymous poster complaining they got charged a fee for illegally using a copyright image. The only actually illegal activity here is the one the poster admitted to: using a CC BY-SA licensed image without any attribution. None of us would be sympathetic if our poster were Apple. We know nothing about them. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without any evidence? By Dillif's own words: I do believe that even if, after investigation, the loss of income to the content creator from a single minor misuse of an image are likely not significant, a (small) penalty of some kind can still be justified. That is the definition of copyleft trolling, whether one likes the name or not. And even if our original poster is Apple (!), plenty of other cases from small-time users have been provided above. Still, if you feel that my actions are "libellous" and "illegal", please initiate the necessary procedures to curb them. If not, please stop with the fear mongering. Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diliff had a discussion of the ethics and some aspects of his comments are not really that clear and were unspecific to the case of the original poster. We really don't have any "evidence" of actual cases involving small non-commercial users making a small error in attribution and being charged huge sums. Nor, Julesvernex2, do you have any evidence of "extortion" which I can only repeat is a serious criminal offence. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence is crystal-clear, and I genuinely commend Diliff for owning up to what he did instead of evading the questions. Copyleft trolling is not illegal, but it is against Wikimedia polices. But, again, if you want to treat my use of "extortion" as an accusation of a "serious criminal offence", please go ahead. In the meantime, I'm done with this discussion. Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I was pinged. AFAIK I never used the word "extortion". Regardless, this is getting absurd, Colin. Someone using the word extortion on the internet -- a term used ubiquitously as both hyperbole and a figure of speech -- is not libel. It is a fine bit of opinion for someone to interpret "I spent time determining you didn't really harm me, so now I am entitled to your money or else I'll sue you" as "extortion" in the non-legal sense. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence? Colin, you obviously have missed the complaints of small-time re-users who complained directly to Diliff's talk page about being terribly sorry, the last thing we'd want to do is using a copyrighted image, sorry look we changed the website already SORRY please do not make me pay 450 Ł$€ and why are you not accepting an apology?. Small private website owners, and charities were the ones that got hurt. And no, not "butthurt". Hurt right in the finances.
These (what, ten?, cases directly cited and linked in the VP) are just the tip of the iceberg: those were just the ones who could find their way back to either Commons or Wikipedia, and just the ones which were spotted by Normanlamont who brought this to our attention. Remember that the copyleft troll business is not conducted within Commons at all, this happens in emails way outside. Well, Diliff "dealt privately" with them (nothing I've seen points towards forgiveness!) and he scrubbed his talk pages regularly to make this affair less obvious.
Now, when I said that this is a multimillion business, I explicitly did not refer to Diliff (if the guy has had 100 successful claims via Pixsy, he only raked in 22'500 Ł), but to the whole industry which we are enabling further every day we can't put an end to this. And the worst thing is that Pixsy does make errors, and fraudulently hounds innocent licensees who did everything right, too. This is their business model after all, of course they are pursuing copyleft violations in the grand scale omelett where you really need to crush all the eggs available.
Okay, and now about the usage of terms, where @Rhododendrites is entirely correct. While "extortion business" is indeed the wrong legal term, the correct term extraction business is confusingly similar. But this should not be a discussion on how to name this flagrant disregard of the spirit of our community (no @Julesvernex2, I don't even see any existing policy has even been violated), but on what to do against it before it really harms the reputation of Commons and Wikipedia. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see those sob stories, though not the one you just made up here which is fiction. They don't count as "evidence" that would matter in any legal dispute. And as Diliff pointed out, the actual sum agreed isn't the same as what Pixsy might initially request. An anonymous person on the internet claiming to be a "small business" isn't very precise is it. Lots of small businesses turn over millions. My dentist and the local vet are both small businesses who are absolutely raking it in each day. This is small beer money to them. And I repeat that the original anonymous poster is someone we know nothing about. Nor do we have anything that would count as "evidence" wrt what the error is, though it is clear from most of the posts (including the original poster) that most didn't make a "small mistake" but simply took an image that they thought was public domain and used it as though it was free or thought all images on the internet were free to use how they liked.
There's a difference between the "evidence" needed to persuade users on an internet forum that Diliff did a bad thing and that we might do something about the pictures we host here, and the actual Evidence needed to defame someone and make what can be interpreted as criminal allegations without it backfiring.
I'm glad that Julesvernex2 is "done with this discussion" because what we don't need is WMF saying they've got a letter from Diliff's lawyers and this whole page has been taken down. Just as one can't be careless with copyright images (go misuse a Getty or AP image and you'll know all about butthurt), people here should stop being careless in their language. Enough. -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I had indeed hoped to be done discussing your accusations. Instead, you opted to double-down by opening a formal complaint against me, so I'll need to deal with that: [6]. Here, I will gladly continue to work with the many users - on both sides of the DR - that are genuinely interested in addressing the issue of copyleft trolling, instead of debating the difference between "extortionate" and "extortion". Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across this addition to the discussion. As the original poster who opened this can of worms, I can see why I ought to identify myself as 'not Apple'. I'm an amateur musician who's run a blog for over ten years just to talk about my music and that of other musicians. I have no good defence for using Diliff's photo without attribution - it was carelessness and AFAIK the only time I've used a photo without attribution in over ten years. As you'll see the other cases included charities and non-profits. Pixsy characterised my site as 'commercial' and probably did for them too. I have sold the odd CD on my site, but the Pixsy demand, £900, was many times the total I've made in sales over the years. (I accept that's not a legal defence.) I have no knowledge of Diliff's intentions to make a business model of this or not. He certainly seemed well respected here and he engaged with the discussion. His embrace of 'parallel licencing' was seen as questionable by some posters on the original page. I think the crucial thing is the 'blunt weapon' of Pixsy and similar organisations. I eventually settled with Pixsy, after months of fairly harsh exchanges, for a small fraction of the initial demand, but many a Pixsy victim has no hint that this may be possible, nor do they have a way of understanding what the amount they demand is based on. I relied on legal sites for advice. Some may not know of these or be so scared they ignore the Pixsy demands. So I endorse the addition of a 'What to do if approached my Pixsy' section. So in summary I raised concerns because I'd read about copyleft trolling when I got my Pixsy demand, discovered many others on Wikipedia trying to contact Diliff about it, and my concern was not to attack Diliff but to help stop people being hit with very large demands on questionable grounds. Normanlamont (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 4
[edit]
  •  Delete Per Nil Einne and Geoff. The whole thing is totally ridiculous behavior on the uploaders end that goes against Commons:Project scope's whole thing about how "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed." There's nothing good faithed about any of this and I think there's a line that has clearly been crossed here we can justifiable delete the images as being uploaded by someone who clearly is NOTHERE to build a free media repository of images that anyone can use for any purpose. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how can Diliff's images not be used by anyone for any purpose? --A.Savin 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jmabel's comment from 17:05, 2 April 2024 essentially covers it. Although you could quible all that doesn't necessarily restrict usage, but if a refuser can't even make an honest mistake and/or have a chance to correct it then I don't see how that's not a bad faithed restriction that goes against the projects goals. Its at least to extreme of a bar to reuse and I think there's a limit on how much control an uploader should have on things further down the line. Like if someone were to upload an image under the terms that it can't be altered from the original and then knee jerk sued any reusers who did minor modifications to it. How does that not restrict usage or at least not violate the spirit of this? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think most people here agree with the Creative Commons Statement of Enforcement Principles there's nothing remotely suggesting anyone receiving a payment demand made an "honest mistake". Ignorance is not any defence in law. Nobody here has misspelled Diliff's name or written CC-BY-SE instead of "CC BY-SA" or some other petty or minor error. They simply all saw an image on the internet and thought it was free for them to use without condition and did so. The CC licence version used by Diliff, and by the huge majority of CC images on Commons, does not have a forgiveness clause. We accept that licence and if you think Commons demands a more forgiving one, go ahead and open a DR for the millions of images we'd have to drop. It becomes invalid if the licence terms are not met and your behaviour becomes as illegal as if you'd copied a photo of Taylor Swift out of a newspaper and used that on your publicity or website. Tens of thousands of people enjoy Diliffs images every day on Wikipedia and thousands more have successfully reused his images per the CC licence terms. I reckon his images are successfully reused per licence conditions more often than all the images uploaded by all the people in this discussion. This is a ridiculous over-reaction to some anonymous poster we know nothing about. We don't actually have any (a) what the reuser actually did wrong and (b) what their commercial usage involves and how much money they make (c) what they ended up paying, for anyone. But we do know that not a single one of them gave Diliff a second thought until a letter came in the post. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this argument, each of the dozen users who upload daily images from the Internet with a wrong or no license should be fine 400+ $/€? Great! The WMF just said that their source of income is decreasing. You should write to them, they would appoint you chief financial officer. ;o) Sorry, but you won't fly very far with this reasoning... Yann (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much an issue with the license per se as how this particular user enforced it. Which is why this a deletion request for Diliff's images, not every image on Commons that has "CC BY-SA" or whatever license. I'm sorry you can't see or don't care about the distinction. The fact is though that Diliff's particular way of enforcing the licensing terms is totally ridiculous and goes against the spirit of the project. Does that mean the million other "CC BY-SA" licensed images on here should be deleted to? No of course not. I'd argue any image where the uploader enforces or threatens to enforce a license in a bad faithed, authoritarian manor should be deleted out right though. There's no reason we should pander to that type of nonsense or give someone like Diliff the benefit of the doubt (let alone associate them with the project) if they aren't willing to give re-users the same benefit of the doubt or respect in return. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two arguments why the images should stay available on Commons: The weak one is that at least some of these images were originally created with funds that Diliff gott from Wikimedia. The stronger argument is that re-users should be able to prove where they got the images from originally. This is not possible if we vanish the images without a trace. Oh, also a lot of these images got lots of community engagement (picture of the day and featured votes), some documentation of how the photos originally looked would be great too.
There are two consequential options to keep them: One is reuploads with forced watermarks (which I hear can be hidden when inserting into projects); the other is reuploads as downscaled versions (that can still be used in projects, although lacking quality in detail). --Enyavar (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two arguments are very much secondary to the main argument. Though the issue with deletion potentially leaving the evidence of a free licence dangling is one Commons should have addressed years ago. These are professional quality images of important buildings that have been, are, and can continue to be re-used both on Wikipedia and by countless others with a CC licence. You delete them and Wikipedia could well divorce Commons. I'm not joking here. The outrage would be "Can we have our own repository for Wikipedias separated from all the free-content purist idiots on Commons". And I say that as someone who values free-content and has campaigned to get rid of some of the GDFL nonsense that some photographers used in the past. Wikipedians don't give free-content a moments thought. They are totally happy considering their website as a free-to-read project. It might even encourage them to push for allowing -NC licences and that probably would be the end of non-NC licences for professional-level images that Commons demands.
Having watched both Notre Dame fire and Glasgow School of Art fire, I've seen what it is like to see important buildings destroyed. These high resolution photos by Diliff of English cathedrals now represent an important cultural heritage for the UK that is freely available for anyone who engages their brain before reusing. This isn't something that should be destroyed because you are a bit pissed off with the photographer.
Yann misunderstands my arguments. I'm not defending copyleft trolling. And the use of Pixsy and some of Diliff's comments aren't good. But to be perfectly frank, we know actually nothing about even a single case story. Not one. We have someone posting here who won't even tell their own story, other than to admit they thought the photo was free public domain. They repost several other posts that appeared on Diliff's talk page but none of them tell us the actual facts of what happened. And the internet being what it is, we don't even know which of any of them are real stories. All together we are on very dodgy ground legally making the kind of allegations people have made here, such as using language like "scam" and "extortion" which is the sort of childish hyperbole I'd expect from a certain rich man-baby on Twitter. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, ad-hominem arguments are not helping, I kindly ask you to amend your accusations (Edit: as User:Colin implies further down that I don't understand what an insult is: Colin, you are describing those who don't agree with your position as as "purist idiots" in a roundabout way, when you could also have used "purists" without the idiot. You even likened other people in the discussion to certain Twitterers. Whomever you might have alluded to there, nobody would want to be placed in the same basket with either of them. I couldn't help but notice that you admonished others for hyperbolic language in the same sentence and keep arguing that everyone needs to weigh their words more carefully. Good advice.).
I don't think this debate here is about "free-content purism", and on the contrary, I think most users have no problem with a few missing pictures. Deleting them is the proverbial storm in a waterglass, the images are replaceable (but again, I advocate against deletion and for watermarking instead). On the other hand and also perfectly frank, you are making all efforts not to even learn about even one single case story. Granted, we mostly just have the tales from the victim's perspective (like Normanlamont), but why do you think these stories might have been faked? Who would do that and why? Common sense, please.
Copyleft trolling does harm, and if "our" users do it, Commons shares responsability and should help prevent further cases. We are not laying the landmines, but we can at least defuse them in our territory. --Enyavar (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Enyavar here. There's really only two ways to look at this once you put aside the hyperbole and tangential side discussion.
  1. Hosting the images puts re-users at legal risk
  2. Hosting the images doesn't put re-users at legal risk
It seems clear to me that we are dealing with the first scenario. You can spend all day capitulating about how we destroying cultural heritage or whatever by deleting the images, but that goes for any and all images that get deleted. The fact is that we mainly (if not only) here to make sure re-users don't get needlessly sued for using an image from our site. It's not like the images can't just be hosted somewhere else though. For instance, the ones being used on Wikipedia can be re-uploaded there under fair use. Or Diliff can re-upload them the thousands of other image hosting websites that don't care about their users or following the law. We aren't obligated to host anything on Commons though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've got one comment that doesn't understand what "ad-hominem" means or another that doesn't understand what "fair use" implies or the bizarre comment about "following the law". Em, the only people who didn't "follow the law" were those that used copyright images as though they weren't. That's, you know, not legal. I get the forgiveness bit, I do, but the only law that was broken was copyright law. And Commons doesn't actually have any policy abut copyright enforcement practices. It does however accept a variety of licences that permit the copyright holder to enforce their rights if the licence conditions aren't met. We agreed to those licences and Diliff donated his images at the time in good faith. I'd much prefer we resolve this by asking Diliff to change their behaviour about the images on Commons. I don't like what Diliff is doing the same as most people here. But I don't think deleting all the images is a sensible response. It's like burning down a library because you don't like that the librarian hands out fines if people don't return their book on time.
No, Diliff's images are not replaceable. They really aren't. I'm not saying the stories are faked, I'm saying that if some some serious person actually asked you for evidence that a real actual person was "scammed" and "extorted" and you replied "Well, some red-link user posted this on Diliff's talk page" .... -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons doesn't actually have any policy abut copyright enforcement practices. Sure, but we enforce a lot of things that are against the spirit or aim of the project all the time regardless if there's a specific policy reason behind it or not. So what's your point. Are you going to argue that we shouldn't take action on something that's clearly at odds with the projects goals just because it doesn't perfectly fit within an existing policies framework?
I'd much prefer we resolve this by asking Diliff to change their behaviour about the images on Commons. It seems like people already asked him to change his behavior a month ago and he either ignored the messages or outright refused to.
You replied "Well, some red-link user posted this on Diliff's talk page That's how a lot of problems are brought up and resolved. Red-linked users have as much right to complain about something as anyone else on here. What bar of evidence that's this an issue would be good enough for you though? Because your acting like it's only a valid complaint if we go to the person's house, read the actual documents, and then give Diliff a year to respond after asking them multiple times to fix their behavior. That's not how things work on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what's a 'red-link user'? (I think you're talking about me here.) Normanlamont (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normanlamont: A 'red-link user' is Wikimedia slang. It refers to someone who is new to the project, perhaps with little knowledge about how things work and therefore hasn't created a user page with some info yet. User pages often contains information about the person and what they are doing here on the project. You automatically get a talk page as soon as you write anything on Commons or Wikipedia, but a user page requires some effort on your part. As soon as you write something (anything) on your user page and click on 'Publish page', the color of your name will change from red to blue. --Cart (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Normanlamont (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Comment This messy discussion has gone on far too long, all because a guy wants to have the cake and eat it. Diliff is using the exposure that Commons/WikiMedia can give, but also wants the money that Pixsy can hustle for him and let WikiMedia take the heat for it. That is not a grown-up and responsible behavior; it is also unprofessional. He needs to make up his mind to use one of these, you should never mix your hobby with your job. AFAICS the files uploaded on Commons, need to be removed from the Pixsy service, not WikiMedia. You can be on both platforms, but not with the same files. If you want to play both sides, there are so many cleaner ways to do this. Like for example hosting your best shot off-Wiki and make all the money-making you want from it, and post the second-best shot here on Commons. This is not hard today when photographers take so many shots of the same subject/angle. Or, make a choice of what sort of photos you upload on Commons and what shots you keep for commercial purpose. Before I retired, I kept a clear line between my product photos for my business and the shots I made for Commons. It's only after I retired that I've given up my copyright on some of those photos (and the designs) and published such photos here. They are of little use to me now, and perhaps they can serve as inspiration for new artists.
Again I stress: You can't have it both ways! It is damaging both to WikiMedia's reputation and yours. If your photos were on Commons first, they are, to put it harshly, "lost to the Internet" and should not appear on commercial photo sites. Learn to live with it! I have learned this lesson from decades of copyright fights; the only way to beat the Net is to always be one step ahead with new material that you can make money from while it's still fresh. Or sulk, grow bitter and crazy. So, make new versions (most churches are still standing) with better photo equipment/experience and make money of those. If Taylor Swift could do this, so can Diliff. --Cart (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, I don't think I understand the combination of "keep" with the content of your vote. Diliff is having it both ways. Here we're trying to determine if we should intervene in the only "way" we have any control over. "Keep" = we're fine with you having it both ways, no? — Rhododendrites talk |  16:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be unclear, I was trying to explain under what conditions I was for keeping the files. I'm urging him to see reason first and remove the files from Pixsy so that we can keep them here on Commons. If he doesn't, they should be removed so that he doesn't have his great "advertising platform". Without his photos on Wikipedias, he'll be almost invisible to his clients. Wikis are the way he can run this operation, so either he cleans up his act or his photos are gone. Even photos here with forced watermarks or downscaled versions will work as "ads" for him, and that is no ok to me. Yes, we will lose a lot of good photos, but we will do well anyway. People mostly use Wikipedia for text and facts, not the pretty pictures. The rules should be the same for everyone, we shouldn't bend them just because he's 'too big to fail'. I understand the arguments that removing the files will leave good re-users outside Wiki with a problem if they have linked back to Commons, so perhaps instead of deleting the file pages, those could be kept with a message explaining why the photo is no longer available. I have changed the 'vk' to 'cmt' since that might be more appropriate. --Cart (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think I've actually voted. Per all my above comments. This stinks. I wish Diliff would stop. But deleting all these images is a terrible idea. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I think PCP applies here. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A1Cafel: The policy COM:PCP states the following: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". Now is there any doubt that any of the Diliff's files in question might be unfree? --A.Savin 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that this user is completely incompetent which confirmed by multiple blocks, warnings (and after his indefinite block has been lifted!) and lacking answer to your question. I think that final of this long story will be WMF/global ban of the user. And than faster it occurs, than better for Commons. I request to closing admin not to count A1Cafel vote because it is not based on Commons policies and traditions but only on radical deletionist views of A1Cafel. His goals are delete and disrupt project and troll users. My previous reply has been cancelled by long-term A1Cafel ally, Adamant1 (I will go to AN/U if he will revert me again) 145.224.73.168 13:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now, anyway I've the impression that users who are themselves contributing quality content here have (apart from a few exceptions) voted in favor of keeping, while users who are known mainly for drama and/or have only some dozens of edits on Commons have voted in favor of deletion. Regards --A.Savin 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way to look at it is a lot of us chimed in early because this was premature and Diliff hadn't responded yet. Of the users who voted after Diliff's last comment here, most have supported something other than keeping (watermarking or deleting), including multiple people who participate at FPC. That said, I'd disagree with both the substance and the subtext (that people who upload good photos better understand free culture, commons policy, behaviors of reusers, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk |  18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites, almost no additional votes have appeared since Diliff last commented here compared to the solid "vk" mass of votes earlier. You are discounting the idea that people who voted earlier have read the posts since and not changed their minds, so I think it unfair of you to dismiss those votes as somehow discardable. One can't really say anything much about it statistically. The truth is that this DR has dragged on for two months longer than it should have, and now we are even just getting votes from recently indeffed users who don't even read policy.
    Diliff said earlier that the actual amounts people pay are small in reality and NormanLamont has just conformed above that he paid "a small fraction of the initial demand". If an "amateur musician" can do a bit of googling to realise you don't have to pay much to make Pixsy go away, then I guess any of the other handful of cases posted here that started this could have done the same. So rather than this being a "business model" it's looking more like an occasional sum that might after a few years help towards a new lens. Contrast that below with the numerous cases of successfully free licence use for just one image out of 1500 and I can't see the moral case for denying the world free access to freely licenced images just because literally a handful of people were ignorant and ended up paying the price of a parking ticket.
    I don't know what is being hoped by dragging this along. You really really are not going to get all of Diliff's images deleted. Ain't gonna happen. Let's put this to bed please and say prayers that Diliff changes his mind. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - deletion arguments more persuasive. Potential for Harm being caused inadvertently Zymurgy (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example uses

[edit]

I thought I have a go search for uses of the File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg that launched this.

  • Homeviews: 10 best places to live in Hammersmith Credit: "(Main image credit: Diliff)". Commercial website who's own content is "© 2018-2024 HomeViews - All rights reserved".
  • 7Marvels Ltd. Credit: "Credit: Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0". Commercial retailing website. Own content "Copyright 2024 © 7Marvels Ltd."
  • Adventure Clues Credit: "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0" Commercial travel services. Own content "Copyright © 2024. Adventure Clues. All Rights Reserved"
  • TNS Electrical Solutions Commercial electrical services. Credit: "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC BY-SA 3.0"
  • Thames Festival Trust. No visible credit. Charitable organisation. Own content "© Thames Festival Trust. All rights reserved."
  • Womanthology Credit: "Main image credit: By Diliff – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Main image credit: By Diliff – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19085420" Commercial magazine. Own content "Womanthology © 2024. All rights reserved."
  • Beachcombing Magazine No visible credit. Commercial magazine. Own content: "©️ Etched by the Sea Inc. Beachcombing is published by Etched by the Sea Inc. All rights reserved. All images are used by permission and are the property of their respective owners.

That's just one photo and just a google image search. Mostly being used according to the CC licence terms by commercial organisations who themselves keep their content wrapped up in "All rights reserved". Even a local electrician can get it right. A couple of uncredited uses but possibly those have reached an agreement with Diliff as has been his practice for many years. What I am seeing here, for just one photo out of 1500, is our free content repository working to offer free-to-use images even for commercial purposes by organisations who themselves are not generously offering any content as free-to-use (vs free to read, perhaps). Multiply this by 1500 and whether you are asking for deletion or ugly watermark banner, you would be seriously harming the chance of thousands of successful free uses of these images. Within our own project, the image is used on seventeen projects. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any user approached by Pixsy or similar organisations will immediately remove the photo as a first reaction, unless they want to tough it out with Pixsy, so you won't see them.
"reached an agreement with Diliff as has been his practice for many years." The people who posted on Diliff's page didn't get replies from him to reach an agreement. If they had it would have cast a completely different light on the discussion but I think he actually said somewhere he didn't check the page so didn't know they'd been trying to contact him. You could say I reached an agreement, with Pixsy, but it was only by refusing to pay their demands and, in preparation for a court case if it came to that, offering a small amount which I never thought they'd accept. To most people there is no way to reach an agreement with a photographer who uses Pixsy. Normanlamont (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search was not to find violating images. That's impossible to know as anyone could use Diliff's image without attribution by coming to an agreement privately with them. From past discussions, those using images for charitable/non-profit purposes are not charged. My purpose was to demonstrate that for just one image out of 1500 a very quick search shows up that his images are being used widely per licence terms and enjoyed by many people. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to those "past discussions" which indicate to you that charities "are not charged." Is that a statement by Pixsy, or by Diliff? --Enyavar (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PSpic.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Logo from a label CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

[edit]

File:NCAHP logo colour.png

[edit]

The logo of NCAHP used here is not genuine because government of India not released any logo yet. A state association has no right to display the logo of the commission. Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has not released any logo yet Citizen arindam (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has officially been used on a notice issued by the NCAHP secretary, uploaded on the website of 'department of personnel. I am attaching the link to the notice. You may also find it after searching "NCAHP notice" on google.
https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/Notice%20for%20Walk-in%20Interview%20for%20retired%20US%20and%20SO%20of%20CSS.pdf FlaminMongrel (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Pelzsalon Herbert Perschke, Wuppertal-Vohwinkel (Web-Einnäh-Etikett).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Wdwd as Logo Kürschner (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Ein einfaches Textlogo, nur Schrift, ohne schützenswerte Teile. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Es ist mehr als nur das Ist ein Foto mit kmplexen Hintergrund und Lizenz dazu fehlt.--Wdwd (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The question is whether the script font is sufficiently more individual than this uncopyrightable file to exceed COM:TOO Germany. Both use distinctive fonts, and I don't know what German jurisprudence on script fonts is like. Does anyone reading know? For the record, I do think that script font has more individuality, so absent any more relevant evidence, I'd support deletion as a precaution. I guess the other issue is, why do we think the photo is not copyrighted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia says: This logo consists only of simple geometric shapes and text. It does not reach the level of creativity (more specific description in English) required for copyright protection and is therefore in the public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, the image may still be subject toother restrictions. -- Kürschner (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the photo? Why would the photo not be copyrighted? Also, I did read at least a rough translation of the German-language discussion before I posted, but I'm not convinced the script font is uncopyrightable in Germany. Why are you sure of that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocus City Hall 2020 (uncropped).jpg

[edit]

How does the website of the Moscow region government from 2020 own the copyright to a photograph published in 2019 on VKontakte? Time Machine? License laundering? Engelberthumperdink (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Routes of Advance to Rhine River from Prum-Bitung Area - NARA - 100384467 (page 1).jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a de facto 1:1 duplicate of File:Routes of Advance to Rhine River from Prum-Bitung Area - NARA - 100384467 (page 2).jpg, only the map has a slightly different rotation. TheImaCow (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one is straighter; the Page 2 scan is rotated a bit. I would delete the other. Both are there on NARA, unsure if the bot would just re-upload or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyiv - Parlament 250502.jpg

[edit]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. The architect isn't yet dead for more than 70 years, so this building is unfree to be distributed under commercial licensing. Dozens of images of this building were deleted in the past: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Verkhovna Rada and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Verkhovna Rada building. Unsure if this is a reupload of File:Kyiv - Verkhovna rada.jpg, as both images were uploaded by the same uploader. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:LucyBarfield.jpg

[edit]

Dubious PD claim. If the author is unknown (as stated), it's not clear how we also know that the author died over 70 years ago (the reason given for saying that this image is in the PD). Hoary (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Hoary (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1947 was 77 years ago. Check this list out, List of countries' copyright lengths For UK it says "70 years if the author is unknown." This does fall under the UK's public domain laws btw, since this was taken in England. (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that TreeElf has changed the reason for claiming that the image is in the PD, I withdraw this nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one might be OK, but TreeElf has a history of uploading incorrect licenses it seems. Someone might want to sit down and explain copyright to user. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Researched this more. Seems like a delete maybe? The Guardian Gives this a citation of ownership etc, so author unknown is unlikely. I'm not too familar with UK copyright, so maybe it is OK because of age? But claiming it is author unknown seems deceptive. Ref: Article in the Guardian with this image ... Nesnad (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"Border Roads Organisation license"

[edit]

The requirement for accurate reproduction in the license is a non-free restriction on derivative works and fails COM:L. The GODL does not apply to names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s).

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiCompositeNumber Leaving GODL aside, the license of the department (https://www.bro.gov.in/index2.asp?slid=3746&sublinkid=28&lang=1) which is the same as the licenses of defence institutions in India allows free usage. Leoneix (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musa Rabile God.jpg

[edit]

The source site has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The rote copyright notices that appear on all websites only covers their original text. When they republish an historic image it does not restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bad Elster Das heilende Radon.jpg

[edit]

Das ist Werbung für eine pseudowissenschaftliche Therapie. Grassel123 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ist aber kein Löschgrund. --Achim55 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Foto ist keine Werbung für "Das heilende Radon", zumindest nicht in Wikipedia, sondern ein Blick in die reale Welt. Es gibt in Zentraleuropa 12 Radonbäder: "Ein Ursache-Wirkungsmechanismus, der eine mögliche positive Wirkung von Radonkuren erklärt, ist bislang nicht bekannt. Dennoch berichten Patienten von deutlichen Minderungen ihrer Beschwerden. Diese Diskrepanz zwischen subjektivem (Patienten)Empfinden und objektiver (wissenschaftlicher) Erklärung ist noch nicht zufriedenstellend erklärt." Sollten wir das in der WP verschweigen? Wenn wir alles Pseudowissenschaftliche aus der Wikipedia entfernen würden, wäre sie viel schlanker. Das Foto ist seit dem 22. Dez. 2017 in der WP und sollte dort bleiben. --Roderich Kahn (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wie die umworbene Therapie von Dritten beurteilt wird, ist doch für die Existenz der Bilddatei irrelevant.--Lysippos (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep The nominator's reason ("advertisement for a pseudo-scientific therapy") isn't a valid reason for deletion in this case of a photo taken in public space. I actually find it quite striking and interesting that radon therapy is still advertised that way (when at the same time radon is widely discussed as a cause of lung cancer), or at least was in 2017, when the photo was taken... It is an interesting document and in scope for Commons. However, there is the freedom of panorama issue no one has mentioned yet: What about the photo on the banner? To fall under German FoP, it must be located permanently in public space. The question is, how "permanent" is/was it? It does look like a banner that was placed there for a longer time, maybe for years, so FoP could be applicable - but I'm not sure. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Love Death and Robots Logopgn.webp

[edit]

Copyrighted content under wrong license 3dollarsinmybankaccount (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The text is definitely PD-text. I'm not sure about the three symbols; they might be considered PD-shape but it may be too stylized with the "blood splatters". 11icewing (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Cathédrale Saint-Paul Liège 04.jpg

[edit]

FOP in Belgium doesn't cover building interiors and this map is probably copyrighted. So the image should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Adamant1 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Tourist signs in Brussels

[edit]

Unfortunately FOP in Belgium doesn't cover building interiors and these signs are probably copyrighted. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoyle: Is that not a window with a building outside of it in the first image? Also it looks like the other two images are lit with indoor lighting. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The glass in the first image shows the reflection of a building and sign behind the photographer. Note the reversed text, indicating a mirror image. As for the second two, I can't speak for why that looks like interior lighting to you, but there are cobblestone streets and the weathering pattern on the signs clearly indicates they are outdoors. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's such a thing as cobble paths indoors. It doesn't look like the path or paint job on the wall has the weathering r wear and tear to be consistent with it being outdoors either. There's essentially zero weathering what-so-ever on either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The weathering is likely rust and can be clearly seen if you zoom in to the edges of the sign. Of course a wall and cobblestone sidewalk are not going to have rust (though there is other weathering to been seen if you zoom in). In addition, tourist signs like this are also almost always outdoors. The sign refers to a specific building, which would make the most sense to be placed outside the building in question. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your talking with the rust. If you look at the bar in the top of the first image some of the paint is chipped off and it doesn't look rusty underneath. It's not like that's the only kind of weathering anyway though or that rusting can't happen indoors. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you look at this image from Street View there's a sign almost exactly like this one inside of the building to the side of the word "personal" painted on the window. I'm not saying it's the exact sign, but they clearly have inside and the wall looks like it has the same yellow paint job. So it's not that much of a stretch. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you sent doesn't work. That aside, rusting happens WAY faster outdoors because of the salt and water and that weathering looks very much like rust. The color is right and the pattern of infiltration is right. Furthermore, yellow walls with light grey stone at the base and square cobbles are exactly what you find on the exterior of the Berlaymont Building (File:Brussels Schuman monument.jpg). IronGargoyle (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

[edit]

Template:Subst : delete3

File:Flag of Vicky France.png

[edit]

重複上傳檔案 上傳者提刪 Liao 509 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Flag of the National Committee for Maritime Security (Cambodia).jpg

[edit]

The previous deletion request was a mistaken attempt to have the file moved; with that issue sorted, the deletion request was closed, without considering the other issue raised. Brianjd (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous deletion request reflects the old name of this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the National Committee for Disaster Management (Cambodia).jpg.
In the previous deletion request, it was suggested that the file was a copyright violation. That should have been followed up on. If it is a real flag, it is likely a copyright violation that must be deleted.
It may not be a real flag. The file claims to be the uploader's own work. The uploader, Felipe Fidelis Tobias, describes themselves as:
I'm a Brazilian who makes flags, emblems, seals and coats of arms
A quick web search for 'National Committee for Maritime Security' does not reveal any images matching this file. This file is not in use. It does not even have a correct description: its description still says 'Disaster Management'.
So it may be a fake flag created by the uploader, in which case it is likely a file of no educational value that must be deleted. Brianjd (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:(Explicit Violent Content) Footage of bodycam of Israeli elite unit clearing the Nova music festival area on 7th October.webm

[edit]

uploader is not the owner; violation of personality rights Wickey (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently made by smartphone (see also the description). Even if it had been a bodycam recording, it should be considered a recording by a normal camera, as it can be directed to every arbitrary subject (in fact it is by default). Apart of that, it is a violation of en:Personality rights and even of moral behaviour. --Wickey (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. The claim that it's made by smartphone was added by another user and I don't find their argument about the shadow convincing: there is no shadow of the supposed smartphone. It's quite unlikely that a soldier would hold a smartphone in one of his hands in a situation like that. Alaexis (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this correctly? There are people who nominate photos for deletion because of shadows? --DanTD (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this seems different from a CCTV camera since it was a bodycam on a person. I would consider this for deletion.  Delete SDudley (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uploader was not the owner of the camera. Surveillance cameras as well as bodycams do have an owner. Recordings either from surveillance cameras or from bodycams are not automatically in Public Domain. Even if uploader had been the owner of the camera, it is doubtful if he had the right to publish it as PD on Commons. --Wickey (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. SDudley (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright tag tries to make us believe that a bodycam, unlike a normal camera, itself decides when to be turned on and off, which sites to film, which fragments to select and edit into a video (note the shots at the end).
Also, it was not a public event, but a privat event in a closed area. Wickey (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is COM:MDR btw. 3 files are included in this discussion.


File:Logo Globo 2005.png

[edit]

Conteúdo restrito Cosmo Skerry (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uma nova versão foi carregada sob conteúdo restrito: (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:RedeGlobo2005.png) Cosmo Skerry (talk) 15:54, 4 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:Brockton_Mckinney.jpg

[edit]

unused nearly private image - should be a film director (works available form "Brain damage films"), notability is not proven - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Image is low res and orphan. Per a quick Google, Brockton McKinney has a film availible on DVD from Amazon [7] and has been a name guest at a horror convention [8]. Whether he is notable enough to be within project scope I'll leave to someone who knows something about low budget horror films. Infrogmation (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentNote that upload is by User:Brockton01. Could this be self-promo?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • could this be really self promo?? - could be... - perhaps we should keep it as a typical gesture and behaviour of low budget horror movie directors.... :) I admit with a second look: this is so funny, that we should really keep it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Withdrawn by nom. sort of.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 11 June 2010 (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:Brockton Mckinney.jpg

Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good -- you will find that most of the time when there is a talk page, it's a {{Kept}}. Are you withdrawing your nomination here -- if so, I'll close it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't withdraw for the moment. I looked around another time at the internet and I don't think this person is notable at the moment. I still think this file doesn't belong to Commons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Grinder knows you have to bleed for your sport.

I think some images may find a use. Penyulap ☏ 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. per discussion. Geagea (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brockton Mckinney.jpg

[edit]

Which one of these pictures is the own work? 45.250.252.166 14:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per description, both. The briefly overwritten version, soon reverted, stated "Overwriting due photographers request. Same photographer, different file though." Different photo should be split off. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the photographer's permission? 45.250.252.166 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cauquenes Vineyards 2024.jpg

[edit]

Error que he hecho al momento de subir la foto. SudamericanoEkisde (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Si, debiste invitarnos una copa. Ya pasó el tiempo pero como no está usada la foto permitiré que la borren. 45.250.252.166 14:59, 4 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.

Files in Category:Kunstverein Konstanz

[edit]

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Martin Sg.,
Ich bin OTGO, der Künstler, und ich habe die beiden Fotos gemacht. Die Ausstellung in Kunstverein Konstanz war auch meine solo Ausstellung. Ich stelle die Fotos in Wikipedia Commons zu Verfügung.
Es gibt keinerlei Uhrherber-Verletzung.
Ich sende einige Links von meiner Webseite:
http://www.otgo.info/unendlich_otgo_kunstverein_konstanz.html
http://www.otgo.info/text/Andrea_Gamp_Synthese_aus_den_oeffentlichen_Fuehrungen_fuer_das_Archiv_OTGO_unendlich_Kunstverein_Konstanz.html
http://www.otgo.info/Werke/unendlich_4-15_by_otgo.html
Liebe Grüße
Otgo Otgo (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept two trusting COM:Otgo is who they say they are (can't hurt to send an email stating so to COM:VRT). Deleting the other because it's derived works and many other artworks that aren't by Otgo. Disagree with this closure? If one wishes to renominate this file, they are able to do so. This is my final decision on this nomination, so please do not take it to my talk page or ping me unless it’s technical issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Kunstverein Konstanz

[edit]

copyvio; contemp. artworks; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated these before, so please describe why you still think the uploader is not the photographer. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lieber @Martin Sg.,
Ich verstehe nicht mehr, warum möchten Sie es diese Fotos wierder löschen, obwohl ich schon 2021 alles erklärt habe. Vielen Dank liebe @Missvain, dass Sie mir helfen möchten. Ich habe seit schon einigen Jahren nicht mehr aktiv in Wiki.
Ich hoffe, dass die Fotos nicht gelöscht werden können.
MfG Otgo Otgo (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glasfenster (Münster Freiburg) jm3584.jpg

[edit]

copyvio, artist died in 2007; no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Museums in Zürich

[edit]

copyvio; contemp. artworks; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 16:57, 4 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:Touareg People Flag.svg

[edit]

counter-educational, personal work done by combining existing flag and symbol, and pretending to represent a part of the Amazigh people with no supporting source. Fanfwah (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use, although neither the description page nor the wp article have any sources to refute the DR. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touareg People Flag.svg

[edit]

The flag is derived from the file named the flag of Azawad, not Tuareg (an ethnic group living in Algeria, Nigeria, and Mali). This flag is based on a personal creation without any reliable source. Riad Salih (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this argument at all. Wikipedias make mistakes all the time. For most Wikipedias, there are fewer than a dozen (and often as little as just two or three) actually active editors. Why should Wikimedia Commons perpetrate falsehoods because of the choices of such a small group of people? Do you not see what a circular argument this is? People on the various Wikipedias see a file labeled as "Flag of X" and from that very fact infer that it must have been a flag of X. Then they propagate it across the various Wikipedias, which, by your logic, means that they can no longer be removed. This has resulted in numerous flags filtering down into the popular imagination as purported flags of various (especially historical but sometimes even modern) states/peoples. It's a recipe for disinformation propagation, and an excuse for passing the buck to someone else. This isn't the only flag like this; there are dozens if not hundreds uploaded by amateur """vexillologists""", if you can even call them that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an "argument"; it's a Commons policy. Read it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spreads disinformation. Brusquedandelion (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Photo at https://i0.wp.com/amadalamazigh.press.ma/fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/az9.jpg?w=622&ssl=1 shows usage of flag 73.75.170.176 00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion continues on User talk:Germenfer#Please stop making up flags, and as mentioned, Touareg and Azaoued are two distinct entities. Riad Salih (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyiv IMG 1309 (1320643164).jpg

[edit]

Does not appear to be de minimis to me; the copyrighted monument is at the center and is the intended focus, with no other substantial objects to accompany it and make it secondary. Same no-commercial FoP infringement as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kyiv - Motherland monument 250502.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I'm not so sure: this is a pretty wide panorama. It depends on how Ukrainian law handles these kinds of panoramas in which a huge statue takes up a small percentage of the picture frame but nevertheless greatly stands out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ikan Kekek it stood out, without accompanying buildings or other structures. Also, it is the only object of interest, as the adjoining landscape or hillside is barely noticeable due to darkness, making the statue the only substantial object of interest. It still has some independent economic value that may be detrimental to economic rights now held by the heirs of sculptor Boroday. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some other structures, but I said it greatly stands out. But this is a much less clear case than any of the other photos showing this monument that you requested deletion for on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prämonstratenserkloster Heinsberg.jpg

[edit]

low resolution of File:5981189.Erwin Quedenfeldt.jpg Carl Ha (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yfyyejgjwguj (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Obviously not own works. Some of these may be in the public domain, but proper source, date, author, and license must be provided.

Yann (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Thanks for adding the license, but I don't think these were "scans from the original work". I deleted 2 files. Yann (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add links to where found online "scans from the original work" is my default when removing that they took the image themselves. --RAN (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I noticed while merging items on Wikidata that File:Ned Parfett in military 1918.png is a duplicate with File:Ned Parfett.jpeg. –Samoasambia (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:PD-Namibia

[edit]

Abusive use of {{PD-NamibiaGov}}, which as the license states, is only for certain written works and speeches, and does not include photographs at all.

Darwin Ahoy! 22:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the licence text should be changed as it does not refer to "written works or speeches", it speaks about "work" in general. ("This work was created and first published in Namibia and is in the public domain because it is a work of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or an official translation thereof, or a speech of a political nature, or a speech delivered in the course of judicial proceedings.). This where the confusion comes from and that is why the images were added, as they are definitely "work of a legislative, administrative or legal nature". --Chtrede (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikola Borovic.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nikola Borovic kamp 2012.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Nikola Borovic and Milorad Mazic.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:FK Obilić , Pavlović, Borović, Filipović.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:FK Obilić , Nikola Borović.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Ognjen Blagojević , Nikola Borović , Nemanja Petrović.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove my photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Igor Radojcic.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove this photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Serbian referees.jpg

[edit]

I want to remove this photo from the web. Ilbravissimo011 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me also. Not an own work 186.173.142.219 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:DSC01921 - Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve (44084432204).jpg

[edit]

Flickrwashing. Photograph of a painting. The Flickr uploader is not the author of the painting. As can be seen here it is a physical object which exsists somewhere in Ottawa. You can't just take a picture of someone elses work and slap a CC license on it. Photo is also on the Governor Genral wesbite here and here which predates the file upload. The Flickr user also sort of admits it is not his work, despite trying to claim ownership. PascalHD (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Ethiopia circa 1300.png

[edit]

Reason: This map presents itself as historical but at best it's conjectural and should maybe be renamed alt history if it cannot be deleted, much like the other maps by User:Ingoman. As far as I can tell, the "Samalo" clans never existed, so their inclusion is probably in reference to "Samalee," the mythical progenitor of all Somali people. This is an attempt to claim the Rendile tribe of north-central kenya as Somali which, although they share related languages, is not culturally, religiously, genetically, or in any other way proven. This is a common trope of Somali nationalists such as Ingoman. Along with that, the "Balaw" sultanate never existed and the kingdoms that ruled the Eritrean coast included Bazin under that umbrella term. The Ethiopian Empire, Solomonic Ethiopia, Abyssinia, or Medieval Ethiopia are all widely accepted names in Ethiopian studies and historiography by the academic community. "Habesha kingdom" has never been used, even to refer to predecessor states such as Axum or Zagwe, and is likely a purposeful choice by the maker of this map to disassociate modern-day Ethiopia from it's previous governments or the region from the name "Ethiopia" itself. Likewise, the idea that the Ifat or successor states such as the Adal sultanate ever ruled the eastern tip of the Horn of Africa is completely false. Ifat was ruled by a Sultan in Zeila and was centered in that historic port city, with lang further inland stretching to the former central regions of the Shewa Sultanate, which they conquered, such as the Harar plateau. The Funj Sultanate also did not exist until centuries after this map is supposed to be set, and Alodia is often depicted controlling west of the Sudanese border. Along with that, neither did any sort of Afar state such as the "Danakil Sultanate," with the region historically being under the control of Ethiopian Emperors such as Baede Maryam. Gojjam also was never it's own separate kingdom. It was created as a province of the Ethiopian Empire. Likewise, the Beja kingdom of Bazin was not in existence until the 9th century, and before that the Bazin people were mentioned as being under Axumite rule in the Ezana Stone. The Beja Belew kingdoms were all destroyed at one point or another in the late medieval period, with the southernmost of those ruling central Eritrea being conquered by the Emperor Amde Tsion during the time of this map. The Damot kingdom never ruled that much land either, and the Doba kingdom was never a state, but more-so a clan or ethnic group of pastoralist people which today make up one of the patrilineal lineages of the Afar. They never had centralized leadership and were never mentioned until Baeda Maryam. These maps were known to be false and not based on Scholarly work as far back as 2017 (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people/Archive_2). These maps were known to be false and not based on Scholarly work as far back as 2017 (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people/Archive_2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorolaBoy (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Ethiopia circa 1420.png

[edit]

Reason This map presents itself as historical but at best it's conjectural and should maybe be renamed alt history if it cannot be deleted, much like the other maps by User:Ingoman. As far as I can tell, the "Samalo" clans never existed, so their inclusion is probably in reference to "Samalee," the mythical progenitor of all Somali people. This is an attempt to claim the Rendile tribe of north-central kenya as Somali which, although they share related languages, is not culturally, religiously, genetically, or in any other way proven. The Ethiopian Empire, Solomonic Ethiopia, Abyssinia, or Medieval Ethiopia are all widely accepted names in Ethiopian studies and historiography by the academic community. "Habesha kingdom" has never been used, even to refer to predecessor states such as Axum or Zagwe, and is likely a purposeful choice by the maker of this map to disassociate modern-day Ethiopia from it's previous governments or the region from the name "Ethiopia" itself. Likewise, the idea that the Ifat or successor states such as the Adal sultanate ever ruled the eastern tip of the Horn of Africa is completely false. Ifat was ruled by a Sultan in Zeila and was centered in that historic port city, with lang further inland stretching to the former central regions of the Shewa Sultanate, which they conquered, such as the Harar plateau. The Funj Sultanate also did not exist until centuries after this map is supposed to be set, and Alodia is often depicted controlling west of the Sudanese border. Along with that, neither did any sort of Afar state such as the "Danakil Sultanate," with the region historically being under the control of Ethiopian Emperors such as Baede Maryam. Likewise, the Beja kingdom of Bazin was not in existence until the 9th century, and before that the Bazin people were mentioned as being under Axumite rule in the Ezana Stone. The Beja Belew kingdoms were all destroyed at one point or another in the late medieval period, with the southernmost of those ruling central Eritrea being conquered by the Emperor Amde Tsion during the time of this map. The kingdom of Kaffas origin is disputed with many historical discrepancies, at the most it was founded in the 14th or 15th century as a ruling dynasty at the southernmost fringes of the Ethiopian Empire during that time, and the Doba kingdom was never a state, but more-so a clan or ethnic group of pastoralist people which today make up one of the patrilineal lineages of the Afar. They never had centralized leadership and by the time of Dawit I would have already been subdued by the aforementioned emperors. The Oromo people also would not have united for a common political or military cause until the 1520s (time of the second Dawit). The only accurate states are the Ajuran Sultanate and Rasulid Yemen, although I wouldn't doubt they have numerous inaccuracies as well. These maps were known to be false and not based on Scholarly work as far back as 2017 (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people/Archive_2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorolaBoy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |subpage=File:Map of Ethiopia circa 1420.png[reply]

File:Map of Ethiopia circa 1540.png

[edit]

Reason: This map presents itself as historical but at best it's conjectural and should maybe be renamed alt history if it cannot be deleted, much like the other maps by User:Ingoman. The Ethiopian Empire, Solomonic Ethiopia, Abyssinia, or Medieval Ethiopia are all widely accepted names in Ethiopian studies and historiography by the academic community. "Habesha kingdom" has never been used, even to refer to predecessor states such as Axum or Zagwe, and is likely a purposeful choice by the maker of this map to disassociate modern-day Ethiopia from it's previous governments or the region from the name "Ethiopia" itself. Likewise, the idea that the Ifat or successor states such as the Adal sultanate ever ruled the eastern tip of the Horn of Africa is completely false. Ifat was ruled by a Sultan in Zeila and was centered in that historic port city, with lang further inland stretching to the former central regions of the Shewa Sultanate, which they conquered, such as the Harar plateau. The Funj Sultanate also did not extend influece that far across south-eastern sudan at any point and time. It wasn't even half that size at it's peak centuries later. This is probably due to the maps creator conflating Funj with the modern Sudanese state rather than basing it on anything that actually existed during that time period. Funj actually sent tribute to Ethiopia in the form of produce and camels even during the Ethio-Adal war, and would continue to be a tributary during the Gondarine period. Along with that, neither did any sort of Afar state such as the "Danakil Sultanate," with the region historically being under the control of Ethiopian Emperors such as Baede Maryam. Likewise, the Beja kingdom of Bazin was not in existence until the 9th century, and before that the Bazin people were mentioned as being under Axumite rule in the Ezana Stone. The Beja Belew kingdoms were all destroyed at one point or another in the late medieval period, with the southernmost of those ruling central Eritrea being conquered by the Emperor Amde Tsion during the time of this map. The kingdom of Kaffas origin is disputed with many historical discrepancies, at the most it was founded in the 14th or 15th century as a ruling dynasty at the southernmost fringes of the Ethiopian Empire during that time, and the Doba kingdom was never a state, but more-so a clan or ethnic group of pastoralist people which today make up one of the patrilineal lineages of the Afar. They never had centralized leadership and by the time of Dawit I would have already been subdued by the aforementioned emperors. The Oromo people also would not have united for a common political or military cause until the 1520s (time of the second Dawit). The only accurate states are the Ajuran Sultanate and Rasulid Yemen, although I wouldn't doubt they have numerous inaccuracies as well. These maps were known to be false and not based on Scholarly work as far back as 2017 (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromo_people/Archive_2). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorolaBoy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for now. We keep even the most atrocious historical fan-fiction maps without any regards for truthfulness, as long as some Wiki considers it relevant. The rant above needs to be placed in a "{{disputed map|Do not use in any project, because of the following inaccuracies: ''yada yadda''}}" until it is no longer in use anywhere. Then  Delete. --Enyavar (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

[edit]

File:Indonesia Raya by Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra.ogg

[edit]

Copyrighted. The same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indonesia Raya by Victorian Philharmonic Orchestra.wav. Silencemen21 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scuola Francese - Coppia di ritratti femminili (2).png

[edit]

should be merged to File:Scuola francese, - Ritratti di belle (1).png because it is a duplicate Ecummenic (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scuola Francese - Coppia di ritratti femminili (1).png

[edit]

It should be merged to File:Scuola francese, - Ritratti di belle (2).png because it is a duplicate Ecummenic (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo jean.jpg

[edit]

The file seems to be lifted from jeandubepiano.org where photos are attributed to Allard Willemstad, whereas here the photo is assigned license CC BY-SA 4.0 with description “Jean Dubé en 2007 à Budapest” but a date of 16 January 2006, so it seems dubious. Betterkeks (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Jean Dubé and have uploaded this photo myself . There was apparently mistakes on my website, I have already answered you in french some minutes ago.. I can confirm that this picture has been made in 2007 in Budapest and is totally free of charge, it was a gift from the photographer ( who doesn not want to give his name). I have been using this picture since many years now and never had any problems with it. Piano6 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piano6: This still needs to be run by COM:VRT, but it sounds like the image should be OK because the original creator of the work (created in 2007) at some point in time (in 2008?) gifted you the copyright, after which you then as the new copyright holder of this work uploaded the image in 2017 under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
However, this also means you need to comply on jeandubepiano.org/photos with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license by giving appropriate credit and providing a link to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license to comply with its attribution conditions. For example, by using the Creative Commons license chooser to create the following plaintext to put below the image on your website: Jean Dubé in Budapest © 2007 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/, or the following HTML: <p xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><a property="dct:title" rel="cc:attributionURL" href="https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_jean.jpg">Jean Dubé in Budapest</a> is licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/?ref=chooser-v1" target="_blank" rel="license noopener noreferrer" style="display:inline-block;">CC BY-SA 4.0<img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""><img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/by.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""><img style="height:22px!important;margin-left:3px;vertical-align:text-bottom;" src="https://mirrors.creativecommons.org/presskit/icons/sa.svg?ref=chooser-v1" alt=""></a></p>‎. Betterkeks (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have lodged a request on the VRT Noticeboard to confirm the image is OK and does NOT need to be deleted, and to advise on what else needs to happen here. Worst-case: it DOES need to be deleted in which case you could just take a new photo of yourself (for example, using your phone) and upload that 😀 ... which will be a more recent photo and more real and therefore waaaay better. I created a category for you to make it easier: on your Wikipedia page under "External links", click on the hyperlink in "Media related to Jean Dubé at Wikimedia Commons", and then click on the "Upload media" hyperlink to open the "Upload Wizard". From there you should be able to upload images right from your phone. Best wishes, and sorry to have made trouble ... I was only trying to make sure we respect intellectual property. Betterkeks (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano6: do have a look at COM:VRT. Basically, there is a team that carries on confidential correspondence, and you can correspond with them to sort this out. I'm pretty sure it won't be a problem, but it will require a few emails back and forth. - Jmabel ! talk 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano6: The folks at COM:VRT can’t do anything until they receive an email from you with permission. Please email them with what you said above and take it from there. Betterkeks (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izaro Lestayo.jpg

[edit]

I don't think this is own work of the uploader, as claimed. This photo lacks the Exif metadata that would normally be expected in an original photo. It was previously published in 2019. I don't think we can keep this without additional evidence that this photos is freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer), either via COM:VRT or a with a link to the photo's free license (particularly since this appears to have been previously published elsewhere with a non-free license). —RP88 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KB-Bengali-Otobi.svg

[edit]

This layout no longer exists. (I am the author of this layout) Jihan (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roald Dahl signature.png

[edit]

This signature by British novelist Roald Dahl (d. 1990) appears to be a copyright violation. Per COM:SIG UK, typical UK signatures are eligible for copyright protection. Uploader claims that this image is own work, but file is identical copy of en:File:Roald_Dahl_signature.png, which is marked "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons". Copyright will expire in 2061 (1990 + 70 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:İçdaş Blokları - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

CGI of a construction project, probably taken from the constructor's website. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Moijejouemoijejoue (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These two files are sourced as "own work" but say "Crédit photo Sarah Salazar". Note that uploader also uploaded a Getty Images rights-controlled photo ID #1758455068 by Lyvans Boolaky with a claim of own work, so it is unlikely the uploader is Sarah Salazar. I don't think we can keep these two photos without additional evidence that they are freely licensed by the copyright holder (usually the photographer), either via COM:VRT or a with a link to the photos' free licenses.

—RP88 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle Urban Hike - Physics Books at University of Washington Book Store (1797565938).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work - book covers probably over the threshold of originality.
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion of the TOO-issue. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep the cover design appears to be below the threshold of originality in the US see COM:TOO US. This depends on where the first book with this cover design was first published. The books are listed in w:en:Course of Theoretical Physics; I have not investigated all of the volumes and editions, but it is probable that this design was introduced in the first volume of the series. The first volume was Mechanics, and this has had three editions: 1, 2 and 3. The 3rd edition had this cover design, and was published in 1976 in "Oxford, Boston, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New Delhi and Singapore".[9]. As this includes Boston we can apply COM:TOO US, which is more permissive and more clearly documented that in most or all other jurisdictions. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biểu trưng SCTV.png

[edit]

File:Biểu trưng SCTV.png AnVuong1222004 (8) (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AnVuong1222004 (8) (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Skipodip (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The uploader claims that the source for these photos is "own work" with a CC0 license. This seems very unlikely, as the photos of Leslie Townsend are circa 1930. It might be possible to determine that these photos are in the public domain with a correct source and photographer..

—RP88 (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks for taking a look at these files. I noticed you added a UK copyright tag, but did not add a US copyright tag. Is that because you think they are still protected by US copyright? Under your theory that these photos are PD-UK-unknown with a circa 1930 publication date (i.e. on or after 1926), wouldn't their US copyright have been restored? That would make these photos protected by US copyright until 2026 (1930 + 95 + 1). —RP88 (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Meret Oppenheim

[edit]

No FoP in Italy. The table was designed by Meret Oppenheim, a prominent artist who died in 1985. Italy counts with a standard of life + 70 years. The table is rather well known. Suggest to undelete in 2056.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep it is just a table, industrially produced, so it falls under Commons:UA--Sailko (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UA makes a difference between US law and other law. In Italy for example there is no FoP and a certain degree of creativity and artistic quality must be met in order to be copyrightable. (Chapter Copyright, p.3). In my opinion and I believe many modern surrealist artists who were inspired by her as well that table has enough creativity and artistic quality to be copyrightable. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your opinion doesn't seem to match the general approach of the community to the UA matter, see for instance the discussion about Libreria Casablanca, which is the reference case we usually recall whenever a similar item photography is proposed to deletion, especially a European one. I can list many images saved according to that, for this reason I generally upload images of industrial designed objects safely. --Sailko (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Young Diosdado Macapagal.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Copyvio (copyvio); Change to regular DR, because: older image but unknown date; Should be discussed maybe we could keep this image. Wdwd (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by I am VN123 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Vietnam.

Phương Linh (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have learnt that these are not allowed to be uploaded. Can you delete these for me? Thank you. I am VN123 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women's Cricket Team of Growth Sports Academy J&K (Kupwara).jpg

[edit]

Direct copyvio from https://growthsports.org/gallery/ The website states an all rights reserved copyright. Acabashi (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IS in Sinai.jpg

[edit]

Not the uploader's work. Screenshot from IS video Viii23dawari (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne Chevalier 1935.jpg

[edit]

This file, showing a postcard published ca. 1935 by German publisher Ross-Verlag (part of "Ross Groß-Filmbilder", series 7), was uploaded with the bogus license tags {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} and {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}. The photo was taken and published in Germany, so the Japanese license tag does not apply. The German license tag does not apply as well because it can only be used for works published under special circumstances (works published by a specific type of corporate entity) which is not the case here. As a postcard published in Germany ca. 1935, the image is a also protected in the US until the end of 2030 (because of the URAA).

The photographer is named as Jaeger. That would be Walther Jaeger, a photographer based in Berlin who was the author of many Ross postcards in the 1930s. I couldn't yet find dates of birth or death for him, but I did find him in the Berlin phone books from 1929 to 1961, so he was apparently still alive in 1961. Which means the photograph is still protected in Germany at least until the end of 2031.

The file should therefore be deleted. It can be restored 70 years pma of Walther Jaeger, but not before 2031 (because of the US copyright). Rosenzweig τ 12:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree deleting this file. --ねこの森には帰れない (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Srafelball55 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

There is no FoP in Costa Rica. The bust has no verification of the creator and having been erected in 1984 per this there is no permission from the creator. The musician sculpture is claimed to be by a person called Emilio Sanchez but it is entirely unlikely this is the same person in this article w:Emilio Sanchez (artist) as there is neither mention of him making sculptures nor of any connection with Costa Rica.

Refer to VRT Ticket:2024022610012498 from the photographer.

Ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Safety posters (4582631858).jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The large poster is by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is in the Public Domain. I can crop it (overwrite) and COM:revdel the original photo. -- Ooligan (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MUTCD R1-2 (alternative dimensions 2).svg

[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugal road sign D11c.svg

[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portugal road sign D5c.svg

[edit]

Non-existent traffic sign and creator was also a sock puppet of the globally banned User:Jermboy27 איז「Ysa」 15:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:APStewart-Hail Purdue Closeup.jpg

[edit]

This image is taken from Joseph L. Bennett's 1986 book Boilermaker Music Makers. It is not the work of the uploader and, as far as I can tell, is not in the public domain. gobonobo + c 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Katholische Kirche St. Josef (Matzingen)

[edit]

There is no FoP for interior spaces specifically for churches in Switzerland. The Church was inaugurated in 1972 and the architect was Alfons Weisser who died in 2016, so I suggest to undelete in 2087.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Jane Fonda holding pear.jpg

[edit]

Unclear that the copyright has actually lapsed, as the uploader does not know who created this photograph, only providing an eBay link with minimal information. And because it appears to be tightly cropped, we don't know that there was no copyright marking. I think we need more information about the origin of this photograph before we can declare that it's copyright free. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bestbeat - Dejan Lalić- 5 (white edit).jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation? This photo is on many websites, for instance on https://boettger-management.de/beatles-coverband-buchen/. So I doubt whether this is "own work". JopkeB (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yamato 1941 colorized.jpg

[edit]

No evidence that the colorisation has been released under a free license Loafiewa (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which colorization? The blue sea? Got nothing else to do? Keep. 45.250.252.164 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It quite clearly says "digitally colorized photo" in the bottom left. Loafiewa (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marriage and coronation of King Babar and Queen Celeste.jpg

[edit]

Not PD in the United States yet. The first book was renewed in the US see Commons:Character copyrights. First published in French in 1931, but not published in the US until 1933. Not certain as to which year we use for the case of this deletion. We definitely need to add an in deletion date since it would be in the next decade. SDudley (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your grandfather was not born in 1931. 45.250.252.164 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I don’t understand the point of your comment. It seems to have no bearing on the deletion at hand. SDudley (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not ones grandfather was alive in 1931 has no bearing on US copyright terms, which are clear in this case (and for the record, both of my grandfathers were alive in 1931)  Delete Undelete in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but anybody could understand that I was referring to the age of the book, not anybody else's... By the way why are you not disturbed about "French-US"? I think French is not a country name even for Trump or Biden. 45.250.252.164 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Histoire de Babar, le petit éléphant was published in France in 1931. An English translation (The Story of Babar the Little Elephant) was published in the US in 1933. If we assume that this publication was made in compliance with all US formalities (notice, and renewal, which is the case according to Commons:Character copyrights), it is protected for 95 years after publication date, i.e. until 1st January 2029 (see COM:HIRTLE). So it is not in the PD in the US. Note: this should affect all the files in Category:Histoire de Babar. BrightRaven (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
R265890 for The Story of Babar, the Little Elephant, so it did comply with the formalities SDudley (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bobby Bonilla Pirates.jpg

[edit]

If I'm reading the source page correctly, this is an unlicensed baseball card, which might be why the uploader marked it as published without notice.

Based on other cards, the photographs appear to be professional. The original photographer or organization still holds the copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "unlicensed" means they did not get rights to use team names, logos, etc. on the cards (i.e., did not license the trademarks). They also would not have licensed the personality rights from the players or the union.[10] Strictly speaking, that would not affect the copyright if the photo itself was used with permission from the photographer, which it would have to be, in order to be legal at all (the "unlicensed" does not mean illegal -- they just avoided the use of team logos and names on the cards). If there was a copyright notice with the cards, they would still be under copyright, and if not (and they were from before 1989), they would be public domain. These were companies trying to compete with the one company who got the exclusive contract from the league to use logos, I think -- nothing illegal about them. I would find it hard to believe they would use unlicensed photos. The source shows the full front and back, with no notice. It's possible if they came in a pack that the notice could be elsewhere, but seems probably OK at first blush. It would be best to upload the full back and full front and overwrite with the crop so the evidence is here permanently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is marked with a copyright here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All (published and distributed) copies had to have a copyright notice. If half did and half didn't, you still lost copyright. Courts ruled that if only a "relative few" copies lacked notice, copyright was not lost, but I think all examples were in the low single digits of percentage. In this case, that status would only apply to the portion on the card; the wider crop that you found would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways,  Keep from me as it appears to be a valid 1988 publication of the photo without a notice. If a registration of the photo was made, that would change things, but we'd need to find it. I don't see anything offhand (closest is a 1992 artwork portrait of Bobby Bonilla). "Unlicensed" baseball cards were ones that had to compete without showing team logos and names, but they were completely legal, and the copyright aspect should have been as normal. The fact that some other copies had a notice doesn't change this not having one, unless you can show only a couple percent of copies had no notice. We can only upload what is seen on the card though, not the fuller photo. Might not be the worst thing to have the full front and back also uploaded, though they are probably in general findable online to verify lack of notice, if the source site goes away. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a registration of the photo was made, that would change things, but we'd need to find it
They are probably in general findable online to verify lack of notice, if the source site goes away.
With all due respect, the burden is on you to do that research, not me, per COM:EVID.
With regards to the current card, I still see no proof that:
  • there wasn't a copyright notice on the card or packaging (it isn't clear from the scan we can see the whole card and we can't see the packaging at all).
  • this was an authorized reproduction and
  • this was widely published (I can find nothing else about this publisher, so that's not clear IMO)
All in all, with all due respect, I believe the burden of evidence fails on copyright grounds for this card on several fronts. The fact that I found it was published with notice somewhere, while you have done only a cursory search to find that maybe this one without notice is not enough to prove this can be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want proof of something that isn't there -- that's not the policy. You can't prove a negative. I did a search on registrations and came up empty. If you do a search and find something, then that would change things, but then post that evidence. I think we assume most publications are authorized. There's no proof of that on most anything we do (postcards, etc.). This was a company that was in business; they would likely have been sued out of existence had they used photos without a copyright license. Baseball cards tended to be pretty widely published, not sure what is in doubt here. There would likely be far more copies sold as cards than autographed photos. As mentioned on the Village Pump, notices tend to be on the cards themselves. There is ample room to put them on the card -- and it's not clear that a notice on the packaging would matter; a court did rule that a notice on a book did not cover the dust jacket. A painting *with* a notice, but not visible, was also ruled invalid. Putting a notice on something designed to be discarded would likely not be valid. Searching on these find several collectors sites on the series such as this. All due respect, everything you listed above is theoretical doubts. The uploader provided a link to a full scan, both sides, of a published work with no notice, distributed before 1989. That is what we require. If you think there is an edge case which applies to this, then that needs to be explained (and shown). You could argue that there's no proof this wasn't first published in Canada or Colombia or wherever if any tiny aspect can have doubt thrown on it. COM:PRP is for significant doubts. We go on the best information we have, and this seems to be a straight-up case of a baseball card published without notice. The law explicitly states that copyright is lost once more than a relatively small number of copies are distributed without notice -- hard to fathom that not being the case here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NARACoverSheet DiscordianSociety.gif

[edit]

en:Principia Discordia was not made by the US Government and is likely copyrighted Veverve (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

[edit]

File:Pavilhão Russia - Expo Dubai 2020 (51613195170).jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates A1Cafel (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Really? :/ I've uploaded many pavillions
Today I'm on a hurry, but tomorrow I can send them to deletion on a bacth.
Sorry for this. Sintegrity (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sintegrity no choice, copyrighted works of art and architecture found permanently in public spaces in U.A.E. cannot be hosted commercially; COM:FOP UAE states the law only permits commercial distributions through "broadcasts", not through photos.  Delete the image here unless U.A.E. changes their obsolete law not fitting to Internet and I.T. age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files from File:Visit of Josep Borrell to Agadez, Niger 06-07-2023 (1).jpg

[edit]

Twitter post has no indication of CC-BY-SA license for this photo. Borrell works for the European Union but cannot assume EC-Audiovisual Center CC-BY license applies

// sikander { talk } 🦖 03:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert @Sikander: . The photo was posted by the official twitter account of Borrell, and is reported as owned by the Commission also by other reputable media, e.g. Politico. The media advisory about the visit states that "Audiovisual footage of the visit will be provided by Europe by Satellite". The EbS website features the original picture, and to its right the link "copyright" points to CC BY-SA 4.0. I am thus fully confident that the EC license CC-BY does apply. --Dans (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dans: Ah OK, it's good that the same photo is on AudioVisual website. However the copyright section on the page states "Scopes: Information and education only" and EC staff has confirmed that files with that restriction cannot be licensed as CC-BY-SA. Unfortunately this file and cropped images will have to be deleted. // sikander { talk } 🦖 12:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks @Sikander: ; are you saying that that "scope" implies an additional NC condition, incompatible with Wikicommons? I find it legally flimsy that an additional sentence on the website would be enough to derogate the overall EU copyright regime of CC BY-SA and the Commission's reuse policy. I cannot access the VTRS ticket you mention on the other page. --Dans (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dans: Yes, that is my understanding of the the legal notice which states: "Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), content owned by the EU on this website is licensed under CC BY 4.0."
I don't have VTRS access either (maybe someday I will apply :)) and the email response from ec.europa.eu (with VTRS team cc'd) stated, "if the scope information remains at it is, the image is in deed disqualified for a publication in Wikimedia, which requires a free license such as cc-by-sa-4.0." Regards. // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:176thAirControlSqdnRadar.jpg

[edit]

The file is an image hosted on the website of 176th Air Control Squadron. Its EXIF documentation stated that it is photographed by Mark Farmer and provides a dead link to his personal website. According to his archived resume there, at 2005-05-09, he was a freelance photographer instead of an US Federal Government employee.

As only works of US Federal Government employees made for official duties are in U.S. public domain, it is likely that Mark Farmer still holds the copyright for his works. Unless we can reach out to him to obtain an explicit free license, the file is copyrightable and likely to be unfree. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:الخماسي الخطير 💯 💪.png

[edit]

this *seems* like a generic personal out of scope image, but given the stated subject matter am opening a deletion request on the slim chance this is actually a real organization Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not an own work, to begin with... 200.39.139.14 17:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mixalakopoulou.jpg

[edit]

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, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:DivingAt2004SummerOlympics-1.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Caron état civil.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gyrostat as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Scan of an official document, not own work. |source= No copyright, but why is this useful for Wikimedia projects? Yann (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medri Bahri.png

[edit]

Reason: I don't know if this should be deleted, merged with FIle:Mereb Melash.png and used as a redirect or if there are any other options but the person who created this map made it believing the Medri Bahri was a separate polity from the Ethiopian Empire. I created my own version with it as a region of the larger state not realizing this. I don't think I can add my image from 8 days ago to this one and overwrite the article seeing as I didn't create it and would have to ask for permission, but that would mean I have to get that upload deleted otherwise there would be two, no? So this image is both mislabeled as the area is called Mereb Melash on English Wikipedia and it is not an actual historical kingdom so the image is false. The only time it could have been considered independent is during the Ottoman conquest of Eritrea when the leader Bahr Negus Yishaq sided with the ottomans but they had already set up a base in Massawa and taken control of surrounding environs so that makes this map's territory false, along with that it's supposed to be based on the regions extent in the 1520s (on the eve of the Ethiopian-Adal war, which according to most sources, the Medri Bahri either remained a part of the Ethiopian Empire or assisted their Muslim foes during. MotorolaBoy (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dervish somali flag.webp

[edit]

Reason: Not only is this image not in use, which I have informed disqualified files from being put under the criteria of speedy deletion, but every aspect of it is patently false. First, the Dervish state was never referred to as the "Huwan,' nor was it split in two. that name belongs to the arid region in between Ethiopia and the De-facto independent state of Somaliland, which is only one part of the territory controlled by the Dervish althugh this is due to edits by another user and wasn't on the original map. Second, it was never as large as this, nomadic in nature and centered in the deep interior of the Somali peninsula, they were able to threaten Ethiopian controlled Jijiga to the east and British controlled Berbera to the north but took neither. The rebellion was strictly centered in a landlocked region and didn't border Dire Dawa or Harar to the was, nor did it have a perfectly straight border to the north as is shown.. A more accurate map of the Somali Dervishes would be something such as File:Somali Dervish Map.png, File:Mullah.PNG, or File:Beesha Daraawiish (Dhulbahante).png which were created by User:Axnooqabonooh, who seems to have exclusively uploaded content related to the Dervish in the past. On top of all that, the map is misnamed as "Somali Flag," when the veracity of the other flag upload is debatable. Much like other images by creator User:Joshuamatt20 such as File:Oromo migration.png, File:Dervish Somali flag.png, and File:Ajuran Empire map.jpg‎, this map should be deleted as it isn't based on historical evidence but rather personal research and has multiple flaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorolaBoy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ajuran Empire map.jpg

[edit]

Reason: Not only is this image not in use, which I have informed disqualified files from being put under the criteria of speedy deletion, but every aspect of it is patently false. First, Ajuran was never referred to as the "Ajuuran Empire,' which is why that name was removed from the Ajuran Empire's English Wikipedia page. Second, it was never spelled "Ajuuran," just "Ajuran" or the Somali spelling of "Ajuuraan." Third, many of the cities shown on the map do not date back to the Ajuran state at it's peak. Finally, the Ajuran state never extended that far north along the Somali coast and this image has it's western border as far as harage or Bale in Ethiopia, which conflicts with all historical sources in regards to Ethiopia or Adal. That is a mistake on the map of the polity on the wikipedia page too. A map such as File:Ajuuraan & Adal map.png which was previously in use would be more accurate. Much like other images by creator User:Joshuamatt20 such as File:Oromo migration.png, File:Dervish Somali flag.png, and File:Dervish somali flag.webp, this map should be deleted as it isn't based on historical evidence but rather personal research and has multiple flaws. MotorolaBoy (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afriqueest05.gif

[edit]

Reason: This is just the Turkish version of File:Ajuran Empire map.jpg, which is already not in use (what I have informed disqualifies files from being put under the criteria of speedy deletion) but every aspect of it is also patently false. First, Ajuran was never referred to as the "Ajuuran Empire,' which is why that name was removed from the Ajuran Empire's English Wikipedia page. Second, it was never spelled "Ajuuran," just "Ajuran" or the Somali spelling of "Ajuuraan." Third, many of the cities shown on the map do not date back to the Ajuran state at it's peak. Finally, the Ajuran state never extended that far north along the Somali coast and this image has it's western border as far as harage or Bale in Ethiopia, which conflicts with all historical sources in regards to Ethiopia or Adal. That is a mistake on the map of the polity on the wikipedia page too. A map such as File:Ajuuraan & Adal map.png which was previously in use would be more accurate. Much like other images by creator User:Joshuamatt20 such as File:Oromo migration.png, File:Dervish Somali flag.png, and File:Dervish somali flag.webp, this map should be deleted as it isn't based on historical evidence but rather personal research and has multiple flaws. MotorolaBoy (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Paptilian (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope screenshots of personal project.

William Graham (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Céško.png

[edit]

Low-quality cropped screenshot of letters. It has no value, especially since we have much better images covering the topic. Filipny (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pow Wow 2016 Wendake in Quebec Canada.jpg

[edit]

Dieses Bild habe ich versehentlich ein zweites Mal auf Wikimedia geladen. Es ist bereits vorhanden unter File:Pow-Wow Wendake Canada 2016.jpg Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Uploader says it's a duplicate, but it's still COM:INUSE at en:Dance in Canada as well as some Commons pages. --Rosenzweig τ 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rosenzweig, yes I know. But I will replace thé crurent image with the duplicate - File:Pow-Wow Wendake Canada 2016.jpg Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better do it now, or the file will probably be not deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ImaViking (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Logo of a band

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EifachBEN Hauptbild.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Seems suspectly close to its picture on the Sony website https://www.sonymusic.ch/eifachben-veroffentlicht-seine-neue-single-ozean/ CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gibão de prata.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: The band is marked as the author CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ImoteSokoli (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These files, showing drawings of Croatian kings and dukes, were apparently taken from a web site named as njuškalo.com, which is probably [11], a Croatian web site where stuff is sold. Something like Ebay or Amazon Marketplace perhaps. So they're probably taken from some book, map or print sold there, but that book/print/whatever is not named, so there is no proper source for the images.

They're said to be from 1925 and were uploaded with {{PD-US}} tags. While they most likely are in the PD in the US if published in 1925, they don't look like they are from a US publication, so that is not enough, they also must be in the public domain in their source country, presumably Croatia. If the artist who created these died after 1953 (entirely possible), they are still protected by copyright in their source country.

The files should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle unless we get proper and satisfacory information about the actual source and author and it is demonstated that they are in the public domain in their source country (or under a free license).

Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kaykrause (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio: Pictures for music albums

CoffeeEngineer (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Fotos sind beide von mir persönlich und dem Ensemble IOCULATORES aufgenommen worden. Kaykrause (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aber haben Sie die Rechte? Wenn Ja, könnten Sie ein OTSR Request öffnen bitte: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator]? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sapung cartoon.svg

[edit]

In retrospect, the image does not add any encyclopedic value Psubhashish (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arba Kokalari, Member of the European Parliament.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio (c) Stavros Tzovaras M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the author is not Moderate Party of Sweden. Delete. 200.39.139.14 21:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carte départements France.png

[edit]

This map has a bad projection, a wrong title, and is an unused file. Damouns இ 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

[edit]

File:Sherman Block, 1986.jpg

[edit]

This file is not Sherman Block: the UCLA Library misidentified the person in the photo. Here is a 1985 photo of Sherman Block (second from left) in the Los Angeles Times: https://www.newspapers.com/image/401442627/ Here is Sherman Block on C-SPAN in 1992: https://www.c-span.org/person/?22585/ShermanBlock Here is Sherman Block in 1996 from Getty: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/los-angeles-county-sheriff-sherman-block-portrait-inside-news-photo/1924917837 OCNative (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicommons has a 1984 photo of Sherman Block: File:Sherman Block, L.A. Co. Sheriff.jpg OCNative (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a reason for deletion. You can request for it to renamed to the correct person. reppoptalk 01:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If the person shown can be correctly identified and is notable, image can be renamed. If the person shown cannot be identified and the photo does not seem notable for any other reason, I support deletion - I see no reason to keep a picture of an unknown man with inaccurate description. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Infrogmation. If we can identify who this person is, and if he is notable, then I will withdraw this deletion request. There is no reason to have this photo of an unknown man with an inaccurate name/description. OCNative (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan Usawi - sina.jpg

[edit]

This is very clearly not a PD-textlogo Trade (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade what would qualify as a PD-textlogo? genuinely asking as I haven't found a good description.
apart from that, just to be sure, do you know about the Sitelen Pona script? I thought that these qualified as they are simply a piece of text over a gradient (although sina is more complex). thanks in advance. Juwan (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Azikiwe in London.jpg

[edit]

Even if John Franks died the day he took this picture in 6 May 1957 this photo would be still protected by copyright (1957 + 70 + 1 = 2028). Without a date of death for John Franks, I think the best we could do is {{PD-old-assumed}}, which means we could undelete this photo in 2078. —RP88 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, it was a public domain work and It was not registered nor published with a copyright notice by the author. MikeJanetta (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be in the public domain the copyright has to expire. John Franks is a UK photographer, this photo was taken in the UK, and per EXIF this image from Getty was originally a Keystone Press Agency photo (an early 20th century London based photo agency) so this photo is very likely a UK work. The copyright term in the UK is life + 70 years (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom). Per COM:L, Commons requires a work be in the public domain the source country of the work as well as the US. —RP88 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CPI Neki Imeri.jpg

[edit]

Mangelnde Informationen über die Person. Muss überarbeitet werden, mit neuem Foto und entsprechender Lizenz. PellazguIlir (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neki Imeri CEO.jpg

[edit]

Mangelnde Informationen über die Person. Muss überarbeitet werden, mit neuem Foto und entsprechender Lizenz. PellazguIlir (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcela Hernando.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work since this is the only image by this user and includes the cropped version. There are plenty of good photos of her, so this should be deleted out of caution. SDudley (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tren de mercancías (San Miguel de Allende, Gto.).jpg

[edit]

Redundant Juan Carlos Fonseca Mata (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:大西町章.png

[edit]

File:大西町章.png is a duplicate of File:Emblem of Onishi, Ehime (1971–2005).svg OperationSakura6144 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 南京东路 Nanjing East Road am walk March 2024 R12S 208.jpg

[edit]

Better version: File:O-Bank Nanjing Fuxing Branch 20240407.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DQS AuthorizedReseller2 wht.svg

[edit]

Untersteht dem Urheberrecht gemäss Impressum der Unternehmung: https://www.dq-solutions.ch/de/unternehmen/impressum 84.226.14.139 12:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case: Are the specially styled letters "DQ" above COM:TOO or not? --Achim55 (talk) 17:07, 7 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:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 南京东路 Nanjing East Road am walk March 2024 R12S 237.jpg

[edit]

Too blurry photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: midling but more than good enough to be used at medium thumb size as illustration. No similar views of this hotel seen in quick look at category. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 南京东路 Nanjing East Road am walk March 2024 R12S 237.jpg

[edit]

Better version: File:Green World Grand Nanjing 20240407.jpg Solomon203 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spade laser incrociate.svg

[edit]

This is a copy of File:Dueling lightsabers.svg which was published before in the public domain. Cody escouade delta (d) 14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Флаг цыган.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Flag of the Romani people.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boletus edulis Poland Swinoujscie.jpg

[edit]

bardzo słaba jakość Zwiadowca 21 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KutahyaEskiBBKamilSaracoglu.png

[edit]

Serbest telifli bir dosya olmadığından hızlı silinmeli Emreculha (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brighton Road Station.jpg

[edit]

Was uploaded as own work, with source as "own", and 2015 date, but that was bogus. 1928 image by named photographer with unknown death date. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Stonehenge.jpg

[edit]

Uploaded here in 2007 with a claim that it is a work by the UK government but lists the author as a registered company, Stewart Bale Ltd, Liverpool. Our source at IWM confirms the photographer as the company but makes no claim that it was created for the government. Looking online for other photos of this submarine, I found a record at National Museums Liverpool saying a photo of this sub is Copyright Stewart Bale Commercial photographer. Whether that NML copy is the same image or not is unclear, but this is a definite statement that Bale held a private copyright. The next question is whether this is an image by Bale (as suggested by NML) which would produce copyright of life +70 or of his company (as suggested by IWM) which would produce copyright of creation +70 (with a publication right of first publication +25). This isn't a clear cut case, so any thoughts on this one? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have an English Wikipedia article at en:Stewart Bale, which shows it is the name of a photo agency. Without the name of a specific photographer, it should probably be classed as {{PD-UK-unknown}}. That would mean UK copyright protection should have expired on 1 January 2014. First publication is more problematic but if the main archive for Stewart Bale is at NMS (per the enwiki article) and IWM have obtained a separate copy, it was likely published close to the time of creation. That would mean US copyright of publication +95 years is likely to expire on 1 January 2039. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Stewart Bale was a well known commercial photographer in Liverpool.[12] They were based in a tiny street at the back of Watson Prickard's, just behind the Unmentionable Building, but ceased trading in the early '80s. I would keep this one, per Hill to Shore, as 70+ years from 1943. Also note that the head of the company at this time, Edward Stewart Bale, died in 1944, so pma+70 also leaves it clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

[edit]

Files uploaded by Sweety1090 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These images depict derivative images from a nearly 2 year old banned sockpuppet user. The source flickr account cited is full of flickrwashing images Does {{PD-Egypt}} apply here from such a dubious source. The uploader was warned about flickrwashing here Film posters may be covered by {{PD-Egypt}} which is why I am not nominating them.

Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiffanyhenyardinga.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted official photograph GMGtalk 11:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kingraam.jpg

[edit]

Questionable own work claim. Low quality file without a metadata, only 45KB. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Tinniswood & Blodwen Tinniswood.webp

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Randykitty as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copied from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-68741070 which has a copyrigth statement at the bottom of the page. Yann (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:42-International Quds Day march-Yazd-راهپیمایی روز جهانی قدس- یزد.jpg

[edit]

COM:FOP Iran HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MG 5 EV (EP22) 1X7A6210-cleaned.jpg

[edit]

there is same pict with Q-assessment, that I unfortunately overlooked Wikisympathisant (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ZDW23 Soft Walls Marie Schumann Simone Züger x Christian Fischbacher & Co 02 FotoGCH.jpg

[edit]

pissble copyvio Foto: Gabriela Chichiero (as in German "Zurich Design Weeks") Lutheraner (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

[edit]

File:Coat of arms of Christopher Coyne, Coadjutor Archbishop of Hartford 2.png

[edit]

Incorrect editing. Linestamp (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it and why can't it be fixed? You can just upload a new version. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Liang (2023).jpg

[edit]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I submit proof of consent to upload this photo? TansoShoshen (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norodom Suramarit.jpg

[edit]

Anonymous work from Cambodia has a copyright length of 75 years A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norodom Suramarit (crop).jpg

[edit]

Anonymous work from Cambodia has a copyright length of 75 years A1Cafel (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Upload campaigns

[edit]

This page claims to list "photo competitions and other upload campaigns" but in fact lists nothing. Perhaps it would do fine merging into the UploadWizard campaign functionality page? Bedivere (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Cade Stiles (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright violation? All three photographs were not made by the uploader (they have different names), the source is unclear (red link) and I do not see a VRT ticket.

JopkeB (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tantu beats interview 2024.jpg

[edit]

no permission from given author in metadata which clearly states "Author Videographer: Aaron McMurtry Copyright holder Copyright: 2013" Hoyanova (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in contact with the artist/photographer of this picture and they have released this on CC CC0 1.0 Universal so it should be good to go? What should be done to make this allowed to stay? Definiteassembly117 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author and photographed it together with my partner. The accurate credits should be:
Author Videographer: Brenda Narvaez Copyright holder Copyright: 2024"
I'll gladly change this if needed! Supertje123 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Exif data about Aaron McMurtry 2013 was Exif data that apparently was tied to the camera that was used. It's incorrect and as I said, the correct data should be: Author Videographer: Brenda Narvaez Copyright holder, Copyright: 2024. Supertje123 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnneJoliot.jpg

[edit]

this vidéo is protected by "droit d'auteur" - not free https://www.canal-u.tv/conditions-generales-utilisations Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vous vous trompez. Cette photo a certes été prise le même jour que le tournage de la vidéo Canal-U (chaîne cultureGnum) https://www.canal-u.tv/chaines/culturegnum/temoignages-d-anne-et-pierre-joliot-institut-de-biologie-physico-chimique. Si les vidéos obéissent en effet en droit d'auteurs à l'URL que vous indiquez, les photos sont prises de manière tout à fait indépendante, dans le cadre de l'association que je préside, responsable de cette chaîne. Je suis moi-même indépendant de Canal-U, responsable de cette chaîne cultureGnum, et il se trouve que parfois, nous utilisons dans le cadre de Canal-U des photos que nous avons prises. Conformément à ce qui précède, j'ai mis cette photo moi-même sur WikiCommons en cc-by-sa. Merci de laisser cette photo, dont je me porte garant. Arrakis (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[suite] ce que décrit très bien la phrase suivante, extraite des conditions générales d'utilisation que vous donnez ci-dessus (https://www.canal-u.tv/conditions-generales-utilisations) : "Par conséquent, elle [FMSH |Canal-U] n’est pas cessionnaire des droits sur les Contenus." Arrakis (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arrakis: Bonjour, L'auteur mentionné est Quentin Censier. Merci de vérifier votre identité via COM:VRT/fr. Yann (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Il n'y a pas lieu de faire cela. J'ai indique l'auteur de la photo, parce qu'on indique toujours l'auteur, mais c'est dans le cadre de son contrat avec notre structure cultureGnum, propriétaire des images, que je préside et mets sur WikiCommons (facture QC et courriel du 23 octobre 2021). C'est exactement comme ici (Pete Souza) ou, plus près de nous, là. --Arrakis (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:12 Q di cuori.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 16:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cumbaca.jpg

[edit]

Sorry my bad English... This file contain a draw from Christian Lütken (in public domain: file:Franciscodoras marmoratus - Lütken 1875.png) but... the photo was reuploaded in minor resolution! User made only this upload, with Portuguese errors in description. So, in doubt, I submit here. Tks. André Koehne TALK TO ME 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

[edit]

File:1872 Presidential Election in Ohio by county.svg

[edit]

Unused and already has a svg file 2600:1009:B061:DF52:7590:FC48:39AF:BD3C 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please identify the suggested duplicate  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Total Solar Eclipse - Bowling Green, OH.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot per Metadata, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken from a screenshot of a video that was captured on April 8, 2024 by me. Source video can be provided alongside video metadata. MultiEditor03 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please look to better record this information in the file's source section. At this stage we just have metadata that says screenshot which often can be seen to conflict with the label {{Own}}.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Herbert Sutcliffe card c1930.jpg

[edit]

Unclear whether it being a cigarette card is sufficient evidence for it being anonymous. Anonymous or not, "c. 1930" is insufficient to escape URAA restoration as a British post-1928 image. Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are both sides of the card. The series was released in 1928 (which would make URAA moot) and the cards do not credit any individual photographers, so anonymous photographer is not unreasonable. There are some instances where the photographer was identified (a few of the political or celebrity ones here, but the backs of the cards aren't shown to see if the photographer was credited or later identified), but generally, I'm not finding photographers identified for J. Millhoff & Co. cigarette cards (this cricketer series, funny animals 1 and 2; by contrast, artists are clearly ID'd in the company's art series. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed research! I agree with everything you are saying. While I don't really use the anonymous copyright tags for my own uploads personally, seeing the back of the card is definitely sufficient to withdraw my nomination. Felix QW (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per nominator. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 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:S garvezys1.jpg

[edit]

mistakes in description Yuri937 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S garvezys1.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Obivan Kenobi as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Tcr25 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file information should be corrected. The image is derivative of File:С (чертеж 1).gif, which was taken from a 1984 issue of Моделист-Конструктор magazine. The archived version of the magazine doesn't credit the original source, but File:Rospars.gif includes the same base schematic attributed to 1925 documentation from the Sormovo Locomotive Works, which produced this engine from 1910–1918. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuri937: please note and act,  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

[edit]

File:MOJO 2 liters.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. The logo visible on the bottle is copyrighted. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a logic. So without the brand name how could readers understand the brand? Why don't you try to delete this similar Coca Cola image file too? There are many similar images in Wikipedia. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0098_-_Coca-Cola_glass_bottle_(Germany).jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Threshold of originality. This particular logo contains some complex graphics which pass Threshold of originality. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giumaiolini - Partial Solar Eclipse - Brazil - 2007 (by).jpg

[edit]

Scaled-down dupe of File:Partial Solar Eclipse - Brazil - 2007 (1363366141).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jasmine Rae - Heartbeat (Official Music Video).webm

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Champion as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Copyvio, uploader does not appear to represent copyright holder Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep (The user reverted my removal of the speedy DR pls make a normal deletion request if any: the youtube channel is "The Official Youtube channel for [...] Jasmine Rae") Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you don't think my rationale does not meet the speedy deletion criteria per COM:CSD section F1? Champion (Talk) 12:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, like I said, the youtube channel that uploaded the video with the CCBY license is the official Youtube channel for Jasmine Rae. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant, unless the uploader of this file can prove they are associated with Jasmine Rae in some way. Champion (Talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep https://www.jasminerae.com/videos embeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4RKrJO01A which is the file in question here, and which on YouTube has a CC-BY license. Additionally, https://www.jasminerae.com/ has a link to https://www.youtube.com/jasminerae1 and https://www.youtube.com/jasminerae1 lists the handle as @JasmineRaeMusic which matches this video. Dhx1 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case the official website https://www.jasminerae.com is in question, the label stated is ABC Music and their official page for the album at https://www.abc.net.au/abcmusic/jasmine-rae-heartbeat/13923958 also embeds the file in question here, and this embedded YouTube file has the CC-BY license on YouTube. Dhx1 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This states the album is copyrighted, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Champion (Talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright owners can release work under multiple licenses at different points in time. Perhaps when the album was first released, there was only an agreement in place with ABC Music to be the exclusive distributor for CD sales and online digital music shops with no ability to grant other licenses, for a period of X years, with Y% royalties paid back to the copyright owner(s). Later on, one track of that album is then separately released by the copyright owner(s) with a CC-BY license on the official YouTube channel, hypothetically to try and increase brand awareness, market the remainder of the album, market a new album, market a tour, etc. By releasing a single track with a CC-BY license, the copyright owner(s) may have hoped that famous YouTuber's would reuse the music on their videos watched by millions of people, and some subset of those viewers using the -BY condition of the license then seek out the source of the music to find other similar (non CC-BY) music they can purchase, or discover that there is an upcoming tour they can purchase tickets for. Dhx1 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just hypothetical, until it is proven by the creator and the copyright holder, it doesn't matter. Champion (Talk) 02:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is hypothetical about the official website *and* the label both embedding and linking to the exact video in question that is CC-BY licensed on YouTube? Dhx1 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even need that since we can infer that a channel that clearly appears to be the official channel and uploads new videos of the artist with that video having that license for a long time is indeed the official channel and indeed deliberately licensed that video that way. Somebody would need to provide at a minimum indications that this isn't the case for such a DR to make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alex Blokha (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 11 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:Modirahul.jpg

[edit]

What is the purpose of this comparison pictures? These are two different individuals. They are not gay, not a married couple. Why are two pictures pinned together? Who are the copyright owners of these two different pictures and then combined together to form one single image. The owner of the picture is not the copyright owner of the two images or even one image being made. There is a political vendetta and image falsification. This is against Wikipedia and WIkimedia rules and regulations. Please delete this image if copyright information has not been provided. Thanks. 122.171.23.43 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep. In use, copyright is documented at the source Flickr page. It is, in fact, possible for two men to appear in the same photograph without being a married couple. Please stop making disruptive deletion nominations for photos of these people (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:RahulModi.jpg). Omphalographer (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Modirahul.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image of right is available on Wikipedia under different author and license with VRT permission. Can't be termed own work just by making a collage type. See File:Rahul Gandhi.jpg. The image on left is also on Commons. Yann (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original images may be or may not be free, we don't know, but it is unlikely that Global Panorama is the author. We need the source of each original images. Yann (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete One thing is confirm that Global Panorama can't be the author since both the images come from different sources. Also the image of left (Modi's) is from Modi's Flicker and on right (Rahul's) is allowed after VRT permission. When orginal images are seen, one was uploaded under 3.0 and other under 2.0. Then how can the uploader release it under a single license and claim that it is their work. If I take two images from internet and combine them or make a collage, that doesn't mean that I get the rights. ShaanSenguptaTalk 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The conversation seems to indicate that the work is a derived work that has two images that are able to be used. The discussion seems to be about appopriate licensing, and the conversation may be better at Com:VP/C, see Com:Collages too.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Substantzia ezberdinen mol bana 2.png

[edit]

The original Flickr uploader credits a different photographer than what the metadata on Flickr says the photographer is. The Flickr page looks like license laundering to me. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the original uploader of the image. I took it from flickr and edited it, thinking that it was under creative commons. If there are licensing problems please delete it. Julen Artano (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julen Artano: It is a derived work so please follow the protocols for that. Often the easiest way is to upload the original that can be held, and then point your derived work at the upload.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

[edit]

File:《宣統皇帝朝服像》.png

[edit]

1.此图像裁剪自附有电脑字体的现代粗劣伪作。
2.上传者声称此图创作于1908年4月2日，但彼时溥仪年仅2岁，亦未成为皇帝，绝不可能是图中青少年皇帝的形象。
3.经检索，此文件的来源指向了一个欺诈性网站。
4.上传者在上传此图后，旋即在多个语言的维基百科的“溥仪”条目中引用此图，有施行破坏和传播欺诈网站的嫌疑。 注荼 (talk) 02:39, 12 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:Aprilsnar 2001.png

[edit]

Image from a Danish newspaper in 2001. Nothing indicates that the uploader is the copyright owner. grillo (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture in 2001 with my Pentax SFX model 1988 roll film camera. April 9th 2007 I scanned and uploaded the picture. You're right that it has been in a Danish newspaper later. AFAIK it was the tabloid B.T., and the scumbags didn't give credit to Wikipedia. --Necessary Evil (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understood it as this picture was taken for the 2001 article and then scanned from that article. Maybe I should have noticed that the quality seems to be better than can be accomplished from newspaper scans though. Maybe the image description needs a source though, because there seems to be some debate whether this was a simple april fool's joke or a marketing ploy in form of an april fool's joke by Gevalia. /grillo (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it involves a lot of red tape (and I don't mean the cordon) to place a supposedly strayed subway car in the middle of the town hall square surrounded by loose tiles. It involves a lot of planning, but I don't know how involved the journalists were. I'll guess it's "a marketing ploy in form of an April fool's joke by Gevalia". The story was told in a newspaper, but I don't recall if there were any pictures. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can publish photos of artwork in Denmark, see Template:FoP-Denmark. Danrok (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: If anyone thinks this is also a FOP case, please renominate it, but the concern about ownership has been answered. –⁠moogsi (blah) 11:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aprilsnar 2001.png

[edit]

No FoP for 3D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, the company has been contacted for consent. Necessary Evil (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:TV Cello (1966).jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP US, photographs of 3D art taken in the US are considered copyrighted Adeletron 3030 (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I should add, the photograph was taken at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosinger Wappen.jpeg

[edit]

FAKEWAPPEN OHNE QUELLENANGABE UND RELEVANZ Rovere (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is also a copyright violation, its obivous not from a historic book, but a new painting, artist or source not mentioned. --Rovere (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Die Relevanz der Finanzdynastie Rosinger dokumentiert eindeutig der Videomitschnitt einer Ehrung für Herrn Gregor Rosinger und den Finanzkonzern Rosinger Group durch Frau Outi Slootboom, Direktorin der Generaldirektion der Europäischen Kommission, auch hier wird das Wappen in einem von der Europäischen Kommission zusammengestellten Vorstellungsvideos mehrfach gezeigt. Das Video dauert ca. 6 Minuten und ist hier zu finden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbUn-V0peE8
Weiters dokumentieren eine Reihe von Veröffentlichungen von Wertpapierbörsen, usw. eindrucksvoll die Relevanz der Finanzdynastie, z.B. auf der Wiener Börse - bitte Indexkapitalisierung mit mehr als 3,7 Milliarden Euro im Link beachten - der Rosinger Index Rosgix https://www.wienerborse.at/indizes/aktuelle-indexwerte/uebersicht/?ISIN=AT0000A1YXV6&ID_NOTATION=201653404&market=wbag&typo3=0&news=0&products=1&cHash=cdbff4ea6b23263826687f0e2b12576f oder https://www.wienerborse.at/listing/boersegang-ipo/capital-market-coach/rosinger-group/
Es ist verständlich, dass ein gänzlich anders orientierter User wie Rovere (dessen bürgerlicher Name bekannt ist) sich in Ortschaften wie z.B. Drasenhofen oder in der Bezirksstadt wo er 1972 geboren ist, besser orientieren kann als in der Finanzwelt, dann muss er aber auch die Größe haben zu seinem Nichtwissen zu stehen. Wallstreet Fighter (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Löschantrag ist zu daher unverzüglich zu entfernen. Wallstreet Fighter (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wir sind hier nicht bei der Wikipedia, folglich ist das dortige Relevanzprinzip nicht entscheidend. Hier gilt: Ist die Datei von einem Copyright geschützt? Ist die Datei vom Projektrahmen gedeckt? COM:PRP und COM:EDUSE. Selbst gemalte Fantasiewappen sind in der Regel nicht davon abgedeckt. Die Beweislast hat der Hochlader.--GerritR (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Geschäftswappen ist schon viel länger in Verwendung als dieses Wappenbild (die Finanzdynastie geht auf das Jahr 1530 zurück). Das Fotografierte Exemplar ist Teil einer Serie, die 1919 zur Ausstattung von weiteren Geschäftsstandorten gemalt wurde. Der deutsche Wappenmaler (Name mir nicht mehr in Erinnerung, als Kind hatte mir mein Großvater diesen aber genannt) hat 1919 somit etwas bereits bestehendes und lange im Geschäftsverkehr verwendetes nachgemalt/vervielfältigt. Der Urheberrechtsschutz ist somit schon seit vielen Jahren abgelaufen. Somit kann sich nur die Frage nach dem Urheberrechtsschutz der Fotografie des Wappenbildes stellen. Der Fotograf des hochgeladenen Fotos bin ich und ich habe dieses zur Verwendung freigegeben. Wallstreet Fighter (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn Du Dir die obigenen Links (wo Du gemeint hast, das sind nur Relevanzen für Wikipedia) ansiehst, dann ist der Beweis für die geschäftliche Relevanz der Rosinger Group als einer der bedeutendsten Finanzkonzerne Europas erbracht (und zwar durch eine Aussage der Europäischen Kommission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbUn-V0peE8 ). Ein altes Geschäftswappen ist so etwas wie die Urform von Logos, Du findest das im Bild dargestellte Geschäftswappen sowohl auf Websites der Rosinger Group in Verwendung, z.B. auf www.rosingerfinance.com (gleich im obersten Foto der Startseite siehst Du das fotografierte Wappenbild in einem Rosinger Besprechungsraum hängen) oder auf www.gregor-rosinger.at ganz oben auf allen Seiten, usw.
Dass Logos von bedeutenden Finanzkonzernen für Wikimedia relavant sind beweist z.B. das Logos der Alchemy Partner ( File:Alchemy Partners logo.svg), somit ist es nur logisch, das fotografierte Wappenbild in Wikimedia zu behalten. Wallstreet Fighter (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Aus der obigen Diskussion geht hervor, dass keinerlei Urheberrechtsverletzung vorliegt, weil der Urheberrechtsschutz seit 1919 längst abgelaufen ist. Ebenso wird im Youtubelink oben sogar über eine Laudatio einer Direktorin der Europäischen Kommission die Relevanz und Marktführerschaft des Finanzkonzerns Rosinger Group und die Verwendung des Wappenbildes sogar auf Veranstaltungen der Europäischen Kommision dokumentiert. Würde diese Datei gelöscht werden, müssten logischerweise alle Logos von Finanzkonzernen, Banken, usw. gelöscht werden, insbesondere von solchen, die niemals von über jeden Zweifel erhabenen Institutionen wie der Europäischen Kommission für ihre Marktbedeutung ausgezeichnet wurden. Nachdem dies kaum praktikabel und sinnvoll ist, ist die Datei in Wikimedia Commons zu behalten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstreet Fighter (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Хрэстаматыя па беларускай народнай музычнай творчасці.pdf

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gleb Leo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Compilator's copyright of this book Yann (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no author's work in this document --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danmark.jpeg

[edit]

Sourced from the 17:34, 7 October 2006 version of File:Christian III of Denmark.jpg, should be a redirect Nutshinou Talk! 13:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChatGPT Homepage.png

[edit]

Copyrighted image with Windows and Google Chrome; Better to use it with PD Shapes on Linux (Such as Ubuntu), and a free as freedom web browser (such as Firefox). Alejitao123 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Icons in this screenshot are de minimis. The use of non-free software does not inherently make an image of that software non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Documenta 14

[edit]

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama.

ok; sorry. Martin Sg. (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Some of these don't show copyright protected artwork but buildings from the outside that are perfectly ok. Please check again! Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some on which no-one has commented on yet. This doesn't mean I have checked all, though. On the series starting with File:Documenta 14 Der Parthenon der Bücher bei Nacht 01.jpg there was an interesting precedent about the wrapped Reichstag by Christo, which then was deleted as well even though it was an exterior of a building. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

[edit]

File:Plaza Los Simios.jpg

[edit]

Además de que el título denigra a personas, que este también "título" se presenta en la misma imagen, y que la Leyenda de la imagen también es denigrante, no hay medio que acredite que la fotografía pertenece al autor mencionado. José Joaquín Cortes (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borrar, aunque fuese trabajo propio y cambiaramos el título, descripción, etc hay un "watermark" imborrable. Es vandalismo nomás. 186.175.83.192 23:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RM F32717 Rudolf and Rudolfine Menzel at dog show in Austria.jpg

[edit]

Лицензия указана ошибочно: снимок сделан в Австрии, основания для перехода в PD неизвестны -- Tomasina (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:София Тарасова 2020.jpg

[edit]

File:Pathwaytotherockies-csp.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Evrik as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Loganths42 Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PPC CSP.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Evrik as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: James.dinola Yann (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geo u18.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Daxipedia as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Georgian Rugby Union|1=Logo owned by the en:Georgian Rugby Union, without any permission of reuse. PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the federation logo is also uploaded on Commons : File:Georgian Rugby Union.png.
To see if the Borjgali, a Georgian symbol of the sun, and the design that makes up the copyrighted logo, is enough simple or not to be marked as PD-textlogo.
- Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 15:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a deletion request to this file. Let's hear others' opinions. Yann (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Avant-gardemoderni (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All derivative works Some might be old enough to have fallen into public domain but we'd need to know more about the original authorship of the photos.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:" Απο την εκπομπή Spiti me to Mega".jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: From Instagram according to the metadata CoffeeEngineer (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celldweller.jpg

[edit]

The copyright on this image seems peculiar. Through TinEye, I saw that a slightly higher resolution version in an old forum (https://psyhe-yoga.ucoz.ru/forum/28-96-11) was amongst a group of other images of Klayton (Celldweller), all of which are definitely copyrighted, with them being publicity shots from FIXT (his label) or stock images. The upload information doesn't have much to it either. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the original uploader's talk page, another Klayton/Celldweller image was deleted due to copyright issues. This upload and the OP don't assert or indicate that they represent Klayton and/or FIXT or that they took these images, so it's more than likely a copyright violation. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dzintars Latvia.JPG

[edit]

See notice at ru:Файл:Дзинтарс.JPG. No FOP in Latvia Nutshinou Talk! 12:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Dwaynep2020

[edit]

Implausible that the uploader owned the rights to all these graphics. --Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct license is PD-US-1978-89 1989 is the cutoff, ads need their own copyright notice and copyright registration if they wanted copyright protection, that ended in 1989. someone will have to check the copyright status of KETC newscasts. --RAN (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympia City Music Theatre "Maria Callas".jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot understand what is being discussed here. If one is to permanently destroy another contributor's hard work, one ought to explain themselves in all detail before doing so. L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L'OrfeoGreco: Please take some to read the following page before keeping on making assumptions about other contributors edits and intentions: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece#Freedom of panorama. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what FOP is, but this particular building has been photographed many a time by virtually everyone. Plus, just to be fair, if my contribution is to be erased, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympia_Theatre_Facade.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympia_Theatre_Facade_(27-01-2023).jpg are to be deleted as well.L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L'OrfeoGreco: Thank you for pointing these out. Just started deletion requests for the both of them. As for the rest, I am really sorry but this is not an argument that can be considered as valid on Commons. Seen like this, countless modern statues/sculptures could still be present on Commons, despite obviously and blatantly violating the local national legislation by doing so. 😕🤷‍♂️ See for more info the following page: Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L'OrfeoGreco to add the inputs of the two users here, per COM:Licensing, media files here should be freely-licensed, to the extent that commercial uses without licensing permissions from architects, sculptors, or their heirs are allowed. Greek FOP only permits "occasional reproduction" of copyrighted buildings and monuments by "mass media". Mass media = traditional media like broadcasters and film producers. The law does not allow photographers and content creators to freely use such contemporary landmarks for commercial purposes, something that is incompatible to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and CC-zero licenses that compel free commercial uses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment@OrfeoGreco: This is Commons and it has a set copyright prescription. Fair use is allowed at many Wikipedias, and they may be able to hold this image. Now would be the moment to upload a copy and the information template prior to its removal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Modern statue of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Statue Constantin XI Paléologue - Athènes (GRA1) - 2022-03-25 - 1.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Statue Constantin XI Paléologue - Athènes (GRA1) - 2022-03-25 - 2.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:20211105 athenes045.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Moyseio-texnis.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Athenian Capitol - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:HellenicMotorMuseum3.JPG

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Building of the George Economou Collection.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


What do you mean with "too recent" - do you have a year for me? --Rlbberlin (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlbberlin: I'd rather say early 2010s, according to this article. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 21:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only read in the article, that they opend the exhibition. I can't find information, about the building. --Rlbberlin (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grece2011-057.png

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Statue Damaskinos - Athènes (GRA1) - 2022-03-27 - 4.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted text material Yann (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue Damaskinos - Athènes (GRA1) - 2022-03-27 - 5.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted text material Yann (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmet Onal Kirikkale Milletvekili.jpg

[edit]

Dosyanın kaynağı belirsizdir ve kullanıcının kendi eseri olduğuna dair META veri bulunmamaktadır Emreculha (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

[edit]

File:Wulatelong holotype skull.png

[edit]

The source of this file is not Lü et al. (2015), to which CC BY 4.0 applies ; Lü et al. (2015) does indeed contain the Wulatelong skull, but it is not as high resolution as that file and has been edited. The source of this file is presumably Xu et al. (2013), to which the Creative Commons license does not apply. ノボホショコロトソ (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URL: Lü et al. (2015), Xu et al. (2013) --ノボホショコロトソ (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not an expert, but the Arabic text on this alleged flag doesn't look right - none of the characters are joined up properly. Omphalographer (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic is fine... -- Ayesha46 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "own work" apply to the illustration and not the design though? NorthTension (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looks too simple for copyright, likely PD-text or PD-textlogo could apply. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it is still unsourced. PizzaKing13 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayyildiz Movement flag.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Ayyildiz Hareketi (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 10.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 9.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 8.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 7.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 6.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 5.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have to put a DR down for literally every individual file NorthTension (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 4.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurdish Hezbollah flag 3.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, cannot be an "own work" and user cannot be "copyright holder" if it's the flag of the Kurdish Hezbollah (which, again, is not sourced) PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Mahdi Army.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, "Protest" is not a source PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State – Iraq Province.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, "Publications" is not a source PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State – Sham Province.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, "Publications" is not a source PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Islamic State – Kurdistan Province.svg

[edit]

unsourced image, "Publications" is not a source PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Anti-Terror Units.svg

[edit]

empty file, not a "flag" PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Iraq (proposed).jpg

[edit]

unsourced file, not an "own work" if its purportedly a proposed Iraqi flag PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Kurdish White Flags (variant).jpg

[edit]

unsourced file, not an "own work" if its purportedly the Kurdish White Flags PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Kurdish Ansar al-Islam.svg

[edit]

unsourced file, not an own work is purportedly the logo of Kurdish Ansar al-Islam PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:پرچم جنبش شاخ.jpg

[edit]

not an own work, unsourced file PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shia Kurdish Flag.jpg

[edit]

not an own work if its purportedly the "Shia Kurdish Flag", unsourced file PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an invented flag. 186.175.93.156 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fadayeen Islam Flag.jpg

[edit]

unsourced file, not an own work if its purportedly the "Fadayeen Islam" flag PizzaKing13 (talk) 10:11, 14 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:MILAD ZOHREVANDI IN MARTINI AWARDS - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg

[edit]

because i am selling the licence to the persian magazine to use it. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion as the license can not be revoked. --Jarekt (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2018 (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:MILAD ZOHREVANDI IN MARTINI AWARDS - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg

[edit]

i did a cosmetic surgery and i don't want to share my previous look with people. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded it. Removing historical images would be rewriting history. Heavy Water (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to publish this photo anymore. Dreamlandwiki (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want to sell it? 186.173.129.198 07:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep as per my rationale at this request. Contributers2020Talk to me here! 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. In fact, the request should come from Zohrevandi via VRT if it is a violation of personality rights. But the photo was taken in a public space. Ruthven (msg) 13:28, 28 February 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:MILAD ZOHREVANDI IN MARTINI AWARDS - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg

[edit]

Own work claim is not valid. OTRS Is needed. 181.43.5.243 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: procedural close, 1 of 2 open requests for this image, per previous keeps. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:MILAD ZOHREVANDI IN MARTINI AWARDS - میلاد زهره وندی.jpg

[edit]

Subject: Formal Request for Removal of Personal Photo from Wikimedia Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this message finds you well. My name is Milad Zohrevandi, and I am writing to you regarding a matter of privacy and personal representation on Wikimedia. It has come to my attention that there is a photo of me hosted on Wikimedia which I find unacceptable and violative of my privacy. The photo in question does not accurately represent my current appearance due to personal reasons. I have undergone cosmetic surgeries that have significantly altered my facial features, rendering the photo obsolete and misleading. As such, I kindly request the immediate removal of this photo from Wikimedia. I understand the importance of maintaining accurate and respectful representations of individuals on public platforms such as Wikimedia. However, in this instance, the continued presence of this outdated photo undermines my right to privacy and misrepresents my current physical appearance. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request that the photo be removed from Wikimedia as soon as possible. If any further information or verification is required to process this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at milad.zohrevandi@yahoo.com. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Milad Zohrevandi Dreamlandtv (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sassari-Stemma-it.png

[edit]

No author and no source have been specified. It is also unlikely that it can be licensed under GFDL. Horcrux (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG version does exist: File:Sassari-Stemma.svg. --Horcrux (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sassari-Stemma-it.png for a previous DR where the file was kept. --Rosenzweig τ 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papan Nama Keraton Ratu Boko.jpg

[edit]

I uploaded this image back in 2019 using my full legal name and I want this image to be deleted for privacy reasons. This image also has no value whatsoever, it's just a sign. thank you in advance :) 103.3.220.70 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

[edit]

File:Mohamedu Shitta Mosque.jpg

[edit]

The original image in the in public domain. We don't have permission for cc-by-sa for the digital restoration. Either the restoration didn't add additional originality and is in the public domain, too, or the image has to be deleted. Krd 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions regarding this image: A thread at the English Wikipedia and a thread here. Felix QW (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep it's probable that the "restoration" was mere cropping, but in any case the uploader is the person who did that, and they uploaded the results themself, as CC by-sa. This is a bad deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The thread discussing this on English Wikipedia can be found at en:WP:MCQ#Can a PD picture be put back into copyright? (the link added above is incorrect). The uploader has been indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia for making legal threats, but they still can edit on Commons. They were advised by quite a few people at WP:MCQ that this needed to be discussed on Commons, but they never never did even after a discussion was opened at COM:HD about this file. The uploader hasn't denied uploading the file under the CC license, and their main issue seems to to do with how they're being attributed in Wikipedia articles where the file is being used. The uploader wants to be attributed directly in the file's caption, but this is contrary to en:MOS:CREDITS. When this was explained to the uploader, they started accussing others of piracy and demanding Commmons either compensate them for using the image or delete the image. If someone wants to delete this as courtesy just to put an end to the drama once and for all, I don't think that'll be any real loss since an uncropped version of the same image was subsequently found and uploaded as File:Prince Oyekan - Oba of Lagos and others, photo by Neils Walwin Holm, 1894-2.jpg by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out - I have now also corrected the link in my previous comment. Felix QW (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delting this file - which is in use on multiple projects - would indeed be a "great loss". The face of the individual in question is obscured by a printing error or damage in the lower-resolution alternative version to which you refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying both the usage and quality of the file. It seemed possible (at least) to me that a new crop could be made from the larger image, but that might not be the case. FWIW, I think the uploader is just unhappy that the file isn't being attributed as they like and their posts requesting its deletion are sort of en:WP:PRAM-like. I don't think there's a valid COM:L or COM:SCOPE related reason for deleting the file; it should only be deleted as a courtesy to the uploader if that's what the community decides it wants to do in order to put an end to any drama associated with the image. I do think that the uploader's claim of copyright over the crop is a misunderstanding of copyright law, but in some jurisdications this might not be so clear. Commons policy, however, seems to largely follow en:Bridgeman v. Corel in that a slavish reproduction (including a crop) of another image isn't sufficient to generate a new copyright for the reproduction. Given the way the file is currently licensed and attributed to the uploader (at least the restoration part), I think it's probably not a problem for Commons to keep this if that's what the community decides to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy deletion applies to unused files only. This one is used at the moment. Ankry (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ernst Enzensperger.jpg

[edit]

The artist of this 1950 painting, German painter de:Rudolf Schlichter, died in 1955, so it is not in the public domain in Germany yet and also still protected in the US. The file should therefore be deleted. It can be restored in 2046 (URAA). Rosenzweig τ 15:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the uploader now claims in the image description that the author is Enzenberger himself – which is hardly plausible, Enzensberger was not a painter.
In the edit commentary, they claim it's uncertain if Schlichter was the author. But that does not mean that the painting is "anonymous" or similar. Even if the artist's name were not credited in the original publication, that does not mean we can treat this as an anonymous work under German law, because pre-mid 1995 German works of the bildende Künste, like this one, cannot be anonymous or pseudonymous works because the old German copyright law, still relevant in these cases, said so. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. So the file should be deleted. Per [13], the book it was taken from was published in 1951. So the file can be restored in 2072 with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. --Rosenzweig τ 09:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seweryn Krajewski XII KFPP (1974).jpg

[edit]

No publicatior and publication date - pd-polish and pd-anon doesn't apply. 178.37.205.142 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Repubbliche Marinare.jpg

[edit]

The gaeta coat of arms is copyrighted from the site araldicacivica.it, which has a license for their coat of arms which is the CC-BY-NC-ND. Not compatible with Commons. Source here: https://www.araldicacivica.it/comune/gaeta/. Ashoppio (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dmytro kotsiubailo.jpg

[edit]

No evidence that twitter account content is under the same license as https://www.mil.gov.ua/ . No evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it's pretty much the same case as the templates "Mil.gov.ua KPSZSU Twitter" or "Mil.gov.ua 831stTAB FB" (except that there is no specific template for the DefenseU Twitter page yet), where there is also no apparent explicit statement that these social media accounts have the same license as the website to which the works are attributed. However, I have asked the Ukrainian MoD to clarify whether this license extends to their social media accounts, so hopefully they will respond. ToKroCZ (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other images from that account have this template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UA-exempt maybe this license template should be applied Kontekstowy (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gone With The Wind trailer (1939).webm

[edit]

If it was promoting a 1961 re-release of the 1939 movie Gone with the Wind, then the trailer is not a pre-release. Rather this was derived from the film, twenty-two years after its initial release.

Furthermore, the trailer contains copyright notice of the movie itself. Well, the font is yellow and more modern yet still traditional, meaning that the credits from the film weren't used.

Also, the film itself was renewed for copyright in 1966 or 1967, several years after the trailer. As a derivative of the film, the film's copyright must apply to the reissue trailer. Another DR discussion (of unrelated reissue trailer) and COM:PRP should apply, despite the file's status as a Featured Medium. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: the film's copyright lasts until 1 January 2035 (or 31 December 2034), ninety-five years after the film's first release. Oh, and just found the film's copyright renewal. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per [14] and [15], all US trailers released before 1964 required a separate copyright, therefore these scenes used in the trailer fell into public domain. Also, the copyright renewal states "a photoplay in twenty-six reels", which means it only applies to the film itself, not related promotional works. --Mayimbú (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From first link you cited: if they contain no copyright notice. However, this trailer contains the copyright notice seen at 0:15 or 0:16: "©MCMXXXIX by Selznick International Pictures, Inc." Using the film's copyright on the reissue trailer would mean the trailer is still a (later) derivative of "a photoplay in twenty-six reels". How else do you explain that? Also, COM:DW should apply to this trailer, and the second link you cited refers to only pre-release trailers lacking copyright notice.
Hmm... Links about derivative works seem interesting: this and that... and that. George Ho (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, you've majorly contributed to the file, right? George Ho (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have uploaded separately the original 1939 trailer. — Racconish 💬 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one you reverted back to isn't the pre-release "original 1939 trailer" as you asserted. It's for one of 1990s or 2000s re-release. The trailer has this: "Back on the big screen in a breathtaking new restoration". This means the trailer was promoting one of the film's re-releases. Also, it has this copyright notice at the end: "© 1939 Turner Entrainment Co."
    Furthermore, the fades between clips are too highly advanced and too modern to consider the trailer very old. Look at the graphics, fonts, and so forth. George Ho (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed and deleted. — Racconish 💬 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

[edit]

Files uploaded by ChSePe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These photos are very unlikely to be own work of the uploader, as claimed. If the uploader is actually the copyright owner of one or more of these works, I think they'll need to follow the procedures at COM:VRT.

—RP88 (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Тупые.jpg

[edit]

alleged copyright infringement . https://dzen.ru/a/YFRyb1N5HgIbhelm - The photo belongs to Mikhail Grushin, there is no information about free licenses. Miikul (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Sinclair.jpg

[edit]

Lacking photographer permissions and details. The photo predates the upload date of 2023, as shown in articles in 2021 or 2020. In addition, the upholder has been editing content on the David Sinclair English Wikipedia, suggesting this is individual is probably not the original photographer. A tag for deletion should be applied unless details and permissions of the original photographer are provided. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The metadata is there and it looks okay from a general perspective. That it is used elsewhere is not the sole determiner. That the user has a conflict of interest in the articles could be said to lead to credible association with the photographer. I am inclined to leave it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raghava Lawrence.jpg

[edit]

The image is way older than what the author has claimed. September 2014. The metadata shows that the image belongs to 'Ganesh' but the uploader's name is Manikandan. COM:EVID: In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Full metadata, and a username like that and an author name as comment is not clearly contradictory. I cannot see evidence on the web of usage prior to Commons upload, so don't feel the clear need to delete it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Partiality.jpg

[edit]

Screenshot per Metadata, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the owner: I travelled to Utah to photograph this eclipse. This is my own work and I would never ever ever post someone else’s work and list it as my own. I have no idea why someone would think this is not my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.215.56.25 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajt2543: an edit from an IP address not sufficient. Can you please upload something with metadata onto that image. As it is labelled as a screenshot is not sufficient for retention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:عبدالناصرعليوي العبيدي.png

[edit]

Personal photo for non-Wikipedian. Out of scope Mohammdaon (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lipu tenpo nanpa kasi - mama.png

[edit]

Copyright status is unclear. Source quoted points to a Web page on which there is a link to a PDF. Image appears in PDF document. No copyright statement on either the website or the PDF. No indication that on either website or PDF that this image is licensed as claimed. Headlock0225 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Headlock0225: the source is the monthly zine lipu tenpo (their website), all of their issues and illustrations are licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0 as per their website and the back of issue (here, p. 14). I can confirm as I am a volunteer in the associtation. Juwan (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit the File's Source a link to the image. Under permissions put a link to where the the image has been licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Headlock0225 (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or use Commons:Volunteer Response Team Headlock0225 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the image was extracted manually from the PDF. another thing I found is that the website itself has the licence stated at "sona" (in English), I also contacted the website managers and they said that they will add disclaimers at the footers of the website. Juwan (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
changes made are more than satisfactory. I withdraw the nomination for deletion. Headlock0225 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lovely! I will make similar changes across other files. Juwan (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orhan Çerkez.png

[edit]

Telif hakkı belirsiz görsel Afakii (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cekmekoy-orhan-cerkez-logo.png

[edit]

daha kalitelisini svg olduğundan farklı bir dosya olarak ekledim. Bu gereksiz olarak duracak. Hızlıca silinirse sevinirim. Afakii (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beldanga railway station.jpg

[edit]

Hi! I'm the author of this image and I want it to be deleted if it is possible. Reason - Wikimedia displays author's name and it is revealing my identity. Because of this privacy reason I want this particular file to be deleted. Thanks M66JX (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Uploaded on November 24, 2022, COM:INUSE at en:Beldanga railway station. --Rosenzweig τ 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Vida Secreta da Sua Mente Abertura.png

[edit]

Sem permissão indicada Cosmo Skerry (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheraliev Murad.jpg

[edit]

Person died in 1985, can not be own work of 2023. Original date? Author? Source? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drakosh. Yes the person Sheraliev MuraT died in 1985. The User in Wikipedia Sheraliev MuraD (born 1972) is the grandchild of MuraT SHERALIEV MURAD. I am right now working with others Wikipedia users help to add source, copyright statues and etc. Please recall your deletion request SHERALIEV MURAD (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SHERALIEV MURAD: This is not about the user recalling the nomination, it is about the uploader showing clearly that the photograph is not within copyright AND that the contributor or the author of the photograph have provided the right evidence via Com:VRT  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20190825 225 amersfoort.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. It looks like a failed photo. How will this photo be reusable? There is a better one: File:20190825 224 amersfoort.jpg JopkeB (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional, but sometimes God allows us to make good pictures without our knowledge :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanhousen (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanhousen: please address this in terms of Com:Project scope, demonstrating an educational value. How will it be used? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta1906.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source.

Design is consistent with something from 1906. A few years away from PD-old-assumed. Author is possibly Juan José Enrich. Abzeronow (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Part of mass tag of uploads from nonfree source, missed this one. Sorry for the mess.
All the best - Chuck Talk 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta1921.webp

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source.

Design is attested to be from 1921. Converting to DR since it could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep missed this one. A user uploaded a bunch of these, and I missed this one.
All the best - Chuck Talk 19:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by BFlamer99 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm not certain if this user is Cody Belles, so we need to review them to ensure that these colorizations are actually allowed on here. Also need to make sure there is proper tagging of the files in that case. One for the colorization and one for the underlying black and white image. There is just a lot of poor data associated with these images.

SDudley (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg - Kunsthalle Hamburg (7).jpg

[edit]

copyright violation; contemporary artwork; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Zaffino.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: Found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: Google search Yann (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correct link sorry for the mistake. I thought I fixed that ajaxquickdelete button. @Jeff G, do you know if this is the same issue as before, or this something new?
All the best - Chuck Talk 20:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alachuckthebuck: That's not your fault, they didn't fix the "Challenge speedy deletion" logic yet.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I would like to disclose that I have an affiliation with Peter Zaffino. I saw the nomination for deletion on the headshot we uploaded with reasoning stating that there may be a possible copyright violation. The image is Peter's professional headshot that we own, and here's a link to where it exists on our website.
Please let me know if you need any further information from me, as I am happy to help ensure the headshot is not deleted.
Thank you! CharlotteAIG (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlotteAIG: Please confirm the permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlotteAIG: Right. That webpage is "Copyright © 1997-2024 American International Group, Inc. All rights reserved."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albania ethnic.jpg

[edit]

map of 1941 or so – definitely not own work: https://cartography-gis.com/docsbca/iccgis2016/ICCGIS2016-44.pdf Albinfo (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cafo Beg Ulqini - Regent.jpg

[edit]

wrong license, see File:Cafo Beg Ulqini (standing portrait).jpg Albinfo (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is colored version of his portrait as regent. EuropaUlqini (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. But I can't see any correct information regarding source and author. Albinfo (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SpongeBob SquarePants character montage.png

[edit]

Creative commons release is extremely unlikely to be valid. The rights situation is almost certainly governed by extensive contracts. It is unlikely in the extreme that the person uploading stuff to youtube has the power to alter those contracts in the way needed for a CC release. That the release was not authorised is supported by it being removed after the foundation contacted Nickelodeon  Geni (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - This argument, if upheld, would probably apply to most of the items in Category:NickRewind. For my issues with the argument, see below.
 Keep - This reasoning is based on a combination of speculation and problematic principles.
  • "The rights situation is almost certainly governed by extensive contracts. It is unlikely in the extreme that the person uploading stuff to youtube has the power to alter those contracts in the way needed for a CC release."
    • I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "rights situation" being "governed by extensive contracts." Nickelodeon (that is, Viacom and its successors) isn't a licensee, but the sole copyright owner of the work (as indicated in copyright registrations for SpongeBob SquarePants). The copyright owner of a work normally has the right to license it however they want. For example, they have granted various licenses to make SpongeBob toys, etc. There's no reason they can't grant another license applying to this material. This license doesn't invalidate any other separate licenses they have given to various SpongeBob-related copyrighted materials.
    • The person uploading this item to YouTube isn't acting in an individual capacity, but on behalf of their employer (that is, the copyright holder).
    • There is a form of corporate responsibility when a license is offered online through the corporation's official channels with a certain license. The fact that the license remained this way for months would only reaffirm its validity. If you accept the argument that any public license offered on a website by a corporation is just the work of a foolish (or rogue) employee, then you'd have to reject most free licenses for corporate-owned material. (You'd also be creating a standard of evidence far above that used for anything else.)
  • "That the release was not authorised is supported by it being removed after the foundation contacted Nickelodeon"
    • This doesn't really hold up, either. While we can say that they didn't reaffirm the license, we also know that they didn't contest the Wikimedia Commons items' hosting in any way, either. Since they certainly have actual knowledge now, you could take this as a tacit admission that the license was always valid, too. Remember, CC licenses remain valid even if the work is no longer distributed by the original copyright holder under that license.
D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a company has given a company a exclusive (even for a limited time period) right to produce a toy featuring a character they then can't do a CC release without violating that contract. The person uploading it will have been told to upload it. So all the stuff you have to agree to upload to youtube is probably valid. The person will not have been told to release it under a CC license so that will not be valid.Geni (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep That problem has already been resolved by the administrator @Yann and the original video where the image comes from was preserved. Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 18:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I still doubt that Nickelodeon or Paramount would have actually allowed their characters to be used in this way. There is an argument that, even if the video as a whole is licensed as such, isolating this frame may not be, in a similar manner to COM:DM. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nickelodeon or Paramount can't decide how the law is applied. They can only decide on what license they publish the works. And they have decided to publish their videos under a free license. Then we only have to determine if the license allows to separate one frame or a part of a frame. Yann (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete I think this is a case of deletion, sadly. I don't know if we've paid much attention to this matter over on Wikipedia, but they have had a discussion over the items as well. This has included getting the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team involved. In that User:LRGoncalves-WMF noted:
"the Legal Department can’t confirm that these are openly licensed. As some commentators pointed out above, the attribution of the CC-license could have been a mistake, and not a deliberate choice to freely license these videos."
Since we have proof these works were licensed, I doubt the intention was to create freely licensed versions of these works. The posting also notes that a variety of videos had the licenses removed, which doesn't revoke the original use, but the licenses have returned since then and are likely just a channel setting in place. For that reason I doubt there was proper authority to give them this license.
We should also include other Nick related works like File:A Rugrats Chanukah (Condensed Episode).webm and its derivatives including File:Tommy and Chuckie in "A Rugrats Chanukah".png. SDudley (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation you gave here is in response to Disney about the YouTube channel for Disney Channel Israel, not Nickelodeon. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, when I read it it seemed to be about Nick. However I think the same point still stands. There likely isn't the proper authority to authorize the license. SDudley (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reid headshot sweater.jpg

[edit]

Potential copyright infringement - source is not PD, and is likely not the author of the image. See this link for exact image match Packer1028 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Delegate Reid and am authorized to use the photo on his Wikipedia page. This photo is also readily and commonly available on other websites. Danielpbnc (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment::That is what is known as a conflict of interest, and is not a good thing. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 06:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielpbnc: Use at English Wikipedia is different from upload to Commons. For us to retain the image there needs to be a specific permisdion submitted per Com:VRT  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ochilov coat of arms.png

[edit]

Never had any educational purpose, was published in order to put to the Wikimedia userpage, and hasn't been used there for years. Fordaemdur (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

[edit]

File:Han-asia-gene.png

[edit]

"This figure is a subset of the supplementary figure S10 of a scientific paper by Hugh McColl et al, which is published on Science 361, 88-92 (2018) and not licensed under CC (or other allowable) licence." Apan (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The licence is wrong, but I am not sure this can be protected by copyright. Maybe {{PD-chart}} is applicable. BrightRaven (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no public domain version available because this figure is simply a cropped version of a licensed figure. Please refer to Fig. S10 in the supplementary file (https://www.science.org/doi/suppl/10.1126/science.aat3628/suppl_file/aat3628_mccoll_sm.pdf) accompanying this paper published in SCIENCE (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat3628). While the figure may be freely accessible for reading and downloading, the copyright still belongs to the journal and-or the authors. Apan (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deska kostel staryrozmital.jpg

[edit]

double upload of the same plaque viz. Deska kostel staryrozmital.jpg Halfirien (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Halfirien: please link to duplicate, I am not seeing it  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there's little edit, but it's the same photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pam%C4%9Btni_deska_ceska_mse_vanocni_rozmital.jpg Halfirien (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rawiri Waititi 2021 (cropped).jpg

[edit]

“ There are some important categories of content that are not licensed by this general copyright statement. These include …. MP images” Schwede66 08:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"MP Images on the current MP Parlimentary Biography pages" - this isnt on his biography page, its on a video sourced to the clerk of the house TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. However, how do we know that they want to publish the video under a free license? It's hosted by YouTube and YouTube offers an open license tag, but it's not marked with it. I suggest that we suspend this deletion request and check with Parliamentary Services what the story is. Pakoire is in touch with them on unrelated matters and could possibly bring this up. Would you mind, Lisa? Schwede66 19:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've written to Parliamentary Services and encouraged them to either reply by email or comment directly at this discussion. Schwede66 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kia ora e hoa. I am a Parliamentary Service staff member and will put in a request today to find out what licence this video was published under. It is possible I will not get an answer until Friday. *frijōndz (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting back regarding this deletion request, the Clerk has given permission for this image to be used. The video falls under the Creative Commons licence as stated on Parliament's Copyright page. *frijōndz (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*frijōndz, I suggest to get this tidied up by hitting the big blue button on this page and filling out the form. In the process, you need to provide the file name (i.e. the link that forms the heading of this deletion request). That will produce a legal notification for the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) that allows them to add the correct licence to the file. Schwede66 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted a text along the lines of that in the generator, the issue is waiting for internal clearance on language in the release. *frijōndz (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:หม่อมเจ้าทองคำเปลว ทองใหญ่.jpg

[edit]

From the provided source, it did not mention the date taken, presume that there is copyright. Wutkh (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Thailand is 50 years from creation. Circa 1955 appears correct based on the person's age. Most images do not come with a date prior to smartphones. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I think I might have some bias. So, I withdraw my request. Wutkh (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alistair McBuffio election map.svg

[edit]

Imaginary election map uploaded by a user writing about imaginary elections in their Wikipedia sandbox. Out of COM:SCOPE for Commons. Belbury (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That election map is an example of my interest in making them and is intended for my personal user page, just like this.
Also, please leave my sandbox out of this. The 2007 BNP leadership contest was not imaginary even though it's been so difficult to reference. It was very real and I've been trying to chip away at it for a while now so I'm sorry if I haven't got it finished quickly enough. Alistair McBuffio (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You used this election map image to illustrate a sandbox draft about Evan McMullin being elected US president in 2016. This election result is imaginary. Belbury (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nikki Tamboli.png

[edit]

This image from celeb photos in Bollywood Hungama, so copyrighted Sriveenkat (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{BollywoodHungama}} is maybe applicable. BrightRaven (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPHERE image of Interamnia.jpg

[edit]

The license template suggests that the image originates from ESO website. But no evidence of this in the source information. No information about free license in the publications declared as the image source. Also, no evidence that all works from ESA are CC-licensed. Ankry (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: I cannot find the article [16] being shared anywhere on ESO's website, which suggests to me that the contents of that article are not covered by the stated license. Maybe a cut-out of the image from this paper shared by ESO (page 3) could work as a nearly identical replacement?
I suppose the more difficult question is whether ESO's license actually extends to the contents of papers that they share on their website. The license mentions "press releases, announcements, pictures of the week, blog posts and captions", "unless specifically noted". No word about "scientific publications". The ©-symbol in the upper right corner of the first pages strikes me as somewhat "specific". Renerpho (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please note that ESO and ESA are different entities. Whether works from ESA are CC-licensed is irrelevant (in fact, they generally are not). Renerpho (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Odesa2023 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait Brille.jpg

[edit]

According to this page: https://www.crew-united.com/en/Maximilian-Neuhaeusser_414554.html the image is credited to "moving.miotti" Känguru1890 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manitoba Children's Museum, The Forks, Winnipeg (505112).jpg

[edit]

This image is already uploaded on here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manitoba_Children%27s_Museum,_The_Forks,_Winnipeg_(505112)_(24829486493).jpg LostplanetKD73 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screw Air Compressor for Fiber Laser Cutting Application.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 This could be useful. Yann (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MC signature.jpg

[edit]

Non-photographs should not be in JPG. Redundant to File:Miranda Cosgrove's signature.png. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MirandaCosgrove Logo.jpg

[edit]

Non-photographs should not be in JPG. Redundant to File:Miranda Cosgrove Logo.png. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Free As in Freedom pl W obronie wolnosci scaled 3x.png

[edit]

When using The free documentation license the cover is not on open license. Helion publish only the content of the book on it's website. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment for 2009 image, I would like to see further conversation to judge community's position on an image in use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: We can ask Helion.pl, the owner of the copyright of the translation, what they think about this. For me this is just a violation of the copyright that no one noticed because the work was released on free license and related to RMS. Note that even FSF copy of the book use its own version of the cover. They created the license, and they know that they can't use a book cover created by O'Reilly. Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original cover by O'Reilly https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/free-as-in/9781449323332/cover.html Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Kunsthalle Recklinghausen

[edit]

copyright violation; contemporary artworks; no freedom of panorama (interior our non-permanent)

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete File:At first Sight Kunsthalle Recklinghausen.jpg
, but  Keep the other two, those are exterior views and count with FoP. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Club champagnat pilar logo.svg

[edit]

The symbol of the logo is very complex and reaches COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not "very" complex IMO. Just two "C" and one "H" from a common alphabet. Fma12 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The shape of the H is too stylized and detailed that it is not a generic design. Taichi (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just your point of view, mine is different. Fma12 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment the image has design components; and it is not solely the text, I am inclined to delete it. Can anyone show that the sytlised lettering is used elsewhere or part of a font pack?  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) While the other nude 18yo photos are fine for educational value, this seems sexually explicit and serves very little educational purpose. I propose deletion, but this file was not uploaded in bad faith.Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:37, 17 March 2022 (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:Boy self spanking.gif

[edit]

Blatantly obscene, the Slovak description says "14-letnik", so it could also be Child Pornography Sciking (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: precautionary principle; per nomination.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:McFly Carlito studio 2019.jpg

[edit]

This photogram come from this video which have a CC licence BUT it uses an extract from a Mcfly & Carlito video (not avaible today, you can find it republished there). There is an high chance that the video wasn't free of copyrights. Rémi sim (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical map of algeria-es.svg (1).png

[edit]

rendered from the 06:18, 2 August 2014 version of File:Historical map of algeria-es.svg, which has replaced with a superior version since, not in use, useless Nutshinou Talk! 21:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a valid reason to delete based on our criteria. If you dpon't want to use it, then don't. Others may.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this fits COM:Redundant as it is inferior to the source file. Commons shouldn't host older versions of files if COM:OVERWRITE is met (which it is, as a minor improvement) Nutshinou Talk! 22:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/18 Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/19 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/20

#ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/22 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/23 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/24 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/25 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/26 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/27 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/28 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/29 #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/30

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04&oldid=863027546"