Post-1945 images (photos/film stills) from India, which were certainly still in copyright in India at the URAA cut-off date of 1996. Therefore their US term was extended until 95 years after their first publication.
These files subsequently went on to be in public domain in India, since the expiration of copyright in India is 50 years for work published before 1958 (which means, files dating from 1946 to 1957 came in public domain in India from 1996 to 2007) and 60 years for work published from 1958 (which means, files published in 1958 came in public domain in India from 2018, those published in 1959, from 2019 and so on) BUT they continue to be under copyright in the US, since the duration for copyright in the US is of 95 years since the date of publication. Files from India from the year 1946, can only be in public domain in the US from 2042, by earliest)
Comment There seems to be concensus to keep files that are PD in the home country if the only issue is that they might not be PD in the US because of the URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was a consensus to not mass-delete existing files on the mere suspicion that they may have been affected by the URAA, and established at the time the community first became aware of the URAA and when its effects and applicability was uncertain. New uploads and files that after a specific assessment are in copyright in the US due to URAA restoration (as for any other reason) are incompatible with COM:L and must be deleted, and the validity and applicability of the URAA are no longer in question these days. Xover (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-1945 images (photos/film stills) from India, which were certainly still in copyright in India at the URAA cut-off date of 1996. Therefore their US term was extended until 95 years after their first publication.
These files subsequently went on to be in public domain in India, since the expiration of copyright in India is 50 years for work published before 1958 (which means, files dating from 1946 to 1957 came in public domain in India from 1996 to 2007) and 60 years for work published from 1958 (which means, files published in 1958 came in public domain in India from 2018, those published in 1959, from 2019 and so on) BUT they continue to be under copyright in the US, since the duration for copyright in the US is of 95 years since the date of publication. Files from India from the year 1946, can only be in public domain in the US from 2042, by earliest)
Keep If the films were shown in USA, then they are OK. For URAA, you have to prove that these files are affected. So if you give evidence that the films were NOT shown in USA, then this is a valid request. Yann (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to put this so bluntly Yann (no offence intended), but that's nonsense: it is literally impossible to prove a negative. Xover (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be concensus to keep files that are PD in the home country if the only issue is that they might not be PD in the US because of the URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per COM:PRP these must be presumed to be in copyright in the US due to URAA restoration, unless specific evidence makes it at least plausible that some other factor makes them public domain. Typically that factor would be simultaneous publication in the US—that is, they were first subject to a general publication in the US within 30 days of being published in India—because in that case Berne (and because of that, Commons policy) considers them US works for copyright purposes which in turn makes them subject to US copyright formalities (notice, renewal, etc.). For a film of this era to be screen in the US within 30 days of being screened in India generally defies belief, so it requires very strong evidence that this actually took place. --Xover (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template has multiple issues and should be either fixed or deleted. According to CRT "The situation regarding copyright is unclear" with 4 possible copyright laws which might be applicable: Jordanian, Israeli, Egyptian and British and each one has different terms. The template itself is not comprehensible
First sentence says that work is PD and to see CRT for details: the page that states that copyright situation is unclear
Second sentence mentions British law, "Arab Copyright Treaty of 1981" (which does not seem to apply to Palestine), "Basic Law of governmental Palestine" (?) and " Israeli copyright laws" in a way that makes no sense to me.
I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place. I don't think any of Egypt, Jordan, or Israel has applied their copyright laws there, even if under their control. I'm not sure we should delete the tag, as it would be useful for works that originate from there, as the law could easily change and we may need to identify them. The tag claims that Israeli laws apply, and not sure I've ever seen a reference for that statement. The 1924 ordinance (which applied the UK 1911 law, with some small modifications) is in place though. I think we should change this to be a 50pma tag basically, with photos 50pr. I would not try to use generic tags as it is useful to be able to categorize/check photos using this tag in case the situations change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"I think our best guess is that the UK 1911 Copyright Act (as applied to Palestine in 1924 or something) is still the law in place." I'm very uncomfortable with guessing here. The template shouldn't exist unless we're absolutely sure about the applicable laws (and can explain them better). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the image is reached by any FoP protection, it should be deleted. I don't know where the removed photograph was taken in. So this could be deleted per precautionary principle. Fma12 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 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.
If these are legitimate, then we get a huge benefit and we can replace a lot of non-free content with free content. If these are not, then we need to get rid of them because they contain metric tons of infringement from works of which they are derivative. Given the scale of the content, we really need to make a determination one way or the other.
Comment I'm not much of a commons person so I'll stay out of the way of experts, but namely the concern is that, at a quick but not exhaustive scan, Bandai doesn't own: Barbie, Witcher, Adventure Time, Dark Souls, Dragonball, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, One Piece, Sword Art Online, or Warhammer 4k. We need to be sure about this before we say "These are free", because I'm pretty confident they are not the copyright holders in those cases. Games Workshop in particular is known for draconian control over it's Warhammer properties. Some of the properties, like Pac-Man and Tekken, are owned by Bandai and may be appropriate to keep. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some background: First, w:Bandai Namco is the publisher of many of these games. We do not know the nature of their agreements with the developers and IP holders, but publishers are generally given rights to produce and promote the game's content. Second, based on the linked discussions above re: using stills/screenshots under the video's CC release and discussions I've previously opened, some of these videos are long but we don't have tools to easily remove or black out single frames if any content is determined (in part) to be derivative/ineligible for the CC release. Third, there's no option to message through YouTube so I just sent an email to support@bandainamcoent.com to confirm that these videos were intentionally marked as cc-by. I'll let y'all know what I hear back. czar16:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An update: apparently support@ only takes product-related tickets, despite their website not stating this. Any other ideas for contacting them besides mailing a letter? czar16:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like here is a general box for their Vancouver office. I don't know if you might have any luck tweeting at them. I don't really use social media. They've got a "page" for media iniquities for NA, but it doesn't seem to be working. GMGtalk17:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As ferret mentioned, some of these are for products that Bandai Namco definitely does not own, and for these, I believe we should be extremely careful to dig into the rights issue to see which we keep and which we don't. However, others are Bandai Namco IPs that they DO own and I believe their rights provenance should be evaluated independently. It's not an accident that Bandai PR uploaded these videos to YouTube with a CC license---it was clearly a conscious managerial decision. It's an entirely reasonable conclusion that Bandai PR fully intended for videos of their own IPs to be released this way. What we don't know is if it was an accident that videos containing unowned IPs were ALSO released under CC. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including Bandai owned IP, there's clearly no oversight on what is being licensed on the company YouTube channel. Only non-fiction content such as interviews should be allowed until they've fixed this.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the components are Bandai-owned IP, they can license under cc-by (as long as the parts displayed at the youtube videos), then the components published at the chennel Keep. once the components are published at their official youtube channel, the license is irrevocable. Puramyun31 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's best to assume that professional publishers and distributors whose core business is managing intellectual property rights know what they can put out there and under what conditions – at least better than a bunch of internet wannabe lawyers anyway. We obviously don't have access to contracts that Bandai has made with game developers, but we can bet they exist. Video game distributors aren't just glorified door-to-door salesmen. That industry today entails much more than hauling boxes of CD-ROMs around the globe, such as – well – uploading YouTube videos of the product that both you and its original creators want to sell as many copies as possible. Evidently some rights must have been transferred or permissions given in order for Bandai to be able to do their job as distributors efficiently. What we do have access to is the non-exclusive permission license on YouTube, so let's go with that. Does Bandai need permission from game developers to publish videos of their games? Yes. Could that permission have been granted as non-exclusive? Absolutely. So let's trust them because that's what they're saying. Finnusertop (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: Deleted per COM:PRP. As the discussion was leaning more towards keeping, I think I have to elaborate a bit and also to tell a story of an experience nearly 10 years ago that, in my opinion, is similar to this case.
At first, Finnusertop's reasoning for keeping these files might seem plausible enough, even convincing - indeed, why shouldn't we assume "that professional publishers and distributors whose core business is managing intellectual property rights know what they can put out there and under what conditions"? But then, there was the instructive "Ubisoft case" back in 2009, and I recommend to read the whole story at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-Ubisoft 3. In short: The head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR made statements in a mail exchange that amounted to an "attribution" license for all Ubisoft content. That sounded great, of course (we can make screenshots of all Ubisoft games freely! we can use them everywhere! Ubisoft said so!), so an "Attribution-Ubisoft" template was quickly created and the purported free license defended against all doubters for years. With a very similar line of reasoning as here, even very similar statements - to quote from the 2009 deletion discussion: "I suppose that it's very reasonable to consider a head of Ubisoft Group Germany PR as a person that knows what he does". But this time (in the third deletion request), the doubters - I was among them - were persistent and went to greater lengths to ascertain whether the legal department of Ubisoft (not some PR guys!) really agreed to a license which, basically, allowed anyone to reuse their content, even commercially. It just seemed so astonishing and unprecedented for a company like Ubisoft which is well-known for defending their copyright. And as it ultimately turned out, the assumed attribution license was not actually given by Ubisoft, it was worthless, nothing but hot air - apparently the result of a PR guy not understanding the legal repercussions (or rather: not really intending to give such a broad license). Wikimedia France, the French Wikimedia chapter, contacted Ubisoft headquarters in Paris. And as Jean-Frédéric wrote back then: We got an answer from the "Corporate Media Relations Manager". It is short and unambiguous. They asked their legal department, claim they did not have knowledge of such an agreement, and for the time being, do not wish to release media under a free license. The result was that Template:Attribution-Ubisoft now redirects to Template:Copyvio and all the Ubisoft media accumulated on Commons in the years before had to be deleted.
So, back to our current case. Bandai Namco releases all these videos under a CC-BY 3.0 license? Indeed? That means: Everyone can use the content in these videos freely, also commercially. The public is given permission to make derivative works, also. You can make postcards, mugs with Bandai Namco characters from these videos on them and sell them for profit. Even your own games! As long as you adhere to the the CC-BY license. That's what the license entails. Well: Do you really believe they would do such a thing? It is just as implausible that Bandai Namco would allow everyone to commercially use their content (and that they even had permission to license content owned by others, such as "The Witcher", that liberally) as the "Ubisoft attribution license" was implausible back then. It is implausible enough for me to delete applying COM:PRP and, I'd say, common sense. It must be a mistake by the PR guys uploading the content to Youtube, it can't be otherwise if you think about it. So, that is my reasoning for the decision. --Gestumblindi (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi: It's not about belive or not. There is valid license that allow us to use published material. Any doubts should be addressed first to Bandai Namco. Wikimedia Commons shouldn't remove anything because "this license may be incorrect". The first step to take should be contact with Namco Bandai, not request for deletion on Commons. Eurohunter (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the prior deletion discussion that includes these file, and I think these are special cases. As Bandai Namco does not own the rights to the properties contained within these videos, they have no legal authority to release them under Creative Commons. I am sorry if I missed anything. I tried to nominate any videos featuring non-Bandai Namco properties, but I could have easily missed some.
The problem is that these games are based on franchises that Bandai Namco does not own, therefore they can not license them under Creative Commons. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:53, 16 June 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.
In my opinion, this is a different situation : the film type on top and the handwritten inscription show it is a contact print with no indication it was published. — Racconish💬15:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hayward being a producer, the distribution to him of an uncropped contact sheet is likely a limited distribution per Burnett v. Lambino, according to which "Restricted distribution to a circumscribed class of persons of an unpublished work, whether copyrighted under 17 U.S.C. § 12 or uncopyrighted, for the purpose of arousing interest in a possible sale or production, is a sufficiently limited distribution to work no forfeiture of an author's rights". The principle of precaution should apply here. This has been discussed here with Yann and C Lindberg prior to the renomination. — Racconish💬08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the discussion made it clear that there is very little chance, i.e. much below the reasonable doubt, that the file was not published at the time, and that it is in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice. Yann (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hayward was listed as a producer of the 1958 run of The Concert (not sure what the 1960 date is exactly then). The back of the photo though says "gift of Leland Hayward" to the NYPL. While there were two sets of donations of Hayward's papers to the NYPL after his death, this photo is not listed as being part of either collection. It is part of a general "Jerome Robbins Dance Division Photograph Files" collection. If this was gifted to the NYPL by Hayward himself (who died in 1971), that would almost certainly have been general publication. The page at NYPL states that they conducted a copyright analysis, but could not come to a firm conclusion -- however they feel comfortable enough to publish it on the Internet, which is well beyond the explicit rights that 17 USC 108 gives libraries, and not sure would be fair use either (particularly if unpublished, which the nominator is arguing). There are a number of photos in the Hayward Collection that they do not publish, but state you need to come to the library to see it. Seems as though they digitized this in 2019, and it's still available. Best guess to me is that copyright lapsed at one point or another due to lack of notice on distributed copies, and the library felt that was likely enough to make it available online. There is almost always some gray area, and there certainly is here, so the question is if it is a "significant doubt" or something more theoretical, and I lean towards the latter. So Weak keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree the internet distribution of an unpublished work goes beyond the explicit rights granted in the library exception, but we cannot base our analysis on a possible mistake nor assume that NYPL never makes mistakes. IMO "there is certainly a gray area here" is not satisfactory with respect to COM:PCP. In any case, NYPL says clearly their websites "contain materials that are in the public domain as well as materials that are protected by copyright. In cases where materials on the NYPL Websites are protected by third party rights, you are responsible for clearing the necessary rights in order to use the materials in question" [2]. — Racconish💬09:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code." The "Author" field was inadvertently left blank when I submitted the image and has now been edited with the correct information. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author compiled photos for the book - that doesn't mean they were taken by the author or that they are PD. There is a chance this photo wasn't taken by a government employee Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Caption from here says A Project 30B Skoryy class destroyer in the Mediterranean on 28 August 1968. Here is a nearly identical photo from a slightly different angle, on the same date. Most likely from the same USN aircraft, NHHC photo K-56707. USN NHC says it is dated same date Aug 28, 1968, National Archives. I'm not able to quickly locate the exact angle of the photo, but it's pretty clear this was a PD-USN photo from Aug 28, 1968 that is being used on hazegray.org --Dual Freq (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that this page seems to claim that Redbook gave the copyrights back to Seuss in 1956. It does appear that Comicmix did end up publishing some Seuss stories in 2022 including The Sneetches. Of course these versions are whatever existed before the changes were made for the book publications. Not entirely sure what to make of this all since I am not a copyright lawyer, and I don't have a better source for the Seuss copyright claim. SDudley (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. seuss never renewed the comix red book stories. here is proof. "The ComicMix edition of the stories was created with high-quality scans from the original Redbook stories, tracked down from collectors of the magazine. Redbook reverted the copyright to these stories to Geisel, but the copyright was not renewed, so the versions that appeared in the magazines are now in public domain." This also proof which the a quote from https://bleedingcool.com/comics/comicmix-to-publish-lost-dr-seuss-stories-out-of-copyright/
and to give more proof that it is indeed public domain here is another quote, 'The publication of The Zaks is a byproduct of the suit. In discovery for the case, attorneys for Gerrold and ComicMix found that some of the Seuss stories published in Redbook were in the public domain." This further proves that the sneetches are public domain.
These images were all uploaded by User:Luiz79. All images is based on scenes from an accident in another Brazilian state. In other words, it is a retransmission from another broadcaster or Record affiliate. In either case, these are images that do not belong to Record TV Goiás and cannot be considered Creative Commons. Fronteira (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source appears to be this item from DigitalNC. The record there shows it was contributed by The Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of North Carolina, but also that copyright for the image has not been evaluated (CNE 1.0). None of the images of this event contributed to DigitalNC by the Grand Lodge (including this one) have a visible copyright symbol, though the back side is not include for any of the images either. One of the news reports I found is using a photo not among those contributed by the Grand Lodge. None of the printed materials the Grand Lodge has contributed to Internet Archive has a clear copyright statement. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maps without sources. CAUTION: please dont take action in no time. i believe we should give some time for adding sources, because some files are in use in multiple wikis.
Primat, do you have either proof of copyright violations with these proclaimed self-made maps, or have you found false deptictions in them? In the first case, the maps should be deleted. In the second case, the uploaders need to be given time to rectify errors; or the maps should get removed from projectsand be deleted for being fakes. But "unsourced" is not a valid reason for deletion, so Keep if no other point speaks against these maps. (That said, projects should preferably use sourced maps!) --Enyavar (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Risk of copyright violation, the uploader may not be authorised to assign a license. COM:Pakistan does not indicate any special rules for government or military works. COM:Pakistan does not give guidance on threshold of originality, but this design is too complex to come under this threshold in most or all juristictions worldwide. All the other uploads from this user have been deleted for copyright issues, suggesting that they may not have a good understanding of the requirements of Commons.[3]Verbcatcher (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Replace CC0 with {{attribution} as has been subject of discussion in the previous five years or so. -- Mdd (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: « not "own work" » can be correct and I'm not sure about TOO. The logo is quite simple (few colours, few lines). Also, this logo has a lot of variation stored on Commons, we need to be consistent about it. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag {{PD-old-70}} cannot be used on pre-1978 US works . The eBay link has the full scan and it states "Copyright 1944. Paramount Inc." To keep this image we need to check if the copyright was not renewed. Günther Frager (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph by Walsh, C. W. / Holton, G. F., published in mid 1920s by Bristol & London, Vandyck Printers [4]. Iranian law certainly does not apply, the copyright holders should have died before 1954 to make this a free work. HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photos centering on the Mary Poppins-inspired weather vane at the Jolly Holiday Bakery Cafe (flickr: [5][6]) may be subject to COM:FOP US. Id est The FOP may not apply to three-dimensional artworks, like the weather vane seen in the photos. Rather any derivative, like a photo, of a 3D artwork is still copyrighted based on the artwork itself. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that many of @LeeMelonsCat's uploads are similar to this, and should probably be considered together. They're nice aerial photographs, so it'd be worthwhile to determine if LeeMelonsCat has any relation to Duane Lempke and might be able to release the rights. Lempke's website lists the contact email address as dlempke@aol.com. Sdkbtalk16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source above dates July 5, 2021 and the image here was uploaded on 19 November 2020 (several months earlier). I don't doubt this as a blatant copyvio. All other instances I find are published after the file was uploaded here. signed, Aafi (talk)13:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph predominantly depicts the cover of a non-PD/CC-BY work. Thus, this is a derivative work of a copyrighted work with non-compatible license for Commons. Also:
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.
- There is no official JavaScript mascot.
- This is a low effort image.
- Apparently personal fiction artwork, not official nor widely used mascot for JavaScript.
- Personal fiction artwork. Completely unknown and unheard of by everyone except its creator.
- Just a file created by the uploader, not used by others, no educational or informative value — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSMonster (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for dedicating your time to reviewing my creation and sharing your concerns. I am genuinely honored that my work has resonated with people worldwide, prompting thoughtful study and commentary. This global engagement signifies a level of success that is both humbling and gratifying.
I sincerely hope that your current nomination stems from the best interests of the Wikimedia community. I would like to address concerns raised in your previous nomination for the deletion of my images, which, as highlighted by user Infrogmation of New Orleans, was perceived as a "bad faith nomination" aimed at another user. Their exact words were "apparent bad faith nomination in attempted retaliation at another user who listed nominator's images for deletion". It's crucial to clarify that the removal of your files resulted from a community decision: members voted unanimously in favour of the removal. In our community, it's essential to refrain from attacking or stalking users across platforms, and seeking revenge is unacceptable behavior.
I acknowledge the points you raised, and even though none of them are valid reason for removal, I want to address them to provide clarity regarding the community's perspective. In the different files that I have uploaded you have listed slightly different reasons, but I will address all of the reasons your have included in every file for clarity.
You wrote in some images "Obviously made up by the uploader". Not only this is not a reason for removal, but I have made it quite clear that I am the original creator of the images. Not only I created them, but I also released them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. I cannot see your point here.
You wrote "There is no official JavaScript mascot". First of all, I cannot see your point and how this fact relates to our case. In any case, I never claimed or implied it is "the" JavaScript mascot, I made it clear that is "a" mascot for JavaScript, my proposal, that has gained a lot of traction lately.
The mascot itself is the culmination of a years-long endeveour of mine to propose a JavaScript mascot to be used by the community. I have carefully considered my aspects for its design. It is based on an (unofficial) mascot for the Lisp programming language, reflecting the fact that JavaScript was influenced by the Scheme programming language, which is a Lisp. The aforementioned Lisp mascot, was created by Conrad Barski, and as stated in its website "anyone may use these freely for any purpose and in any way" ( [[7]] ). I have persoonally contacted Conrad Barski (who also happens to be one of my heroes, as I have read his Lisp books and followed his work for quite some time) by email to share my creation with him, and he as happy about it (I have included a screenshot of our discussion that can be seen at [[8]] ).
The mascot has garnered popularity and positive mentions, evident in its inclusion in Seeklogo's database, social media posts, and references in Google Bard's answers. The mascot's website receives significant traffic monthly. I will further elaborate and give a few examples, but more can be found online:
At least, I think that the mascot or the file doesn't have to be labeled them "the mascot of JavaScript." Because the mascot isn't official. --린눈라단 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
En effet, c'est bien une capture d'écran que j'ai faite lors d'une réunion du Conseil de territoire de l'EPT Vallée-Sud-Grand-Paris, tenue en distanciel durant l'épidémie de Covid-19. Ca pose problème ? Si oui, ok pour la supprimer. J'en prendrai une de visu lors d'une prochaine réunion en présentiel. Arpitan (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. Some of these paintings are of notable people. Although the artist appears to be an amateur who is using various Wikimedia projects for PROMO purposes. Including this one. So the images should be deleted as OOS PROMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist might not be notable, but those images are very high quality paintings of many notable subjects, and can be used to both illustrate the person/the art style. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file is a screenshot from the Microsoft Copilot app. The app is copyrighted and it's copyright is owned by Microsoft Corporation. The details in the file claims it to be a Public Domain Logo. But, it's not a Logo. It's a screenshot. It's actually a copyright violation. HappyHappy2024 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The layout of this screenshot seems to be too generic to be copyrighted, and I consider the logo to be de minimis. If not, it can be blurred. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
photo not relevant. Was part of a batch upload. Also not sure if the people in this photo are OK with having their picture and names displayed in this way. This was my team when I worked at GIZ. EMsmile (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile: I'm confused. This picture was published 14 years ago on Flickr, and was uploaded to Commons a decade ago. This seems a remarkably late date at which to say there is a problem with it on a personality rights basis. Were the people in the image unaware of it being published in 2010? - Jmabel ! talk20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were aware that we would put the photo up in our Flickr collection (at SuSanA) but they were not aware that the photo and their names would be available in Wikimedia Commons later. I don't know if they would object to that, it's just another reason why I would prefer for this photo to be deleted. The main reason is that it really serves no purpose on Wikimedia Commons. The other photos from that batch upload were all about sanitation and toilets which is why the batch upload made sense for those photos but not really of this team photo. I don't feel super strongly about it but it would just be a waste of storage space and CO2 in my opinion EMsmile (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't save any storage space by deleting (it is always a "soft" delete, still visible to admins).
For what it's worth -- and I realize this is water under the bridge -- if someone posting to Flickr did not want the picture reused freely, they certainly should not have granted a CC-BY license (which I see is still offered at the source on Flickr). - Jmabel ! talk22:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was an oversight at the time, as we did that batch upload of about 10,000 photos of sanitation projects and toilets from our flickr photo collection to Wikimedia Commons. Those team photos were not really meant to be included but it would have been too hard to identify individual photos in that big batch. EMsmile (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Pinging @TheImaCow: this is still being offered under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic on Flickr. It is a little hard for me to take seriously the request to take this down from Commons as a privacy matter when the site we got it from continues to offer for anyone — presumably including Commons — to use it freely. @EMsmile: I'm not opposed to deletion, but if you consider it a privacy issue why does the page that is presumably your own or belongs to someone closely connected to you still say, in effect, "Anyone can use this"? - Jmabel ! talk16:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this makes the request is less reasonable, but since I think the image is barely within scope anyway, I don't object deleting it either. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true that those photos are still in that Flickr account. Hence, I'll message the owners of that SuSanA flickr account to suggest that the same photos are deleted from there as well. My concern with those pointless photos on Wikimedia Commons (which I had contributed indirectly myself) was to remove superfluous files and thus save on server space and ultimately CO2 emissions. Storing photos in the cloud uses energy. Maybe one day a big project will be started to take a hard look at Wikimedia Commons content and delete those photos that don't really have to be there. EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile: no server space is ever saved by deletion. Virtually all deletions from Commons are "soft" deletes. Administrators can still access deleted files. The only exception I'm aware of is that someone from WMF may hard-delete child pornography. - Jmabel ! talk13:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a pity but perhaps one day in future this may change? I think it should! Every bit of CO2 emissions saved counts. In any case, surely there is an interest in weeding out superfluous photos from any photo database, like this one? It just makes it "cleaner". EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile: Hiding deleted content from admins is a non-starter. Undeletion happens quite frequently, and cannot happen after a hard delete; also, we sometimes need to be able to look at deleted content to understand patterns of misconduct. The amount of energy involved in storing deleted content is trivial compared to the amount involved in things like this over-prolonged discussion.
Well, it's you who is making this discussion longer than it needs to be... Let's just delete this image and be done with it. I've also requested to the SuSanA secretariat to take it down from their flickr account (as per your suggestion/observation). EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the village pump. We're in the process of deleting images and categories related to 'celeberties' because its a totally meaningless designator of notability and more importantly eductional value. Like with your Vanity Fair link there's an article about Louisa Jacobson (Meryl Streep's youngest daughter) introducing her girlfriend for Pride month. So by your standard any image of Meryl Streep's daughter and her random girlfriend of the moment would somehow abritrarily be eductional and in scope "because celebrity" or some nonsense. That's not the standard though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Own work" claim is almost certainly inaccurate. This is not a real legal disclaimer, but rather part of the film's "killer movie" motif, so is almost certainly creative enough to be copyrightable. Seraphimblade (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Masur as Dw no source since (dw no source since).
The involved objects depict portraits of political personalities from 1900s. We must determine if these were also painted during that era, and if so, likely to be in public domain (tag with {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}}). But if these were only painted recently, or only published recently, then these are still under the painters' copyright and is unfree to be photographed to be licensed under commercial Creative Commons licensing, considering the Philippines not granting Freedom of Panorama. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)03:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the uploader of this image, and now I notice it isn't licensed by CC 4.0. It is private and shouldn't exist in Wikimedia Commons. Arc Unin (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by かしわのはみん as Speedy (db-redir). The file creator is Kamigata0 and redirect creator is Frank C. Müller, so the redirect does not qualify for speedy deletion and I create a regular request, which lasts a week. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the uploader appear to claim to be Marie-Claire Lefébure, the painter of the original painting. I see no clear reason to doubt this. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I see here clear intend to be work of art. This intends to be a stylized stepping figure, and not even 2-dimensional, but 3-dimensional. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could've been but no, it is definitely not a work of art as it is a (retail) brand logo. In the article COM:TOO France it is mentioned that the general c:TOO in France is higher than in some countries which definitely makes me doubt about the point of deleting this logo. Sorry Luchoxtrab (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parlons en français, nous avons déjà supprimé plusieurs fois cette image et vous la remettez. Ceci est inadmissible. Je vous demande d'arrêter et laisser ce fichier être supprimer. Alexandar au Arcos (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour, donner des ordres ne sert à rien, la manière la plus acceptable de faire changer quelqu'un d'avis est d'apporter davantage d'explications comme le commentaire ci-dessous. Luchoxtrab (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are some COM:TOO France related DRs which all resulted in the files being deemed below TOO in France:
I'm not sure where I place this logo complexity-wise, relative to the ones above. What speaks for that this logo is more complex is that all the logos above are more or less text-logos, with a varying degree of complexity. The complexity in this logo is not any stylized text but rather some kind of figure which I guess could be argued for being a kind of art. Anyway, per COM:PCP I guess this one should be deleted if we can't find better arguments or proof that this file would be deemed below TOO in France.Jonteemil (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your contribution. Indeed, argued that way I now tend to think you and @Taivo are both right, anyways I do not have any issue if this file gets deleted. Have a good day, Luchoxtrab (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apercebi-me que me enganei ao publicar esta imagem, pois esta não corresponde ao que é descrito, trata-se apenas de um banal marco que delimita uma propriedade privada Gabriel Gomes Moreira (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File description states "The planet image from here." (archive link) These images were not made by the uploader and there is no evidence that they were ever released into the public domain as claimed, so this is a copyright violation. SevenSpheres (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by 北極企鵝觀賞團 as no permission (No permission since). The style of the drawing matches other drawings from this uploader, so the 'own work' claim is credible. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images the uploader appears to have just made up. Which would be one thing except they also added them to various Wikipedia language articles as if they were "real" with no further explanation (I've since removed it from the English article). I inquired on the uploader's talk page for details a month ago but have not received a reply. At minimum, they should be moved to something like "Proposed Greater coat of arms for the Kingdom of Redonda by SaluteVII" to reflect that they're just fanart rather than anything anyone associated with Redonda has used or commissioned, but given the misleading uploads and usage, I'd be inclined to just delete them as personal images not in line with policy and out of scope of Commons. SnowFire (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The greater coat of arms clearly lists a source and I found two more - the Redonda Foundation (same source, but on their website rather than facebook) [15] and this photo of King Leo on Simon Sellars [16], the former of which claims that the crest was designed in 1964 by one "Earl Alba". I added these sources to the commons page and hence suggest to keep the file. JonahF (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is originally a Hungarian academic map, but it has been falsified by Romanian nationalists to spread false information in articles. It is inappropriate to alter original academic maps. It is very unprofessional to combine an obviously hand-drawn upper map with another one. The upper map is originally a hydrography map from the 13th century, where the forger hand-painted many colored patches and falsely claimed it is from the 12th century. (It is also a common practice among forgers to provide numerous marked sources, but when we find the original map, it is clear that it is not among those sources.) In the lower map, the forger rewrote the infobox, claiming the pink areas were Romanian territories, even though the original map does not indicate this. It is also evident to a Hungarian reader that the map contains poor Hungarian grammar, indicating that the forger does not know the Hungarian language (but used a Google translator) but wanted to present the map as an academic Hungarian map in bad faith. Here, I present the original maps and explanations: https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQ9mvib_xl.jpgOrionNimrod (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This map is not "falsified" but "derived" because it was not created to add one more map into line with the Hungarian nationalist point of view as this one [17], but to show that there are other points of view as this other [18]. Hungarian nationalists also created or modified many maps to show their point of view. Romanian nationalists (also Russian, Chinese, many others) also act like this, but this is not a mitigating circumstance. When they don't succeed, they make deletion requests on Commons under some pretext, in order to prevent readers from knowing points of view other than their own. In Hungary since the end of communism they have dominated the Hungarian Academy. But we do not have on the one hand a Hungarian historiography that is the only one that is reliable, serious and true, and on the other hand a stupid, lying and irredentist Romanian historiography. History is not that simple. The Austro-Hungarian and Russian thesis of the disappearance over a thousand years of the Eastern Romance populations between 276 and the 14th century, which the contributors defend here, convinced that only their sources are "international and academic", is only one of the three existing theses, all three of which have arguments and are presented in university secondary sources:
1. their first, supported by books like Eduard Robert Rössler: Romänische Studien: untersuchungen zur älteren Geschichte Rumäniens (“Romance studies: investigations into the ancient history of Romania”), Leipzig, 1871 or Béla Köpeczi (dir .): Erdély rövid története (“Abridged History of Transylvania”), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1989, (ISBN 963 05 5901 3), states that the Romance populations disappeared north of the Danube in the 3rd century and did not did not reappear until the 14th century at the earliest: the Magyars were therefore the first in Transylvania;
2. a second, supported by books like История на България (“History of Bulgaria”) volume III, Sofia 1982 or Ivan Duïtchev: Идеята за приемствеността в средновековната българска държава (“The idea of continuity in the Medieval Bulgarian State"), in: Проучвания върху средновековната българска история и култура ("Study on Bulgarian medieval history and culture"), Sofia 1981, pp. 74–78, asserts that there were no Romance populations south of the Danube before the 14th century, these surviving only north of the Danube after the withdrawal of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century: the Slavs southerners and the Proto-Bulgarians were therefore the first in the Balkans;
3. a third, supported by books like Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies Vol. III in Balkan Studies Library, Brill 2015, (ISBN 9004290362), or Alexandru Avram, Mircea Babeş, Lucian Badea, Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Alexandru Vulpe (dir.): Istoria românilor: moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate (“History of the Romanians : the heritage of ancient times") vol.1, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2001, or (in) History of Romania, Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies) 2005, pp. 59–132, (ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4), asserts that the Romance populations never stopped their pastoral transhumances between the north and the south of the Danube from the end of the 3rd century to the beginning of the 14th century and Next.
Wikipedian contributors do not have to decide between these three theories, but to show all three. Regardless, even if the arguments for all three theories were worthless, insufficient evidence proves neither the absence nor the presence of a population. In any case, it is unrealistic to imagine that speakers of Eastern Romance languages could disappear for a thousand years and then inexplicably reappear, and that this group would be the only one not to be able to cross the Danube, the Balkans and the Carpathians, while the Goths, Slavs, Avars, Proto-Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Alans, Mongols and Ottomans did so. Although the militant contributors engage in an editing war to sometimes mention, sometimes erase this group, one fact remains and constitutes in itself irrefutable proof of linguistic continuity between the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 14th century: Eastern Romance languages exist north and south of the Danube. The insistence of the Magyar contributors to remove the maps or mentions which show this continuity north of the Danube is rooted in the nostalgia of "Greater Hungary" tragically dismembered in 1920 by the will of the Allies and in particular of Georges Clémenceau and Woodrow Wilson with his "14 points", and also in the illusion that if they managed to demonstrate that the Magyars arrived there before the Romanians, this could delegitimize Romanian sovereignty over Transylvanian territory and give Hungary a chance to recover this region. These controversies and mutual denigration prove Winston Churchill right when he said: “The Balkan region tends to produce more history than it can consume.”
Other sources (which are not "irrelevant" just because several of it are Romanians): Nicolae Iorga, Teodor Capidan, Constantin Giurescu: History of the Romanians, ed. (and reed.) from the Romanian Academy; Kristian Sandfeld: Balkan Linguistics, problems and results, Champion, Coll. linguistics of the Linguistic Society of Paris, Paris, 1930; Eutropius: Abridged Roman History, book IX, 15; Alexandru Avram, Mircea Babeş, Lucian Badea, Mircea Petrescu-Dîmboviţa and Alexandru Vulpe (dir.): Istoria românilor: moştenirea timpurilor îndepărtate (“History of the Romanians: the heritage of ancient times”) vol.1, ed. Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2001, (ISBN 973-45-0382-0); Dimitri Kitsikis, The Rise of National Bolshevism in the Balkans, Avatar, Paris 2008; Vatro Murvar, The Balkan Vlachs: a typological study, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1956, p. 20; Alain Du Nay, André Du Nay and Árpád Kosztin, Transylvania and the Rumanians, Matthias Corvinus Publishing, 1997, 337 p. (ISBN 978-1-882785-09-4), p. 15O; Olivier Gillet: The history of Transylvania: the Hungarian-Romanian historiographical dispute, in: Revue de philologie et d’histoire, 1997, volume 75, fasc. 2, p. 457–485; Georges Castellan: Some historical problems between Hungarians and Romanians in Melikov zbornik: Slovenci v zgodovini in njihovi srednjeevropski sosedje, ed. by Vincenc Rajšp et al., Ljubljana, Založba ZRC, 2001, p. 153–162; and see also this [19]. --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQ9mvib_xl.jpg The original map is about Kingdom of Hungary and a hydrography map. Which nationalist point of view see in a hydrography map and in a simple country map?
It is clear that the creator of the fake map has nationalistic purpose because he overdraw the Hungarian academic map and wrote everything "Romanians" in medieval Hungary falsifying the captions, even paint fantasy regions to the hydrography map.
Hi also. It's too easy to describe as "falsification", "fake", "original research" & "personal opinion" everything that doesn't suit us, and it's into fashion (Trump, Putin, Milei, Orban, nationalists from all countries including Romanians do this). It is a magical world, where the one who accuses, is right against all the others. The reality is that there are several theories, each one has arguments and academic sources, and all must be illustrated. By derived maps if necessary. Even if a historic map is created using a hydrographic or physical background, this is not a "falsification" but a derived work (thousands of Commons maps are in this case). --Trecătorul răcit (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original map is a hydrography map, then an user painted over random color circles... (In the past I used Google satelit map as base and it was "copyright violation" because of the base map.)
So you say that I can take Europe map and I can paint randomly color circles there to make a Game of Thrones fantasy map then upload to history articles? :D Wikipedia articles need reliable academic sources as base. Show me an academic map which look the same!
In the other one, as I showed the original map, we can see clearly the user falsified and rewrote the infobox by bad Hungarian grammar (which clearly show that was not a Hungarian user, but a Romanian one, but wanted to pretend as bad faith that is a Hungarian made map). Do you think is ok, to fabricate a new infobox? The original map does not say those things what is in the fabricated infobox (and Hungarian historians would not understand which things there...), the original map just show counties and regions.
Well, that is a Hungarian hydrography map, which was overpainted by colored pencil.... the other one got a photoshopped infobox with bad Hungarian grammar. And those 2 falsified maps were merged in 1 picture as we can see. Can I paint too a new infobox for that map and then I write there that the yellow color means House of Targaryen? Just because I like that... OrionNimrod (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from a copyrighted site, GlobalDataLab. That alone should prohibit this map. But in case I missed something,
It's using a log scale to measure income, which is a very poor choice. All we know is some areas are vaguely poorer or richer than others, but we dont know how much. There isn't even an average value for us to compare with.
Pardon me, but how do you determine that this map was in any way derived from the GlobalDataLab one that you linked? This is certainly not a screenshot, and it's stated nowhere in the map or map description, and the maps do look different - from the base layer, over the data displayed, over the chosen colors, over the labels, to the chosen scale. What do I miss here that makes you so sure of one being the copy of the other?
I also don't get where you see a "log scale", either - all I see is a scale ranging from 6.6 Dollar per Capita to 10.38 Dollar per Capita. Or something to that effect. Yes, there are several things wrong with the map that as a cartographer I would have done better, but "bad style" is no deletion reason. --Enyavar (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i presume it is a screenshot of an older version of the site. or else we'd have to believe the artist went to all that trouble of making their own map, but used the useless log-scale colors of the original source instead of ordinary measurements, and then didnt even bother to add their own legend. why would anyone do that? all the evidence suggests they copied it directly from the site and then labeled it as "own work" since it's easier than going through all that trouble. again to repeat myself:
evidence suggests this is a copyvio. but if you don't believe, please consider:
a log-scale, as labeled in the source, is not a useful measurement of per capita income. i've figured out that the data is meant literally, with no multiplier ... that is, 7 means e^7, so $1096, 8 means e^8, so $2980, and so on .... but 90% of the people viewing this map aren't going to realize that at first glance and I dare say that the other 10% aren't going to know the powers of e by heart. So for all practical purposes, all we know is that green is good and red is bad, like every other map.
because this map is a JPG, nobody can edit it without introducing corruption.
i think the project is better off with no map than with a map like this, and that fixing this one up would be more trouble than it's worth since the source is almost certainly the GlobalDataLab site. Soap (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also repeat myself: I'm less sure now, but I saw no indication that a log scale is present in either map (even if it is, this are map to show gradients between income differences, which they do pretty well. They just fail to communicate that they use unexplained logarithmic data scales. Also, "bad map" is in itself not a deletion reason, or we'd delete 70% of all user-made maps.).
I also see no reason to presume without proof that this could potentially be a screenshot of some older version directly shot from the website you found: that older version would have had different color choices, different regional border choices and a different way to display the map key. That map would be copyrightable, but the mere country subdivisions and also the data are factual content which is not copyrightable. If no proof: Keep --Enyavar (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus PD claim. The source site explicitly credits the image to "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" (notice it is in smaller text, and grey not black; comparison to other articles confirms this is the photo attribution; e.g., [20],[21],etc.)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and although it's not clear when or if the artist of this statue died, it was inaugurated in 2020. So more then 70 years clearly hasn't passed since their death.
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist these sculptures, Marcello Tommasi, died in 2008. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2079.
KeepAdamant1 the scupltures belonged to the sculptor Marcello Tommasi, but they do not all represent his work, they are all classical and Renaissance replicas. For example:
I don't really feel like getting in an argument about it, but there's a difference between something between being "de minimis" and it not being the main subject or element of a photograph. They aren't the same thing. Regardless, in cases like this I usually ask if the photograph would exist or be the same without whatever the element in question is. For instance, if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons? My guess is not. It clearly exists as a display of Marcello Tommasi's statues. His name is in the file name and description. So you can't claim it has nothing to do with him. Same goes for the other images that your saying are "de minimis." The fact is that these images were clearly taken and uploaded to Commons because of Marcello Tommasi's work. Otherwise we could just blur it out, but then the pictures would be kind of worthless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in case it's just n. 1, 6 and 7 to discuss, the other ones we can Speedy keep. For your question "if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons?" my answer is Yes, as my main focus was to portray the courtyard and the collection of gipsum in general, I could have made details for the bronzes if I wanted to focus on them. Btw in Italian "dello scultore" may mean "by the sculptor", yes, but also "belonging to the sculptor, sculptor's property", doesn't necessary mean he made all the statues (in fact he did not). --Sailko (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed he made all the statues. He doesn't need to for the images to copyrighted. Regardless, be my guest and blur his statues out of the images then. Otherwise I still think they should be deleted. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I understand now what was misleading. Somebody in 2021 created the category "Marcello Tommasi (scultore)" - bad name btw, I moved to English - and added some images of the courtyard of his formed studio I had uploaded in 2014. So I understand now why you claimed they portray works of the artist as main subject. Who added the category selected the images quite randomly (including replicas of Classical art), but since there are no photos where the artist's work is the main subject I removed the category. We just need to decide if the "de minimis" rule can apply to those children bronzes, maybe somebody else's opinion could be useful, and see if it worths to edit the images with selective blurring. --Sailko (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool. That makes sense. Thanks for removing the category. I'm not super concered about it if they aren't connected and your telling me the intent of the photographs is mainly the courtyard. I originally thought it was the statues. But I guess it really doesn't matter since most of them aren't by him originally anyway. The important thing is that we know it and its documented somewhere like this DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure number 4 and 5, in which the kids don't appear at all... But I'd say that I agree with Sailko also on the other images, they seem de minimis to me too. Letting aside cases as number 2 in which they are barely visible, also in the other images they are visibile mainly only as a profile, because they are black and in the shadow and they occupy only a small portion of the overall image.--Friniate (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately FOP in the United States doesn't cover Artworks or sculptures, which stained glass windows qualify as. It's also not really clear when these windows were installed since that information isn't included with the files and the artist died in 1996. So there's no way to know which copyright status or term they would qualify for anyway. Whereas the rest of the images were created in France, which doesn't have FOP. So they are copyrighted until at least 2067.
The window is mounted into a building. That is the architecture. It is an allowable style element of the building. It also just occurred to me that these works are doubly allowed because they were installed prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, per {{PD-US-no notice}} and COM:PACUSA. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: So essentially going by your opinion any image of a painting that's mounted on a wall would qualify for FOP simply because of the surrounding elements of the building. Weird take but alright. I can't think of a specific example right now, but from what I remember windows aren't usually considered to be architectural elements of a building because they are installed and can be removed. Anymore then say a light bulb, curtain, floor rug, bookcase, Etc. Etc. would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "mounted into" not "mounted on". Please do not misrepresent my statement. A painting mounted on a wall would obviously not be allowable because it is not part of the architectural work. Windows are indeed architectural, which a quick check of architectural trade magazines will verify (for example this). I am not sure why you are intent on pursuing this argument anyway, given that {{PD-US-no notice}} makes the whole point irrelevant. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IronGargoyle: I know you said "mounted into." I don't think the distinction matters though. Regardless, I was just asking. Again, from what I remember of other conversations most countries don't consider windows to be part of the architecture of the building. Although I agree that {{PD-US-no notice}} probably makes it pointless, but that doesn't mean I can't be interested in your opinion or where you got your information from does it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1, you wrote, "... Artworks or sculptures, which stained glass windows qualify as." Could you please provide a few examples of stained glass under U.S. FoP? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: Maybe I don't understand your question or it's just how I phrased things originally, but I was saying stained glass windows qualify as artwork which doesn't qualify for FOP in the United States. So can you elaborate on your question or tell me what exactly you disagree with about that? Is your contention that you think stained glass windows aren't artwork or is it something else? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Paul Bony, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2053.
The file has a category for the stained glass artist Paul Bony who clearly wasn't around in 1540 because he died in 1982. So either the file description or category is wrong. I don't really care which, but they can't both be right and I couldn't find any indication anywhere about who the original artist was or what exactly he has to do with it. So at least IMO we should defer to COM:PCP unless you know the details and just didn't include them or something. "restored and completed" is also pretty ambigious. "Completed" could mean anything from Paul Bony adding their own elements to recreating an original drawing or something. If it's the former though then the part specifically by Paul Bony would clearly be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza.
Maybe its because I'm from the United States but ""accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" doesn't sound like a completed window would qualify for that part of the law since the window is "an accessory to the main subject" of the image or artwork ts the actual subject. Especially since we don't how much of it was complete before it was finished by Paul Bony or what he added. Like if someone draws the rough outline of a person and I then "complete" it by filling the person in and drawing a room around them I haven't an "accessory to the main subject" at that point. Otherwise shared works wouldn't a thing. The copyright would just default to whomever drew the first line of hair or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is mainly a window from 1540, nearly 500 years ago. Stained glass windows do not stay in prime condition for these extended periods of time. You constantly need careful restorations and when there is a part missing it needs to be replaced. This has been done here by Paul Bony but the main artist is from the 16th century. We do know exactly what in this window is original and what not. The relevant literature is cited in the file description: Martine Callias Bey and Véronique David: Les vitraux de Basse-Normandie, ISBN 2-84706-240-8, pp. 165–166. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of how windows work. The description litterally says that Paul Bony "completed" the window though. Not that he fixed a chip on the corner of it that already exited and was just damaged or something. Regardless, that inherently insinuates that it wasn't finished before Paul Bony worked on it and the work wasn't minor restoration with a wet squiggy to remove some dirt or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this window was complete and finished before. But some parts of the upper lights and other details did not survive (they were severely damaged in 1944 during the invasion in Normandy, see Palissy record) and were then replaced afterwards. The file description summarizes what is original and what not. Quote: “The Virgin and Saint John in the Crucifixion scene are original, likewise the ecclesiastical donors in the left und right Saint Paul and the ecclesiastical donor in the right light.” This means that the main part was just restored but is otherwise original from the 16th century. Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. Please have also a look at the description at Palissy which likewise describes exactly what is original and what not. In summary, this still remains a significant 16th-century window where some minor parts have been replaced. It is impossible to photograph the 16th-century elements without including the additions by Paul Bony. Hence, {{FoP-France}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. That's like 30% of the window though. So it's clearly not de minus. Nor does that much of the window being created by Paul Bony support your claim that it was complete and he just wiped some dirt off of it or whatever. Regardless, if 30% of the window was created by Paul Bony then it's clearly copyrighted. It's not our issue that the rest can't be photographed without including the part by him. Otherwise you could always just blur it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage does not matter, it just needs to be incidental in regard to the main subject according to French case law. Please do not mix this up with the interpretation of de minimis in the United States. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main subject here is the window though. Not just the part of the window that was created in 1540. Otherwise there's reason you wouldn't support blurring out the part of it created by Paul Bony. It seems like you want to have it both ways though where the subject is clearly "the window" but just not the large part of it that happens to be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the tracery window is actually older, probably from the 14th-century, just the stained glass was installed in the 16th century. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Honestly, I could really care less either way. I was just going by the wording in the description and book you cited. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France, these files don't include the date of creation for the windows, and I couldn't find any information about the artist Henri Curcier. So these images should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless someone can figure out when or if Henri Curcier died.
Comment Copied from edit that was reverted do to formating issues "Fichiers à conserver. Henri Curcier est mort à Bamako en 1919. Son œuvre est dans le domaine public. Donnez-vous la peine de chercher un peu mieux avant de proposer des fichiers à la suppression https://www.calameo.com/read/006346484d8b89450df8a p.39]. Cordialement." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these windows are by Henri Curcier who died in 1919, we can keep the images. But first, as Herbert Ortner says in the other deletion request, please add the relevant information to the file descriptions. I would also recommend changing the licensing templates to {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} like this: {{Licensed-PD-Art-two |1=PD-old-auto |2=PD-US-expired |deathyear=1919|3=cc-by-sa-4.0}} (this would cover everything: The PD-old status in France, the PD status in the US, and the uploader's license for their photographs). Gestumblindi (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and it's not really clear who created these stained glass windows or when they were created. So the image should be delete per COM:PCP unless someone can figure out who the artist is and/or when the windows were created.
If there is no date, that does not mean that it is recent! Of course not, but then the opposite is also true and we can't host files that lack information about when the work was created or who created it either. There's really nothing inherently "old" about stained glass windows. It's not like they are ancient artifacts from the Roman Empire or whatever. There's plenty of modern ones. So their origin needs to be documented for images of them to be hosted on Commons just like any other type of work. These and similar images don't just get a special pass from the guidelines "because window." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, but Wikidata says that because I created the entry after you provided me with his biographical information. Both of which you were free to do at the time of upload. The DR was perfectly founded when I created it though since the information wasn't readily available at that point. That said, I'm totally fine if this is closed as keep now that we know when Henri Curcier died. Not to point fingers, but it's on the person who uploads this stuff to document the origin of it at the time of upload. Not leave it up to others to do 14 years later. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these windows are by Henri Curcier who died in 1919, we can keep the images. But first, as Herbert Ortner says, please add the relevant information to the file descriptions. I would also recommend changing the licensing templates to {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} like this: {{Licensed-PD-Art-two |1=PD-old-auto |2=PD-US-expired |deathyear=1919|3=cc-by-sa-3.0}} (this would cover everything: The PD-old status in France, the PD status in the US, and the uploader's license for their photographs). Gestumblindi (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pour File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur.JPG, la signature HC d'Henri Curcier est visible en bas à gauche, à côté de son pied. Pour les sept autres qui n'ont pas de signature, les frises qui entourent les vitraux sont identiques à celles de tous les autres vitraux portant une signature. Les frises sont de deux types : l'un avec feuilles d'acanthe et l'autre avec alternance de carrés rouges et de carrés blancs. Père Igor (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not own work, at least not entirely. Image is a montage of works by several authors. Top-left image is from [22] and credited to Chartchai Neng Chaiyasuko. Lower-left image is from [23] by ณัฎฐพล เทพวงค์. Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation.
1 – photo by Qostanai.Media [24], 2 – photo by Rýdnyi media [25], 3 – photo by local news in Qostanay [26], 4-5 – photos by Wild Ticket [27], 6 – a still frame from this video, 7 – [28], 8 – photo by DXT 1 [29]
Comment. Use in Wikidata is within scope. There is a good chance this Wikidata entry should be deleted, but this file should not be deleted for scope reasons until it is. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davepape: - yes; the original is worth keeping for historical reference, but I didn't see any point in keeping derivatives of it where the cropping makes the blurring more obvious - MPF (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as no source (No source since).
Film negative from 1944. We'd need to know the photographer to determine copyright status, otherwise, we might have to wait until 2065. Abzeronow (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, {{PD-old-assumed}} is not valid whatsoever for US files, and it's concerning that you would suggest that without even looking at the license. Looking at your recent uploads, the majority have incorrectly applied licenses and/or outright lack US public domain justification altogether, which indicates to me that this is a much larger issue than just these files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be eligible for a copyright in the United States you had to register for a copyright up to 1989. I cannot find these in the USCO registration database under any variations of the name. We also have US case law that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer. We generally reserve "unpublished" for when we have a provenance where the image was deposited in an archive by the creator, like we have with commercial archives, like Getty, where they claim the image is under an active copyright. The license should be PD-US-expired. --RAN (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also have US case law that an image is made public when it leaves the custody of the photographer: This is directly at odds with Commons:Publication. If you can provide case law that contradicts it, please start a discussion to change that page rather than making unsourced claims at DRs. There is no evidence for when any of these photographs were published as defined by US law, nor even when they left the custody of the photographer. Commons requires actual proof of publication, not unverifiable assumptions about provenance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that relevant to this discussion, since these are files with no information about their early provenance. We cannot assume that these photos were published before 1929 simply because it is convenient for Commons. If these photos were taken by a private individual for their personal collection, or a company employee for company archives, they very well may have remained unpublished by any legal definition until long past 1929. If the earliest verifiable publication is a still-copyrighted book, we absolutely must assume the images are still copyrighted as well. Pinging User:Clindberg in case you have additional thoughts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PD-old-assumed was also meant for the U.S. -- 120 years from creation is the outside term for works from anonymous authors. There are some grandfather clauses that can have a longer copyright if there was well-timed publication long after creation, but that is rare. Most works are made to be published, and we often assume that -- we don't delete over just any theoretical doubt, because it's almost always possible to put some doubt on files. If there is some indication that publication could have been delayed, such as coming from an estate's files or something like that, it could raise that doubt to a more significant one and we'd need better publication info. Some of these state they were from a collection of a Edward J. Ozog -- to be collected in the first place, they would almost certainly have had to be published. Others seem to come from a book, but not sure the book mentions a provenance (which would hint towards PD status, if they did not). I'm not sure all of them qualify for PD-old-assumed, though some of them were definitely 1800s photos and would. Most of the rest were probably created in the 1800s, as photos / postcards / etc. would have been more common with new equipment rather than ones near the end of their lives. None of them feel like family snapshots that remained unpublished -- they look like postcard-worthy photos and that sort of thing. Some of them definitely Keep as PD-old-assumed; the rest... I will Weak keep as I just can't see any real likelihood these remained unpublished for long. If the source book had any provenance mentioned, that should be repeated here, as publication in 1997 may hit one of those grandfather clauses. I just find it virtually impossible that the author of that book obtained all those photos from the family of the original photographers, which is likely what it would take to have them actually be unpublished as of 1997. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with these images is we don't know when they were published. I often upload old images like this, but typically they are from a published source (a newspaper, journal, etc) where it is straightforward to verify public domain status based on date of publication. I can verify some of these photos were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969 (published with a copyright notice), but if that were the date of publication it wouldn't necessarily make these public domain. Personally I find it ridiculous that these photos from 100+ years ago might still be copyrighted, but we have to follow U.S. copyright law. As much as I'd like to say RAN's cited case law means we can assume public domain, I'm not fully convinced and these images strictly speaking shouldn't be allowed based on the wording of COM:Publication. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no proof of license; website linked does not mention license and it's atypical for photographers to have CC photos without explicitly stating so Ringerfan23 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ringerfan23: Hi! I believe this was uploaded by the photographer, Beth Herzhaft. The first commons uploader is an unrelated user who transferred it from enwiki way back in the day, but if you see the Original upload log it says that the original uploader is Herzco on enwiki, who uploaded a few other photos by this photographer (whose site is herzco.com). That user's other uploads include File:William fichtner.jpg which is properly VRTd, presumably with proof Herzco is Beth Herzhaft and that any other uploads by that user would also be valid. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs•uploads) 15:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
Keep: What part did they say that this is not Wikipedia every time you don't understand (I don't trust it as its policies are harshly strict but different)? I'm planning to put it as an example, badly, in that article FlipaClip. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 01:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC); edited: 07:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is unused now, I claerly see that it might be useful for various purposes (video games, saving the environment, animation, etc.) . And it clearly is valuable art. PaterMcFly (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by Sjö as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: I believe (but am not sure) that the "M" in the shape of a mammoth reaches the threshold of originality as more than simple geometrical shapes.Yann (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
duplicated and outdated. I'm the author. there is another file for its purpose: File:Brasão de Ricardo André Longhi Frantz.jpg tetraktys (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI now File:FKKolubara.gif has also been nominated for deletion with the exact same rationale so I closed it and included it here instead since they're the same logo, only different MIME versions.Jonteemil (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This file was initially tagged by FuzzyMagma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The image clearly does not belong to the uploader, as it was taken around 1928. The worrier is also Shilluk and not Nuer (see the white garment)Yann (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the source and date of this image are correctly identified it may be saved under "PD-Sudan", if it is not licensed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are described as being copyleft (Creative Commons), but we'd need evidence for the (extraordinary) claim that the copyright holder actually CC copylefted these. Several among them are described as having an unknown author: quite how an unknown person can be known to have copylefted their own work according to this or that license is a riddle indeed.
Somewhat exhausted by all of this, I have not additionally listed any of the photos that the same uploader has claimed, more or less credibly, are in the public domain. These include photographs taken as recently as the 1960s that are (i) described as "in the public domain in its country of origin" -- most commonly the US -- "and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer", despite being (ii) by an unknown author.
Most appear to be publicity images according to Tineye, available on eBay, most have expired on eBay, but Tineye has them in their cache. I will continue searching and marking them. The few I checked do not have a copyright symbol on the front or back. I am also looking through the USCO database for registrations and renewals and cannot find any images of Mamie Van Doren under variations of her name. Registration was required up to 1989. Most will fall under: {{PD-US-not renewed}} Universal Studios did not copyright their publicity images until about 1985 when the copyright symbol appeared on the front of the photos. The idea was to allow copyright free distribution so that newspapers would publish them for free, rather than having to buy ad space for a new movie. Some are labeled as Getty Images, but so far I have not found any in their database via Tineye and Google Image, generally I would side with Getty when they claim there is an active copyright, but only if I can confirm the image comes from their collection. It looks like the uploader just added "Getty" to every image, Getty always has good exif data with their copyright info and their database is easy to search by itself or with Tineye. Getty and Alamy routinely run a match against Commons looking for their images. Those are the rare images that the WMF removes each year. --RAN (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list of files above is part of my nomination. Despite appearing above my signature, the comments attached to the list items -- "Delete active Getty copyright", "Keep no renewal or registration", etc -- aren't by me; they're by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN). Hoary (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am never sure how to handle multiple images where some need to be deleted and other entered the public domain, sorry for the confusion. This was all done one at time, it took all day. --RAN (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate (and, before your latest comment, appreciated) the effort you'd put into it, RAN. Though really, it shouldn't be you who felt obliged to do it; it should have been the prospective uploader, before uploading. And I don't mind your way of annotating the list. But perhaps it would be better in future to copy such a list, paste it below, and annotate the pasted copy. Though imaginably the method you used is common in Commons and utterly unsurprising to those who know Commons a lot better than I do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It may be checked the registration/renewal catalogs of the U.S. Copyright Office to verify if the footage has its copyright registered and/or renewed in some point. Works published between 1929 and 1963 whose copyright was not renewed (although being originally published with a copyright notice/registration) are assumed to be PD in the US; and works published before 1978 without a copyright notice/registration are also PD in the US. Verification that one of the cited cases applies to this file. If none of them, then deleting the file should be considered and tagged it for undeletion for 2059 (95 years after publication). 81.41.177.9111:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The footage may be eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} or, more likely, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or any equivalent. For one hand, I made a research at the US Copyright Office copyright records website and the 1967 edition of the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in which a footage by Abraham Zapruder named "Kennedy Assasination" is included. The video registered in 1967 appears to be a fragment of the full-complete footage, as its details recorded in the copyright catalog describe a 10 seconds film. Date of registry for that video was 15 May 1967.
The 1967 registry also appears in the US Copyright Office copyright records website and is the oldest entry which names a video by Abraham Zapruder of Kennedy's assasination (the other entries are of photographs by Zapruder, prehaps photograms extracted from the film, registered with Life magazine/Time Inc. between 1963 and 1964; also are some recent entries from 2000, but them aren't relevant for this discussion).
For the other hand, I didn't find any other copyright entry of the footage in any other version of the Catalog of Copyright Entries from the 1960s, excluding the 1967 version (which cites a 10 sec. film). I haven't found any registration/renewal entry for the full 30 sec. footage (only the 10 sec. video named in the 1967 catalog, which may be a frgment).
Zapruder family donated copyright in January 2000:
The personal collection of the Zapruder family, which includes a first generation copy of the historically significant Abraham Zapruder amateur movie that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, has been donated to The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. The donation, made by the heirs to the Abraham Zapruder estate, also includes the copyright to the film.
Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.
Greetings @Adamant1, I understand your concern regarding the deletion of the flags due to the suggestion that they represent the provincial flags of Indonesia. While it is true that Indonesia does not have provincial flags, the items in question are actually the royal standards of the Sultanate of Riau-Lingga, formerly used by the royal house. The image is based on the historical record from this source.--The Bangsawan (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input and apologies for my delay, @Adamant1. I wanted to clarify that the flags uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by me and another user, Muffin_Wizard, were created in 2015 (We had a discussion on my talk page about the Riau-Lingga Sultanate and the flags back in 2015, although the discussion was conducted in the local Sabahan Malay dialect). According to the Internet Archive, the flags on Hubert de Vries' website have been available since April 14, 2011 (see Internet Archive version from April 14, 2011). This shows that the designs on the website predate the uploads on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, it is unlikely that Hubert de Vries obtained the flags from Wikimedia Commons.--The Bangsawan (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whist true that the provincial flags did not exist in law, it was used at events such as the opening of the National Paralympic Week event 2016 (XV) in Siliwangi Stadium, Bandung. Although this was done prior to the notice that it did not exist in law, its usage in commercial and non-commercial events was set as a predicament to not delete such flags from commons. Meanwhile the rest of the flags options presented here does not correlate your reasons for deletion as none were used in a provincial setting. Given flags were used in a Historical context at some point during the existence of the Riau Sultanate, thus not a valid reason for deletion Kaliper1 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1Second row to third row.Now, Concerning the flags whether it gives legitimacy or not, i'll give you an image. Here is a collection of flags made by the Topographic Bureau, of The Dutch Ministry of War. The intention of Such catalogue was to note the different signage and identification used by Dutch generals, traders, and sailors in navigating the land and waters of the Dutch East Indies. Charted in 1865, The Riau-Lingga Sultanate was far from destroyed such in the eve of the Second World War. No, in 1865, they were tributary states who acted autonomously within the framework of a Swaprajan system of the Dutch East Indies. The Sultan had authority over its subjects albeit in the strict oversight under the authority of the General Gouvernorship in Batavia, but given autonomy neitherless. Such like flags are also given authority as par as Dutch flags (commercial flags, Warflags, ect.). Unless the Dutch Ministry of War in 1865, (still trying to consolidating their hold in the Dutch East Indies mind you), purposefully spoofed and made up the existence of these flags to publish it widely, there's no reason to delete. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I we're to grant you most or all of that we'd still need to know the dates and locations of the original designs publication. As well as figure out the proper licensed. Since these clearly aren't the uploaders own work. So "PD-Self" doesn't work. Nor does "PD-IDGov" for the reason I've already stated. So what's your suggestion? Or should we juat keep the images despite the clearly invalid licenses and just call it good there? I assume you have an answer since you seem to know more about the subject then I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Adamant1. For the first and Second points, it applies to PD-IDGov as it is still used in its original nature. Given that the only modification or changes made isn't on the Coat of Arms itself where PD-IDGov applies. Instead, the coat of arms (not modified) rest on a white field. No different from putting said coat of arms on a white Paper, background of a Government website, or Government Billboard with a different background color. The nature and meaning of the Coat of Arms remain unchanged, and its symbolism is preserved. As long as the Coat of Arms itself is not modified (such as changes in the number of symbols, rewritten text, or color alterations), its use remains within its 'original nature.' This interpretation is common in Indonesia, where government agencies frequently reuse symbols in their official (such like a meeting) and Unofficial capacities (such like a sponsored local-Marathon or province-wide national competition.). Eg. Differing ministries use the state emblem, the 'garuda', in many flags with differing additions such from letters and colors. The emblem is not modified, PD-IDGov applies to the emblem. The same can be apply here.
For the rest, usually flags such like these does not have copyright given its longevity and un-uniqueness? I'll get back on that in a minute. However if there are any, there are many ways we could identify these flags. We could easily use PD-Art-100, as the flags were created 100 years prior and given that the Riau-Lingga Sultanate ceased to exist in 1911. Another way would be PD-IDOld-Art30, an Indonesian copyright tag that signify its classification is now on the Public domain, given that the Indonesian copyright system only lasts about 50 Years. Now if any of these two somehow cannot apply, use the most likely license;
PD-shape or its accurate cousin, PD-Flag. Yes we have a specific license id for such! Flags across WikiCommons that have either no origin or existing current countries, eg. pirate flags, old Kingdom/Duchy flags from the 1400's, or signaling flags, use this. Given that flags like listed above only consisted of Squares, triangles, circles, saltires, ect. falls under simple shape.
This image of simple geometry is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.
For place, time, location? Just insert the actual Kingdom's information. Riau-Lingga Sultanate. Located on the Islands of Riau, existed from 1824–1911. Again from it's existence, it is more than 100 years old, way passed public domain. Its flags, either done by a digital recreation or an actual dated flag sheet, is also to simple to be copyrighted. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.
Overall for the note for "there are no official provincial flags in Indonesia", this is not true. There is a 2007 law that allows for flags to exist. Chapter 4 Article 6 gives details what the designs are allowed to look like. To quote the law "(1) Desain bendera daerah berbentuk segi empat panjang dengan
ukuran panjang dan lebar 3 (tiga) berbanding 2 (dua) yang memuat logo daerah." Google Translates gives the following translation: "(1) The design of the regional flag is rectangular in shape with the length and width are 3 (three) compared to 2 (two) that contains the regional logo." While the category does say that flags can only be registered via the Opens profile photo
Asosiasi Veksilologi & Heraldik Indonesia/Indonesian Vexillological & Heraldic Association, I do have an issue with this. Their website is not active, not filled out, no registry and no contact information present. A lot of "lorem ipsum" content. Now, does this mean we cannot double-check to see if the flags exist? No. I am the editor of the FOTW page for Indonesia and for the past few years, been trying to clean up that section and mark things as real/fake and add sources over time. But many times, we pretty much have only photo evidence to go off and sometimes we do not know what the flags look like. I think each flag should be looked at individually. User:Zscout370(Return fire)06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
there are no official provincial flags in Indonesia
This claim is not completely true. Per @Zscout370's comment, these flags are sometimes actually used in official contexts in the respective regencies and cities. I found a number of images that might support this opinion: [31] and [32], even though the two images were taken in regencies/cities located in Kalimantan, not Java. The problem may lie in the images of this flag which are not published on the official regency/city websites, with the exception of a number of regencies/cities such as Bandung. However, these flags may be used in official contexts such as rallies or regional events. Even though the source of the image is a less credible primary source, it is better than a baseless statement like this. Fazoffic (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Bandung City, it is actually the same, although there is a Flag statement on the website. However, it is not legally clear how to remember from the source Decree of the Temporary Regional People's Representative Council of Bandung City dated June 8, 1953 No. 9938/53 (Surat Keputusan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Sementara Kota Besar Bandung tanggal 8 Juni 1953 No. 9938/53) and there is no increase to the Regional Regulation. So, De Jure Bandung also does not have a flag considering that I have not found a Regional Regulation related to the determination of the Flag. Baqotun0023 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second the notion that deletion must be taken individually and not carte blanche. Calling the aforementioned flags as "fictional" is also wrong, I'm not sure where the suggestion originally comes from, but most likely it was a unilateral claim. I also find these notes:
NOTE: Indonesia doesn't recognize regional flags, and most flags in this gallery are either unofficial or fiction. Official flags are usually registered by the Indonesian Vexillology and Heraldry Association (IVHA). Therefore, this gallery is made by vexillologists and for unofficial purposes only. Please check the sources of the flags before you use them in any way.
To be inaccurate, based on my short research it seems IVHA was created in 2020, I highly highly doubt they have any official nor legal bindings to anything government related. Considering they have yet to be mentioned once by the Government in any capacity, and their leader Frederik Widjaja is self proclaimed as President, I doubt they should be taken seriously. As someone with IT background I also can second that their website and social medias are all abandoned, never updated, and used. Website is very basic and filled with placeholders and untouched templates, no way to contact them whatsoever. Therefore their words should not be taken as face value and until proven otherwise are better ignored and the notes removed because its incorrect. Indonesia does recognize regional flags (provincial, etc.) sure their regulations are a bit hard to find but they exist and in use by officials, in official capacity, on official events. TL:DR they should not be deleted based on a wrong note. -EvoSwatch (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, my comments are the same as in this discussion, but I'll rewrite them here anyway.
Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia.
This is not true, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2007 outlines general guidelines for regional coat of arms and flags, covering provinces, cities, and regencies. According to Article 6.1, regional flags must be square with a 3:2 ratio and feature the coat of arms.
It’s important to note that, unlike regional flags, all regional coat of arms are regulated by specific laws, placing them in the public domain. Since provincial flags are simply the coat of arms placed on a square background, they are considered derivative works of public domain images. As such, anyone arranging the coat of arms on a square background can rightfully claim it as 'own work' and no copyright violation exists.
So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.
According to COM:OOS, Files are considered within scope if they are media files in an allowable free format, freely licensed or in the public domain, realistically useful for educational purposes, and do not contain only excluded educational content. The images in this deletion request meet these criteria, as they are media files, freely licensed or public domain as on my comments mentioned above, and serve an educational purpose by representing regional flags per COM:INUSE. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a similar CfD discussion where the nominator was the same, and the nominator's statement in the CfD was identical. The subject of the CfD is also similar—here it's the flags of cities and regencies in West Java, while in the previous case it was the flags of provinces in Indonesia. Therefore, the arguments for keeping the files in this nomination should be the same. The previous CfD closed with a 'clear consensus towards keep.' I suggest referring to that discussion. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These files are recent photographic reproductions of a 3D work (sculpture) obtained from two websites but without evidence supporting a free use of the photographs (the sculpture is PD by its age, but {{PD-Art}} clause doesn't apply for 3D works like this, so we need also permission from the photographer/s who took each photograph.
Contrary to the indication in the file name, this image depicts a museum plaque with significant English text, presumably from a 2022 exhibition at the Latvian national library. This seems copyrightable to me, and there is neither an indication of a free license from the copyright holder nor any usable freedom of panorama in Latvia. Felix QW (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Article 6 of the Constitution of Bolivia from 2009, the Wiphala is a national symbol of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, therefore it is valid in all of the country's territory. This means that the map is incorrect, given that it shows the Wiphala only being valid in some regions of Bolivia. Therefore, I nominate this image to be deleted. -Ingaviano (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow Can you please weigh in on this topic? The flag of the Wiphala is a national symbol, therefore it is absolutely incorrect to show the flag as being only in one region of Bolivia, when clearly the Constitution says otherwise. Ingaviano (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AbzeronowIt is in COM:INUSE because it was just added a couple of hours ago by the same creator of the contested file in a Wikipedia article. To add to that, can we focus on the argument of what the Constitution of Bolivia says about the Wiphala flag? A flag that is established to be a national flag by the Constitution cannot be shown as being representative of only a region of Bolivia. It contradicts the Constitution and is therefore misleading. Ingaviano (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that Wiphala is a national symbol of Bolivia (it is also a symbol in other South American countries). Perhaps the description can be changed to reflect that it is a national symbol and being used to symbolize regions of the country not covered by the other flags? Abzeronow (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow Thank you, I appreciate your suggestion to change the description to reflect that the Wiphala is a national symbol, however this solution does not resolve the core issue. The map would still be misleading because it visually represents the Wiphala as a symbol for only a specific region of Bolivia, when in reality according to Article 6 of the Constitution of Bolivia from 2009, the Wiphala is a national symbol of all of Bolivia, valid across the entire country. Therefore, showing in the map that Wiphala implies regional limitation contradicts the Constitution and misrepresents what the Constitution explicitly says. For this reason, changing the description alone is insufficient, and the map should be removed to prevent misinformation. To add to that, based on the Commons deletion policy, the file should be considered for deletion as it does not provide realistic educational value. Given that accurate representation of national symbols is important for educational purposes, I believe the file doesn't meet the standards of educational purpose of Commons. Lastly, I would like to invite @Bodoque9903 that has previously expressed his opinion on the other similar (and redundant) file to this "File:Flag-map of Bolivia, Wiphala & bandera de la flor de Patujú.svg". Ingaviano (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to China's copyright law, a photographic work enters public domain after 50 years. Since this image was published in 1992, its still copyrighted and not in public domain. Bookish Worm (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why it was tagges as no permission. It was uploaded to English Wikipedia as own work. It was then transferred to Commons with a bot. There are thousands of files that was transferred from Wikipedia to Commons and we do not require any permission from original uploader for that.
During the 1990s football clubs in Albania were wholly owned and financed by the municipality in which they belonged to. If we were to go by the definition of the existing copyright law in the country, this logo would fall in line with the PD-Albania-exempt template as logos of government organizations. Kj1595 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football clubs in communist Albania were entities of the communist state as the private sector was abolished. Copyright laws did not exist. If we were to go by the definition of the existing copyright law in the country, this logo would fall in line with the PD-Albania-exempt template as logos of government organizations. Kj1595 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logo above is almost 100 years old. Furthermore, football clubs in communist Albania were entities of the communist state as the private sector was abolished. Copyright laws did not exist. If we were to go by the definition of the existing copyright law in the country, this logo would fall in line with the PD-Albania-exempt template as logos of government organizations. Kj1595 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright? Is this single contibution of the user own work? From the metadata it is unlikely that the photo has been taken in the sun. Also the pattern looks that it has been taken from a screen. See also similar photos as this one taken in 2005 with copyright comments. Wouter (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now come to my attention that Pharaph is also a sock of Stubes99. Question remains what is the point in getting rid of ban evaders if the content they insert is allowed to remain. I'm leaving this deletion nomination up in the air. 188.167.254.3221:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This flag is fictious and is erroneously described as the flag of a historical exonym. In simpler terms, this is a made up flag for a made up polity. Normally I would not go out of my way to propose the deletion of self-works, but this flag is being used erroneously by users across multiple projects, as well as several search engines, to represent a non-existent polity. You can see my more detailed objections to the fabricated "Tunganistan" here, at the English Wikipedia: en:Talk:Tunganistan#Western exonym. Yue🌙02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC-BY license in the website https://www.argentina.gob.ar only applies to the content the Argentine government produces. On the source page they credit Cynthia Sabat, an Argentine journalist [33]. Also notice that these images are from her personal collection, are likely not taken by her. Another photo from the same article credited to her is File:Ilse Fuskova azafata.png taken way before Sabat was born. Günther Frager (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kia ora, just wanted to note that these two other photos we're uploaded by me under the same rationale so would also have to be deleted if these are.
So the website stating conditions isn't sufficient as a free license? In the section hereUse of website Images/Photos it states "All other images/photos on the website are copyrighted to the Napier City Council, if you use these images you must state that the images/photos are copyrighted to the Napier City Council" - to me that's just them asking for attribution if you use it which implies you can use it. I did read some of the relevant pages on commons about licensing, it is unclear to me if this falls afoul of the guidance there. Having a look at other files tagged with this same Attribution template just now, I didn't find any that were this situation (though most of them were dead links to license pages so who knows what they said) seems like a point against these images though. Interested in what the outcome is here. Cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a sufficient permission. It is not irrevocable, and it doesn't allow derivative works, etc. Since they already allow some limited use, they may be willing to release some images under a free license. Yann (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked NCC about it, TheLoyalOrder? That's a very good idea as they seem open to making their content available; they just haven't gone about it the right way. I can guide you through the process of getting formal sign off from the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if they reply in the positive and you want a hand with the next steps. Schwede6602:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I've communicated with the mayor's PA, first by email and then by phone. Basically, their intentions are identical to CC BY 4.0, but she now understands that this is not what it says on their website. I've informed her of NZGOAL and she has asked me to put that in writing, so that others at their council can decide to make the necessary changes. She's asked me to write a suitable copyright statement for their website, which is what I've done. She will now try and get that approved internally. She thinks that given that NZGOAL basically asks them to provide material with an open license, this should not be too hard to achieve. I therefore suggest that we wait a wee while until I hear back from her. If they change their website accordingly, I'll let you know. If she can't get this sorted out, we can action this in a wee while (e.g. in a fortnight's time). Schwede6600:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not own work. May be public domain because of age or clause in copyrights law in country of origin. Proper license tag should be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect copyright license, with expired? links. According to [34], this is a painting from 김기창 from 1973. Unless the artist relinquished the copyright, it's not expired. 211.43.120.24210:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the artist Kim Ki-chang in 1973, incorporated the opinions of historians and imagination for a possible commission from the Korean Government for using derived images of Sejong on bank notes and stamps, maybe held by Collection of King Sejong Historic Sites Management Center?
They, and or the library, might be able to give its copyright status. Are they government bodies, it seems to be a part of some national history reclamation project? If so, it might just be PD?
See no reason why @User:Adamant1 marked these pictures for speedy deletion. They are taken by an uploader. If there is any doubts that is not true - the admin marking pictures for speedy deletion should at least briefly explain why. Otherwise it is a kind of harassment of the innocent user. Polimerek (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polimerek: One of the images has since been deleted seperately by Yann as COPYVIO. Plus the user already has a long list of deleted images on their talk page. So I don't really see a reason to take them at their word about it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow. Any creative work, such as these books, created in India is by default copyrighted by the author until 60 years after their death. While it's possible that HBN Singh released these books under some sort of permissive license, I don't see any evidence that he did so. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RodRabelo7 - The issue of photos of the abductees has already come up in this discussion and it was decided to keep the photos. Additionally not all of the images that are in this discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.
For example,
in these files the images are mostly unrecognizable:
Comment: Chenspec, it's false to say that "it was decided to keep the photos". First, because the photographs nominated to deletion by A1Cafel are different from these ones. Second, because differently from what you claim, there was no consensus to keep the files; administrator Infrogmation even stated, "No prejudging relisting individual or smaller carefully sullected subsets of images". And I'm sorry, but not a single file I've nominated to deletion can benefit from de minimis (with maybe the exception of 18 and 87, as you pointed out); I've been very careful when I nominated these ones to deletion. When you state that "In these files the images are a small part of a larger work", you ignore that the "larger work" is almost entirely made of copyrighted photographs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7 even though it consists of mainly copyrighted photos, that if photographed individually may hqve to be classified as "fair use", I don't think the claim that having lots of copyrighted artworks appear in a photograph, while in small size and on the verge of recognition – violates their copyright, and it should still be in the commons. Aren't there photos of Times Square on Commons?
Just to be clear, I didn't put these posters next to each other for the sake of photography - that's how they appeared in the installation. That is, they are indeed part of a larger work.
In general, with regard to the images of the abductees, the issue of copyright is affected by the circumstances and the context. This is because most if not all of the photos were taken for the family album by family members and friends, which means that it is unlikely that any professional photographer's livelihood will be affected. Also, the families of the abductees are the ones who provided the photos as part of the effort to return their loved ones. I mean, they are interested in as wide a distribution as possible and I can't think of a reason why they would want to sue someone who promotes this goal.
The many attempts to remove these images from the public sphere stem mainly from political considerations unrelated to the issue of copyright. This is of course against the wishes of the families, and with the intention of harming them and their efforts to return their loved ones.
Unlike similar cases such as the discussion of the photos of the installation "Each name is a whole world" where I was happy to contact the creator and ask for her approval, contacting the families in this matter is out of the question. These are people who spend every spare moment fighting for their loved ones in any way possible, most of them lost their homes, relatives or friends and did not stop to grieve or take care of themselves. They are busy with survival and saving the people who are most important to them - it is not appropriate to contact them and bother them with bureaucratic issues. I ask to consider the unusual circumstances of these photos. Chenspec (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to "which means that it is unlikely that any professional photographer's livelihood will be affected", fair use doesn't exist on Commons. In regards to "The many attempts to remove these images from the public sphere stem mainly from political considerations unrelated to the issue of copyright", try not to cast aspersions, even if subtly. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the administrator who closes this deletion request, there's a topic about it in the Hebrew Wikipedia: here. I have no skills on the language, so maybe there's more out there. To the ones who have came here thanks to that topic, please try to base your comments on Commons policies. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to make personal accusations. I wanted to emphasize the point that although it is currently not possible to contact the families for ethical-humanitarian reasons, in light of the circumstances it can be assumed that this is desirable in their eyes and that there is no legal risk.
Also, following the same circumstances, there are indeed many discussions on the subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but we are here for the same goal of creating free access to the entirety of human knowledge. Disagreements or doubts about the ways to do this are legitimate and an integral part of the process - that's what the discussion pages are for. I take your comments to heart and I'm sure others will too.
I have been uploading photos for many, many years and except for a small number of individual cases there has been no problem with the photos I have uploaded. That's why I don't have much experience in deletion debates and of course the topic is sensitive - thank you for your patience and consideration Chenspec (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not merely a reproduction of the poster - that is: a photo of a single poster, almost a scan - but a photo of a street display or a protest, and therefore it does not fall under copyright restrictions. An equivalent argument: you can photograph and upload here a street view, even if billboards are seen in the photo. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does fall under copyright restrictions. In Israel, there's only freedom of panorama for works located permanently in public spaces (see hyperlink in nomination text). Once they are rescued, the poster will very likely be removed. In regards to the last sentence, it actually depends, I've seen lots of photos of streets being deleted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image, along with all of Piimapoika’s other images, have minimal credibility. For example, he uploaded in image of June Palmer, labeling it his own work and that it was around 1985, but the wiki page says 1978. Anyway’s, along with all other images uploaded by him, these are labeled his own work and this is uploaded with a crazy claim Wcamp9 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image, uploaded as saying the year was 1985 (however, Palmer’s wiki page says 1978, is not uploaded by him and the rest of the images are the same, crazy claims come with them Wcamp9 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image, along with Piimapoika’s other images, are all claimed to be his own work. However, this cannot be farther from the truth. For example, the June Palmer image he uploaded from (as he claimed) 1985 is clearly not his own work Wcamp9 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this user’s claims for this image being his own work are untrustworthy and obviously false. For example, his page for June Palmer claims that the photograph taken from 1985 is his own work Wcamp9 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user obviously steals images from the internet and labels them with his own work. These claims are extremely false. Wcamp9 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Italy the 2 following articles authorized the publication of an art work if its not for profit and if it contributes to the promotion of knowledge of cultural heritage, an you must give credit to the artist. So, it's true that there is no explicit FOP, but there are laws that regulate the photographic reproduction of art works.
It is a picture of a beach towel with a logo on it. It may or may not be licensed merchandise. It is not apparent that the upload is a derivative work itself. Might be more worthwhile talking about its lack of educational value. — billinghurstsDrewth02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all other uploads of account have been deleted. These seem likely to have been overlooked. The account seems to have been abondened on wn.wp. Umlikely [own] work. COPYVIO
Comment The second mentioned has metadata, the first without. The first is in use at enWP, so should have more than impressions to be deleted. Neither show up as being elsewhere in Google Lens. — billinghurstsDrewth02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ese pide eliminar porque el archivo no es de carácter educativo y actualmente se está usando la foto para dañar la imagen de la persona Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the deletion request is a recent creation of an account by the same person. At the time I would agree that we would have done an F10. I see no issue in deleting this image per the request. — billinghurstsDrewth02:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the second person is the politician of which we have others. Deleting this image seems to have minimal negative consequences. It appears that the deletion request is a recent creation of an account by the same person. — billinghurstsDrewth02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Se solicita la eliminación porque el Archivo no es de carácter educativo ni informativo, es una fotografía de una persona normal que se subió por desconocimiento hace años y ahora es usado para dañar la imagen de la persona en la actualidad. Jgtorr10 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 1957 photograph that is unlikely to be the own work of the person running the Flickr stream. There is no explanation on the Flickr stream of how else he would be the copyright holder. We would doubt this as an own work claim if it were uploaded locally to begin with, so I think we should apply the same standards to it as a Flickr image. May be PD for other reasons, but without accurate provenance this is very hard to verify. Its first online publication seems to be on the blog of the Flickr stream owner in 2009, where unfortunately questions about the image went unanswered. Felix QW (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being the copyright holder of that image would be very serious if that were true, so please confirm if that is officially the case. Otherwise, I'd assume good faith. It's not impossible that the person is the copyright holder, afterall. Jackdude101talkcont20:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not impossible, but still implausible. It will not be his own work, since he is unlikely even to have been alive in 1957, and the Walt Disney company itself featured it on their own website here. To me, this rises to significant doubt. I find it easier to assess such claims when made by users directly on Commons, since there at least uploaders have to commit to ẃhy they own the copyright: it being their own work, or inherited, etc., and thus it is easier to assess the plausibility of that particular claim. Felix QW (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed an image taken by the Walt Disney Company, have you seen any instance of a copyright notice? Per this link from Cornell University [35], any image taken between 1929 and 1977 (this attraction only operated between 1957 and 1958 before being immediately replaced by other Disneyland attractions) without a copyright notice would put it in the public domain. Disney is usually very good about pairing copyright notices with every image it showcases, and if the source you provided is an official Disney source, and given that there is no copyright notice on the image itself, that in fact proves that they overlooked adding a notice to this specific image. In this instance, we would simply change the license tag to public domain on Commons. Side note: this reminds me of the wealth of Wikipedia featured articles for classic movies that get away with having screenshots from the movies in the articles by taking those screenshots from the trailers for the movie, which in the past were overlooked in terms of copyrighting. Jackdude101talkcont03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is longstanding practice here at Commons only to accept {{PD-US-no-notice}} claims where we have actual proof of a physical 1929-1977 copy of the image without a notice. The online publication from Disney itself is from long after 1977 and therefore does not require a notice in the first place. In this case, we have no idea about its publication history at all. It may very well have only been published in some magazine or other, where it would have been covered by a central copyright notice for the whole magazine. Felix QW (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Jackdude101: I would suggest that you look to upload directly to English Wikipedia as a FAIR USE upload. The use in the blog has other photographs that would not be the writer's, so COM:PCP guides us to delete here. Please comment here when you have uploaded to enWP, or whether you do not intend to do so, and we can close this one out. — billinghurstsDrewth02:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image contains a signature of Bart Verhaeghe's wife, while this was uploaded by a communication employee who claims it to be her work. Given that another image of his is also a copyright infringement, I suspect this one to be as well. Dajasj (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoyanova. I was contacted by the photogapher herself to add this recent photo to the page of Bart Verhaeghe. I have a 100% authorization to publish this picture. DeVosJan (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dajasj raises a good point. If Ann De Kelver only gave DeVosJan permission to use this image in that one article, it cannot be hosted on Commons. DeVosJan would have to upload the image to Dutch Wiki directly. Tvx1 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious Creative Commons license: originally taken from an external non-free website [36], then the source link removed and an OTRS tag added by a user, who isn’t an OTRS member. 188.123.231.2420:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does yesterday's discussion on the Russian Wikipedia have to do with the weird actions a few years ago on the Serbian one? --188.123.231.2407:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poltavski: First of all, please refrain from constantly sending me to go somewhere and read something: according to COM:EVID policy, it is you who must provide evidence of the possibility to upload images on Commons. And well, if one still read this text, it is all the more obvious that this Mr. Samardzic has absolutely no rights to determine the licensing status of these photographs, since he is neither their author nor their proper copyright holder. Quick1984 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suppose that the photo of year 1942 could have been published before 1941 or it's author has been died before 1941? As for the other PD templates we still need to clarify the date of first publication. Quick1984 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment There seems to be concensus to keep files that are PD in the home country if the only issue is that they might not be PD in the US because of the URAA. --MGA73 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete Since the works in question are in copyright in the US they are not compatible with Commons licensing policy. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep If the films were shown in USA, then they are OK. For URAA, you have to prove that these files are affected. So if you give evidence that the films were NOT shown in USA, then this is a valid request. Yann (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
You previously proposed it for deletion as you thought it was copyrighted. Diabolicum (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
. — Racconish 💬 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(
(
Ticket:2024063010000477 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 03:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Question when was the mosaic made/completed and (if possible) who was its artist? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep. For your question "if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons?" my answer is Yes, as my main focus was to portray the courtyard and the collection of gipsum in general, I could have made details for the bronzes if I wanted to focus on them. Btw in Italian "dello scultore" may mean "by the sculptor", yes, but also "belonging to the sculptor, sculptor's property", doesn't necessary mean he made all the statues (in fact he did not). --Sailko (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Info: According with this, the film was first broadcasted on 6 March 1975, at Goodnight America. 81.41.177.91 12:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Not duplicates. They are different colours, for starters. Dogfennydd (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![1.11.18 File:The team of the program "sustainable sanitation - ecosan" (4537027493).jpg](#File:The_team_of_the_program_"sustainable_sanitation_-_ecosan"_(4537027493).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_03marble.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Dilip_Kumar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped_on_Meena_Kumari.jpg){kind=link}
_cover.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_original.png){kind=link}
_for_AZE_DNA_map.png){kind=link}
_project_dna_map_AZE.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_OIL_PAINTING_BY_RAJASEKHARAN.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Oil_painting_by_Rajasekharan.jpg){kind=link}
_Rajasekharan_2017.jpg){kind=link}
,_OIL_PAINTING_BY_RAJASEKHARAN.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![19:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/06#c-EMsmile-20240624194600-File:The_team_of_the_program_"sustainable_sanitation_-_ecosan"_(4537027493).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://persianv.com/celebrity/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2019/12/استوری-اینستاگرام-هنرمندان-272-6-600x1068.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://djnaploja.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/magyar-kirc3a1lysc3a1g-xiii-sz.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atlas_Hermann_Haack.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Romanian_Settling_and_Autonomy_in_Medieval_Hungary.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_signature.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_signature.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_signature.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_signature.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fprokalteng.jawapos.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F03%2Fdprd-seruyan-2.jpg&tbnid=0a4sNBMsuotVPM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fprokalteng.jawapos.com%2Fdprd%2Fdprd-seruyan%2F21%2F03%2F2022%2Fdprd-seruyan-paripurna-penetapan-fraksi-fraksi%2F&docid=sb7LCWieiL6blM&w=720&h=480&itg=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F6&kgs=dbfc517e67e09fa3&shem=abme%2Ctrie#vhid=0a4sNBMsuotVPM&vssid=mosaic&ip=1){kind=link}
![[32]](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent.cdninstagram.com%2Fv%2Ft51.29350-15%2F448041823_8567465459936638_628236780913905222_n.webp%3Fstp%3Ddst-jpg_e35%26efg%3DeyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6ImltYWdlX3VybGdlbi4xMDgweDYwNy5zZHIuZjI5MzUwIn0%26_nc_ht%3Dscontent.cdninstagram.com%26_nc_cat%3D110%26_nc_ohc%3DySMUSKPw6PgQ7kNvgF6bRlI%26gid%3Df2f474369bce4150bfde0c0a49d4d295%26edm%3DAPs17CUBAAAA%26ccb%3D7-5%26ig_cache_key%3DMzM4NzEyOTk0MTg2OTc5NjYyMA%253D%253D.2-ccb7-5%26oh%3D00_AYClbrkIndSUbyVHakb0TmPmFbAtUP6hcNlJ7MY8OWAnCw%26oe%3D66959B53%26_nc_sid%3D10d13b&tbnid=1dBRFA1oHwaXqM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fprotokol_komunikasi_seruyan%2Fp%2FC8BgL3yPpJe%2F&docid=QouAAnGLagfYBM&w=1080&h=607&itg=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F6&kgs=0a5eac757a3f9bd6&shem=abme%2Ctrie#vhid=1dBRFA1oHwaXqM&vssid=mosaic&ip=1){kind=link}
,_03marble.jpg){kind=link}
,_03marble.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_03marble.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_was_Indian_Hindi_Author_and_writer.png){kind=link}
_was_Indian_Hindi_Author.png){kind=link}
![[36]](https://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%d0%94%d0%b0%d1%82%d0%be%d1%82%d0%b5%d0%ba%d0%b0:%d0%9f%d1%83%d0%ba%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%bd%d0%b8%d0%ba_%d0%a1%d1%82%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%88%d0%b8%d1%9b_1942.jpg&oldid=11061634){kind=link}
