Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/10

9 September 2024

11 September 2024

Deletion requests on 10 September 2024

September 10

File:Whitcomb marion.jpg

I'm dubious this is Greg Henderson's own work. Picture is from 1951. Suppossing this picture was taken when the uploader was ten years old, he would be at least 83 years old. His userpage portrait does not suggest so. Bedivere (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Changed license to this work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. Photo depicts author Whitcomb and his wife from a 1951 photo. Greghenderson2006 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide proof where this was first published? Bedivere (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was never published. It is part of the Henderson Family Collection. It was taken in Carmel Valley, California at the wedding for Alexander D. Henderson and Patricia Ford on February 17, 1951. It is therefore in the public domain. Greg Henderson (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: The image is also eligible for "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs" if Greg Henderson inherited the images and associated rights. --RAN (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Yes, the images are in the Henderson Family Collection. I've updated the file license to "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs|Greghenderson2006". Greg Henderson (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence all heirs agree to release the file under that license? Are you the sole heir? Bedivere (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Family images can be released under "Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs" and commercial photography is made public when it leaves the custody of the creator, according to US case law. --RAN (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Statues of Lenin in Vyksa

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Russia for sculptures and it's extremely unlikely the artist of this one has been dead for more then 70 years. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The monument was erected in 1927 according to the model of the working iron foundry of the Verkhny Plant of Lavrenty Semenovich Kochnev by the plant workers themselves. The best shift of the blast furnace shop under the leadership of Pavel Stulov, an active Komsomol member, smelted the iron, the mold was made by I. I. Muftelev and I. I. Stulov, the best pourers I. Panteleev with his assistant I. Sukhanov poured the mold. Extremely likely the artist of this monument has been dead for more than 70 years already. Olksolo (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gkjdfjk.jpg

Unused low quality photo of nondescript road, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, but I think the road and location are clearly identified in Portuguese in the description as "ERS-168 totalmente restaurada em 2016/2017 no trecho 02, entre São Luiz Gonzaga e Roque Gonzales." However, Delete per FBMD in the EXIF. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two more. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Australian Railways T class locomotive (builder's photo).jpg

The title is erroneous (earlier error on my part). Redirect is now achieved direct from Class T Locomotive Engine(GN06840).jpg SCHolar44 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attributed to Kucharsky - Antoinette Marie Septimanie O'Brien de Thomond, duchesse de Praslin.png

request of the own uploader. It's a lower quality copy of File:Charlotte Antoinette Marie Septimanie O'Brien de Thomond (1759 -1808), duchesse de Praslin.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One is jpg and one is png and they each have slightly different color temperatures, the png is pinker than the other. --RAN (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JC IMG 20221025 230459.jpg

Personal Image, not related to wikipedia education guidlines - IndrajitDas 04:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be used to document a personal history... Es para documentar un historia VenezuelaResearcher (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Lenin monument (Kopylov Street, Kazan)

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Russia for sculptures and it's extremely unlikely that the artist of this one has been dead for more then 70 years. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are replicated sculptures that were installed in large numbers throughout the former USSR. The authors of these sculptures did not have property rights to them; they received a fee for their work. The owner of these sculptures and their images was the Soviet government, which no longer exists. On this basis, I believe that there is no reason to remove these images. They are in the public domain. MarSaf (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarSaf: There's a ton of statues of Lenin in Russia out there and undoubtably some of them aren't copyrighted because they are based one's created during the former USSR. But a lot of them have their unique designs and every modern statues of Lenin doesn't get a special pass from being copyrighted just because someone created one of him during the Soviet Union that's PD. We need evidence that the statue is based on the original design or that the artist has been dead for more then 70 years to host the images. You can't just say that all statues of Lenin created in perpetuity since the 20s are PD just because someone created one of him in the 30s that is. That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the author of the model for these multi-print sculptures was Georgy Dmitrievich Alekseev, who lived from 1881 to 1951. More than 70 years have passed since his death. Алексеев, Георгий Дмитриевич MarSaf (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a special website dedicated to the multi-edition sculptures of Lenin, where the authors of certain types of sculptures are discussed (https://leninstatues.ru/). I am giving you a link to a specific monument (http://leninstatues.ru/photo/3468/kazan-ulica-pobezhimova), which you nominated for deletion. It is indicated there that its author is Georgy Dmitrievich Alekseev (1881 - 1951), who died more than 70 years ago. MarSaf (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am sending a link to a site that talks about the replicated sculptures of Lenin (https://lenin.tilda.ws/typology) MarSaf (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Can you create a Wikidata item for the statue and add Georgy Dmitrievich Alekseev as the author for me? I'll withdraw my nomination after that. I think it should be documented somewhere besides the CfD though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't fully figured out the technical issues. I see my mission in Wikipedia as creative - writing articles, as well as filling the photo bank for Wikimedia, which complement the articles. So, sorry, but I can't help here yet. MarSaf (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I'll make a note of this and do at some point if you don't. I assume the CfD will be closed as keep whenever an admin comes around and finds it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much MarSaf (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viji director and writer.jpg

Personal image, violating Wikipedia education protocols - IndrajitDas 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viji director and write.jpg

Personal image, violating Wikipedia education protocols - IndrajitDas 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:African fabrics

These fabrics clearly weren't created by the uploader and I assume Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Clothing would apply here. Per the guideline, "care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface." There's zero reason the designs on these fabrics wouldn't be copyrighted by whomever created them. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most are complex, though I will note that at least some (such as File:Picture of an African fabrics called Aziza.jpg) are less so, and I'm unsure that all are going to be under COM:TOO USA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's never clear to me where exactly the line is with the threshold of originality and I'm sure in this case that at a least a few are based on traditional textile designs. So I fully support who ever closes this going through the files on their own to decide which files to delete or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaokao -1 Mataaho Collective 001.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Einebillion as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Depicts an artwork that is in copyright

Converting to DR per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per COM:FOP NZ, photographs of three-dimensional works that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public are permissible under the country's freedom-of-panorama provisions. The work is within a museum that is broadly open to the public (even with free admission for any resident or citizen of NZ). My only hang up would be whether or not this is intended to be a permanent exhibition; my best reading of sources online indicates that this is, so I lean towards keeping here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanshaj Arora.jpg

Please Delete my file because i already updated the new file that's why i just want to delete this Thevanshajarora (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSSD logo 2017.svg

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo

File:CSSD logo 2017.png

Claimed to be below TOO, should be discussed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like an orange rose to me,

Delete. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling right now. Give argumentation. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to reduce the hostility. The patterns in this logo are not produced by a mathematical equation or arbitrary curves, it is the result of human creative effort. CSSD uses a rose as its mascot, as previous logos entail. The fact that VRT permission was granted to the previous logos does not apply to this logo. Given CSSD's association of roses, a typical person would look at this square image and think that it is an image of a rose as it resembles a rose. It's not mere simple geometry. It's a complex image. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:02024-08-28 Eastern Miscellaneous.png

This appears to be a screenshot of a personal message from @Enyavar: to another user. I really fail to see how it's educational or otherwise in scope though. honestly, it's kind of weird upload a screen shot of a discussion with another user. Although maybe not against the guidelines, but I really don't see the point in it. Especially if it involves keeping the image after the initial reason for uploading it isn't valid anymore. People can just read through the original conversation. Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently in use at their userpage (together with File:02023 speculation.jpg, File:Vandal1.jpg and File:Macuser . Next may be indef. Yann.jpg, by the User who created the screenshot. I don't know if this is a grudge-pillory? It's sad that Silar immediately created that screenshot but didn't react otherwise to my question at all. --Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flobeigor screenshot.png

It's not really clear what this image has to do with or if it's copyrighted. Apparently it's based off of some Flobeigor document or something. I looked up "flobeigor" on Google and couldn't find anything except for a couple of links to images on Commons having to do with fake news. The image isn't categorized in any meaningful way either. So it should just be deleted as OOS unless someone can figure out what exactly it has to do with and how it's educational. Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiana, George Sand (Calmann-Lévy).jpg

Not in the Public Domain in the country of origin (France): Maurice Toussaint died in 1974, his work will be in the Public Domain in 2044. Le Petit Chat (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arch of Triumph (Astana)

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Kazakhstan.

A1Cafel (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vianen

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teylingen

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zandoerle

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flevopolder

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heeze-Leende

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sint-Michielsgestel

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pijnacker-Nootdorp

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geldrop-Mierlo

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryan P. Callahan Headshot.jpg

Out of com:scope. Already deleted once as File:Ryan Powers Callahan head shot.jpg. Jonteemil (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MLRT Route Map 202404 Planned.svg

I am the original author of this route map which was intended to show the routes of the Macau LRT that will "likely" be built, in contrast to other routes which I think are less likely to be built. I think this falls under original research, and this map was not used anywhere on any Wiki. Fei0316 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not prohibit original research. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Flags of the province of Huelva

Disputed by User:Macondo in 2020 as Fictional flag attributed to the province of Huelva, unofficial and completely false. The province, in fact, has a different flag. It is the flag of the maritime captaincy of Huelva with the shield of the province of Huelva. Out of COM:SCOPE if these flags aren't real.

Belbury (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Provincia De Huelva.svg is COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:AI images of Donald Trump's indictment

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images. Note that there are notable AI images of the Trump incitement, which are in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney). These are not them.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Again???!!! There was a clear consensus to keep them. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see a link to a previous DR for these four files and, as mentioned in the DR, they aren't part of the series that got press coverage. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like there's a set of images created by the same user which got press coverage e.g. by the BBC. Hosting the whole set of images that got such attention seems in COM:SCOPE to me, even if not all of them were displayed in the press coverage. After this closes, I'd recommend putting them all in one category and calling it something like "AI images of Donald Trump by Elliot Higgins" or something, so as to avoid any other user-created images being added. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the closing result, it makes sense to just put these four in Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Midjourney) and rename that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DRs for other images

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

COM:DW of artwork.

LGA _talk^edits 23:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are all public graffiti or mural works, not in a museum or other place, I believe there are free from copyrightVgrigas (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Murals, it will explain that murals are copyrighted and as the US has no freedom of panorama for artworks these are not free for use on commons. LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

A Public Domain Mark (PDM) here on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies. The copyright owner retains full control over this image and does not give away any rights. Commons can be sued by the copyright owner. PDM is not really a license and therefore is not permitted on Commons except where it can be shown that the image is PD for known reasons such as a US Government image. See this flickr license table, where Commons can generally only take flickr images with Attribution, Attribution-ShareAlike or public domain dedication licenses. With the PDM license, the copyright owner still owns full rights over the image.

Leoboudv (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The camera metadata says 'Finally the camera metadata says “@2013 Linda Rae Duchaine”. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Jameslwoodward or Revent will tell you same thing about the reasons the public Domain Mark flickr template license is not accepted on Commons. You can ask them why. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep out of process, make a new DR every year or so. metadata does not trump explicit license. how do you copyright a photo taken in 2017 in 2013? i.e. the wrong date tends to undermine the claim. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has to do with the flickr license which is Public Domain Mark. The metadata is just a warning that the copyright owner retains copyright over the images...unless he/she changes the flickr license. A Public Domain Mark (PDM) license on flickr is incompatible with Common's licensing policies because the flickr copyright owner retains full copyright over the images. Please see this Deletion Request for the Admin's clarification: the Public Domain Mark license can be revoked at any time. That's why Commons cannot accept this license. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if you cannot nominate these photos the right way don't do it at all. they have a category, nominating by user is sloppy to the point of incompetence.
- it is hard to believe that you would reject the good faith "public domain" declaration of the flickr user. your "licensing policies" do not have a consensus. provide the policy consensus where commons decided on the paradoxical - "public domain is not public domain".
- why don't you consult here Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Public_Domain_Mark_.28PDM.29 Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is not sufficient when the copyright owner has a copyright notice clearly posted in the camera metadata for each photo. There was never any COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner and so she can launch legal action against Commons at any time. As Admin Woodward stresses, the Public Domain Mark flickr 'license' can be revoked at any time and that Commons cannot accept this license due to this problem. COM:PRP should apply here. The other Admins rejected this license at present so as a non-Admin trusted user I have to follow their decision. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This image is PD (under US law) despite the PDM license since it is a US government image but the images under DR are by a private individual. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- good faith is sufficient. these are low risk items. there is a far higher chance of copyright vio with an false "own" or "PD-USGov" or FOP germany, than PD uploader. what is the number of DMCA take downs of PD items? is it less than FOP germany? the other admins did not have a consensus, they and you only have your strongly held views unsupported by facts, only an ideology of license purity. we have 300000 items with no metadata, maybe we should improve those licenses and sources, and the existing files with PD, before increasing the standard for new uploads.
- why don't you cleanup the metadata of the USGS image rather than persist using the the broken use of information template? "Photos were taken with a system developed by Dr. Anthony G Gutierrez (Tony.Gutierrez@us.army.mil) and taken by Brooke Alexander, Sue Boo, Heagan Ahmed and Sierra Williams." what makes you think all those people were works for hire? were not some of them contractors? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: That's been discussed before.... Alexander and the others were interns, and so 'employees' under US law. - Revent^talk 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When these images are sourced to a US government site, they would be PD if the metadata says US Navy, US Air Force, USGS, etc or generally sourced to a US government site. But when when an account linked to an individual person has a PDM license, it was the Admins who decided to delete the image, not me. I am not an Admin. In this image it says you can contact someone at usgs.gov at the bottom. So its certainly US Government..as in US Geological Survey. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you realize how many thousand images have been deleted from NASA website as "contractor"? or even ESA [1]: "Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons" - and some have been deleted and put back [2]. maybe we need an OTRS to USGS to establish who is an employee and who is not?

do not evade responsibility for your deletion nominations. the blithe assumption of US website = US Government is equivalent to flickr uploader used PD tag = PD own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the Flickr account owner licenses the images. The public domain mark, and it's use on Flickr, has been discussed repeatedly, multiple places. There is a clear community consensus that we cannot accept it, because it is not a license, and we cannot 'pretend' that people who apply it to their own works are granting a license. - Revent^talk 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this case, the credit line in the camera metadata was given to NASA and the images are sourced to a NASAHQ Photos account. The copyright owner is explicitly named as '(NASA/Bill Ingalls)' which implies that Ingalls did the photography for NASA or NASA gave credit to Ingalls. In the undeletion request, it is clearly stated that "However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA." So, Ingalls work is PD.

If you wish to change Common's policies on a completely different issue like Public Domain Mark, this is not the right forum. PDM just Cannot be accepted from a private person's flickr account because the copyright owner, Linda Rae Duchaine here who states a claim of copyright over her images in the camera metadata, can Revoke permission at any time. How can Commons use these images? --Leoboudv (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Public Domain Mark 1.0. What is it, and what are the legal implications?

The tools also differ in terms of their effect when applied to a work. CC0 is legally operative in the sense that when it is applied, it changes the copyright status of the work, effectively relinquishing all copyright and related or neighboring rights worldwide. PDM is not legally operative in any respect – it is intended to function as a label, marking a work that is already free of known copyright restrictions worldwide.
— Creative Commons, https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/PDM_FAQ

It is a statement without any legal effect. The creator [Flickr user] can at any point change their mind and remove the PDM, and that it was previously applied means nothing, since they have not actually given up their rights, or licensed the work. PDM is not a legaly binding release which is non-revocable, which is needed to be stored on Commons. If someone changes a work from PDM to ARR, any use of it by us, or anyone else, is a blatant copyright violation.
— Revent

It is a label. I think so, Creative Commons think so and it clearly says so. It s not a release of copyright. Our discussions if it is similar to other licenses or {{PD-author}} or not, is a non-question, since it is a revocable label. That's it.
— Josve05a

With this announcement Flickr users will be able to choose from among our six standard licenses, our public domain dedication, and they will also be able to mark others’ works that are in the public domain.
— Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45355

(t) Josve05a (c) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - obvious case. --Jcb (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

These files are on Flickr with the 'Public Domain Mark', which is not a valid license for Commons, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark since they can be revoked by the copyright owner at any time. As long as the license is not changed at source, we cannot keep these images.

Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment these have a category - use visual file change right or not at all. how many times will you append this page confusing the issue?

keep intent of flickr user was public domain. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PD Mark images are not accepted on Commons since the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time. This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators to protect Commons from any legal problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment you do not have a consensus for "This issue has been decided by numerous Administrators". your "revocable" is a theory only, there is no case where it has been here. there is no DMCA of a PDM. you are making up legal problems where none exist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: The matter was the subject of a six-month long RFC in 2015, as well as several discussions on VP/C since. The consensus of the wider community has always been that the PDM is not acceptable. - Revent^talk 04:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a bad close is not a consensus - what wider community? i see a clique of deletionist admins who rule by fiat. you dare call it community? this is why commons is hated and you are hated. come to wikimania - then you will see a community, if you dare. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vk The is no doubt that the original photographer is the one putting these on Flickr, nor is there doubt that they intend them to be public domain. I have sent an advisory Flickrmail as below. With regard to the claim that a decision was made to "protect Commons from any legal problems", I find this an odd statement as there literally can be no legal problem for either Commons or volunteers who make the upload in good faith. @Leoboudv: could you link to where you have seen this stated? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's March photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/108635822@N02/
Hi,
Many of your Women's March photographs were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (making them available to use in Wikipedia articles and elsewhere), but were challenged as they used the Public Domain Mark rather than CC-0 or a CC-BY release.
Could you either change the license away from PDM to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing, or just email me back to confirm your intention was the same as a CC-BY release and are happy for the images to be on Wikimedia Commons with this license?
The relevant discussion for deletion was at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Victorgrigas
Thanks,

[Fae]

Dear Fæ

Changed to Delete based on a Flickrmail received to my account this morning - (extract) "I do not want my photos on Wikimedia Commons at this time. I have removed them from Flickr to prevent further confusion." If the links given as sources on these images are followed, they are now '404' pages. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in this Deletion Request here and I believe that Jcb and Josve05a have the same understanding. I will be away on Thursday for a seminar. I am following Common's rules by filing this DR and I did not determine the rules on PD Mark. I too was warned not to pass such images some time ago. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the referenced DR, PDM was mentioned, but nobody described it as a legal problem for Commons. Though we may gain a consensus for policies to handle the uncertainties, my understanding still is that uploads in good faith pose no tangible legal risk to the uploader, nor to the WMF or Wikimedia Commons project. Simply put, if the Photographer is the Flickrstream owner and they wish to change the license, then there will be an issue of whether the license is revocable or ever meaningful when applied to the photographer's own works. As it would be the copyright holder changing their mind, they would be free to request take-down or deletion, however there never has been a case of a claim of damages going to court for a verifiable PDM license being used to rehost an image, nor is it really conceivable that there ever will be, so long as reusing parties are doing so in good faith. Consequently, we could, say, wait for an indefinite period to see if the Flickrstream owner replies to my email, and evidence of that effort to determine copyright would be sufficient legal protection against future claims; so deleting these files within 7 days may be precautionary but logically and legally is not a necessity. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The basic issue is if a license on flickr is revocable as other Commons Admins state then it would be a legal problem for Commons to use it. That is why the other Admins decided not to use PD Mark licensed photos. Of course, you are invited to flickrmail the copyright owner to change the license if you wish to CC BY (Attribution), CC BY SA (Attribution-ShareAlike)or CC zero (public domain dedication) if you wish. I saved some images in the past but there are hundreds of anti-Trump protest images on Commons already. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you mean it is revocable like a flickr user can change their CC-BY license? gosh i guess we can confirm the status at upload and move on. why should PDM be any different? there is a higher legal risk of a "FoP Germany", since there has been a case of a DMCA takedown there - unlike PDM. you are arguing about risk with no data whatsoever.

"other Admins decided" - are you saying admins are the deciders, and we just report on what they do? do admins trump consensus? maybe we should revise the process page. maybe the admins should discuss this on a locked page and just inform us what images to keep and delete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once an image passes review with a generic CC-BY, CC BY SA or CC zero license, the image is considered passed for life no matter if the copyright owner changes the license at a later date...unless it is a copyright violation or if there are COM:FOP issues. So, Commons can keep the image forever. This image was definitely CC BY at upload even though it is now CC BY NC SA today at the flickr source in 2017 because it was uploaded in 2005 with a FlickLickr bot...that could only upload freely licensed CC BY images at upload. Hence it is not revocable today and Commons can keep it despite the copyright owners change of license with a NC (Non-Commercial) restriction. With PDM, the license is revocable, so its not really a license--more like a label. The copyright owner can remove the use of that image with a PDM license at any time simply by changing the license to say 'All Rights Reserved.' A PDM license has no legal effect. I think most normal Admins have the same understanding of the problems of using PDM labelled/licensed photos. Thank You and I will be away on most of Thursday in Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

its a funny thing, the flickr bot also approves PDM such as this one File:Library of congress panel 2140020.jpg. i guess it is not revocable. you have no example where an uploader has changed the "label" - why make stuff up? we have no case law about changing CC-BY licenses, so we do not know the "legal effect" of insisting they are irrevocable. all you have is some tl;dr boilerplate. hey- take all year off, you will not be missed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~You would have to ask the flickrbot designer this, not me.~~ Stop being a troll. I won't nominate your image for a DR since its clearly your own image. The flickreview bot never marked your image since you uploaded it with Upload Wizard Extension So, the Upload Wizard Extension bot programmer hasn't clued in that PDM images shouldn't just be passed without review. Lucky for you. As for me, I am a volunteer and I am doing my duty as a marker. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is just as much PD as the current case. apparently the admins who decided, have not decided to inform the wizard devs at the WMF to change their allowed licenses, but they screwed up the flickr2commons since that is java. lol. don't leave the barn door unlocked. "duty as a marker" = troll - have you ever taken a picture? why are you here if you have not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the closing Admin who decides this case will decide to send a message to the Upload Wizard Extension programmer about PDM. Or Admin Revent who knows about the PDM issue will close down this 'loophole' as you correctly note. Have a good day, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T158352 - Revent^talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent: Thanks for your reply here. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: According to Fae who flickrmailed the copyright owner, Jillian Sallaway has rejected the use of her PD Mark images on WikiCommons and deleted all of them on her flickr account. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah maybe we should suspend all transfers from flickr, since uploaders there in general do not consent to the use on commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can them nicely if they agree to change the license. But the problem is this set of images is very replacable as there are hundreds of women protesting Trump. If the copyright owner says no and doesn't change a license and make it free, then we cannot use the photo. I have had other people agree to change licenses for their images here Some of these images were taken in the Cairo Museum before this Museum banned all photography in their museum so they are not replacable today. The Egyptians also ban all photography in the tombs of the Valley of the kings today. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- no, the problem is, commons is not a safe space that honors personality rights, and people might well doubt good faith reuse. emailing people on a one on one basis is not a way to run an image repository, it is bush league. yeah "very replacable" = "once you're seen one protesting woman you've seen them all. so let's just clean out the category of all shots not in use. and we can always farm flickr for more" you have a somewhat smaller vision of commons, i.e. a walled garden necessary to support wikipedia only. i'm beginning to agree with you, maybe i should take all my uploads to english, and "do not transfer to commons" Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was the Admins that decided that Public Domain Mark is too risky. I didn't even know about this decision until I was warned not to mark PDM images. So, I'm just following their decision here. An image doesn't have to be in use on wikipedia to remain on Commons forever. Thanks for your time and Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was the admins who closed a discussion against consensus. i'm just not following their corrupt practices here. and you should expect images to go elsewhere forever. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

per COM:BLP

大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These images are from 1970! Victorgrigas (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kept historic photos, don't see any BGLP issues here. Multichill (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Victorgrigas (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE unused AI images.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The King Trump ones are high-quality caricatures with quite some meaning. This is in contrast to this "caricature of Donald Trump" that people here are seemingly desperate to keep and which is entirely inappropriate, not a caricature, and not useful or educational but out of scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Elspamo4 (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE AI images that could easily be replaced with freely licensed photos

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Netha Hussain (talk · contribs)

Unused, low-quality AI images of foods, for which actually accurate freely licensed photos are already available. Out of COM:SCOPE.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High-quality and useful for all sorts of applications. Rather delete some of the millions of mundane low-quality useless photos of things photographed hundreds of times in better quality instead of making it your already-declared mission to purge any AI art no matter which or the quality. These are useful e.g. as icons and there is a giant category of icons. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Netha Hussain (talk · contribs)

Unused, low quality AI images of a common artistic motif for which there are freely licensed replacements. Out of COM:SCOPE.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient quality and useful. There are very few modern depictions / artworks of Ganesha. These are also freely licensed and I don't see what you're referring to with freely licensed replacements [of modern high-quality digital art images depicting Ganesha]. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butyriboletus fuscoroseus 2.jpg

What license is it at https://www.gbif.org/ ? My Flickr images are "all rights reserved" but then I release some under creative commons here at Wikimedia Commons. --RAN (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Octar100 (talk · contribs)

These are all marked as own work, but are clearly photos of other people's work for which there are no sources.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noniya Chauhan.jpg

Out of scope. राजकुमार^(talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator raises scope issues alone; this is clearly within scope as it is validly in-use on the Hindi Wikipedia. As no persuasive argument has been presented for deletion, this should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk · contribs)

Out of COM:SCOPE unused personal art

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CarmenEsparzaAmoux: Can you explain the purpose of uploading these images to Wikimedia Commons? Contributors are allowed to host a small number of properly licensed personal images for things like userpages, etc., so I'm wondering if you have a specific purpose in mind here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MultiVersus Move List Encyclopedia - Rick.webm

Unsure if this is really CCBY – are images of the Rick & Morty characters [of this video] CCBY now? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Warner Bros it is Trade (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MultiVersus is published by Warner Bros and Rick and Morty is licensed by Adult Swim, (Warner Bros. Discovery) so if this is not some temporary hiccup it indeed seems CCBY. However, it seems like the video was made private now. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of hiccup causes someone to change the license of their YT videos to CC Trade (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video is still private which makes it at least difficult to verify whether it's CCBY. And to give an example it would be some employee tasked with managing the youtube account specifying this license without approval for strange reasons which seems unlikely and can be basically excluded if the license stays like that for long (and despite of new videos getting uploaded by the same channel). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Eestroff (talk · contribs)

Likely copyvios, all professional marketing photos with varied EXIF. The first and third files credit photographers in their EXIF; the fourth can be found on the restaurant's website at [3] (though lower resolution) prior to being uploaded here. If the uploader is the photographer or copyright holder, please provide permission to COM:VRT.

Consigned (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Stanloona2020 (talk · contribs)

I am unable to verify the CC license claim. The sources I checked make no mention of CC. Is there a blanket release from SFTV I am not aware of?

Gbawden (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License is wrong, but it might fall under {{PD-CAGov}} as its run by a California government (see https://www.sf.gov/departments/san-francisco-government-tv). There are CC videos by SFGovTV, so there might be some confusion as to if all of them were under CC. reppop^talk 21:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eva Mamlok Ausstellung FHXB Bezirksmuseum Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg.jpg

The big left photo is from 1937, so maybe its protected. Its not de minimis and in germany there is no freedom of panorama within buildings. Quedel (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. MJ E. Tanas a Aestheticologist and co-founder of the International Aestheticology Institute.jpg

Spam (keystrokes) Dronebogus (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beauty

copyvios of different kinds.

RZuo (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, 1st is a selfie but out of scope, In 2nd the subject is the uploader so not an own work and is also an advertisement, 3rd was speedy deleted by Infrogmation. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beauty

Low-quality photos of exceedingly common subjects

Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beauty

Spam garbage

Dronebogus (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either File:Photo représente des bijoux en or.jpg or File:Un ensemble des bijoux traditionnelles en or.jpg (they are identical) and File:Un modèle des bagues en or blanc.jpg look usable and probably fine in terms of copyright, though the description needs to be cleaned up in the latter and the categories need to be fixed in both. Why is there a Category:Beauty? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate, but ultimately terrible, container category. I was planning on cracking it into like five separate cats Dronebogus (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to understand why it's a more reasonable category than Truth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up File:Un modèle des bagues en or blanc.jpg a bit. --El Grafo (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and mostly screengrabs anyway. Kept two as in scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beauty

Useless spam and personal junk

Dronebogus (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Beauty

Out of scope and spam

Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The 1st and 3rd are spam. The 2nd needs permission from the photographer Barry Druxman. The 4th is a personal file of a non-contributor. Marbletan (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and User:Marbletan. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Beauty

Spam, OOS (keystrokes)

Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Wilson, Nov 1990.jpg

EC - Audiovisual service source states "Information and education only, Non-commercial use" A1Cafel (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Wilson, Nov 1990 (cropped).jpg

EC - Audiovisual service source states "Information and education only, Non-commercial use" A1Cafel (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duykhanhzhouzhou.jpg

copyright issue Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega & Melissa Barrera.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega 2023.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenna Ortega at KCA 2023 cropped.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/@lalata is a personal channel run by Alex Montiel who seems to have taken the 'Scream VI' video from somewhere else. The channel of the company 'San Diego Red' has another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHhGiqwgI8Q from the same source which is not CC-licensed. ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ter Aar

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuw-Lekkerland

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zevenhuizen-Moerkapelle

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gemert-Bakel

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utrechtse Heuvelrug

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffel Pierson

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Foch

This is not a gallery page: with only one photo. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Mujahideen Youth Movement.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hermann (von) Kaulbach 1888.png

duplicate of File:Die Gartenlaube (1888) b 453.jpg, which is part of a big project of de.ws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenne1504 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an inferior duplicate. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One is a png and the other is a jpg, not a duplicate. --RAN (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 一条草 (talk · contribs)

They are likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1004060782952662

Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candy Chea 2014.jpg

Likely copyrighted by RTHK. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=993464877345586 Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reusel-De Mierden

This is not a gallery page: with only one image. In my opinion a gallery page has a lot of images and the purpose is "to present readers with a structured and meaningful collection of the media found here on Wikimedia Commons" (see Commons:Galleries). This gallery page does not meet these criteria. JopkeB (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Redang Island.png

Source image was of a signboard, not flag. The flag does not exist. 210.48.222.13 07:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a scuba diving flag at the source.--O-ring (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, could be renamed and be useful. --Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Redang Island.png

Original image depicted a signboard, not a flag. The island does not have its own flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daerahmualimflag.jpg

Fanmade flag, not official. It's being used on pages being written as the flag of the district when the district does not have an official flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr image.jpg

Personal image, out of scope of wikipedia education - IndrajitDas 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be in-use at w:en:Draft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakesh Upadhyay - Awards.jpg

Personal image, Self promotion, Out of scope of wikipedia education - IndrajitDas 14:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakesh Upadhya.jpg

Personal image, Self promotion, Out of scope of wikipedia education - IndrajitDas 14:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sabri kalamandlam 2.webp

Personal image, out of scope wikipedia education - IndrajitDas 14:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file presently appears to be in use at w:ml:Sabri, though that page is nominated for deletion of some sort. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Affected by War and ISIS (collage with flags) 2015.jpg

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This was apparently uploaded by its uploader for use on a Spanish Wikipedia user page, though it is no longer used there as the user has been blocked on EsWiki. COM:INUSE says that [t]he uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. As the user was an active participant on that project, I think that we should probably keep this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Official portraits of William Lai

Out of scope. Unused files and no educational purpose. Over-cropped.

SCP-2000 14:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He uploaded same kind of cropped photos before File:賴清德眼睛.jpg. It has been deleted due to "File created for the sole purpose of vandalism on enwiki". SCP-2000 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete🤣🤣 This is too much. 阿南之人 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag mpku.png

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. City council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Alor Setar, Kedah.svg

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. City council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Seberang Perai Municipal Council.png

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. City council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the City of George Town, Penang.png

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. City council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Penang Island City Council.svg

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. City council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Sabak Bernam.png

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Copyvio (Copyvio)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as nominator did not provide evidence. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred it from English Wikipedia and I don't think 3 colour flag can be tagged as copyvio since the design is too simple and should be tagged as public domain. *angys* (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per User:*angys*, PD-shape. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Sabak Bernam.png

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. District council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Keningau.jpg

No evidence of usage of flag, potentially fake. District council website also does not show the flag. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Hatsune Miku doll（SEGA fufu DSG）.jpg

COM:TOYS Solomon203 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:تنظيم شيخة في محامة اليبس.jpg

Not educationally useful Viii23dawari (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malacca flag as shown in the Cantino Planisphere (1512).png

and File:Malacca Sultanate flag (pre-colonization).png

The creation of this map was not based on any reference. The creator saw the Cantino Planisphere and made his own interpretation about the map. As noted by user:Abrahhcadabrahh on en:Malacca Sultanate page: The flag is used by the Portuguese mapper to denote a Muslim kingdom. On the map, several other Muslim kingdoms used the same flag (some together with the blue flag with a yellow crescent) with different shapes. There are also several red-edged blue flags, which denote a Portuguese settlement. The St. George flags are used for Christian countries (and also England) and the Scottish flag is accurately shown w/o the blue. There is also the flag of Castille (Spain). Others are duplicates Surijeal (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a government website that says otherwise:

http://muhibbah.pjk.com.my/index.php/warga-pi1m/maklumat-pi1m/sejarah?start=5 115.164.170.205 08:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed.

The website said nothing about the disputed image. It mentioned Johor Sultanate banners (not the national or official flag of Johor). It also says "there are records about the use of red flags and the crescent moon symbol by the government" but did not use historical or peer-reviewed journals or at least books with clear historiography. Sulalatus Salatin is a semi-historical work written after Johor's golden age ca. 1670, it is okay to reflect the situation of the Johore Sultanate using that book, but it should not be taken at face value regarding the information about the previous kingdoms such as Malacca UNLESS there is a primary source backing up the claim. As such, we need sources from the supposed era (for example from inscriptions or letters to foreign kingdoms) or at least close to the supposed era (for example Portuguese writings such as Suma Oriental which is written not far from the era of Malacca Sultanate).

The problem we have here is that the creator of this file believed that the flag shown in the Cantino Planisphere was THE REAL Malacca flag, which is not indicated anywhere on the government website. Unless there is a historical or peer-reviewed journal that backed the claim, I agree with the deletion: This file is a personal interpretation without any historical basis. Verosaurus (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This flag is just a generic representation of an Islamic state since all the Islamic states in the map are similar (only difference being the shape of the flags), so it cannot be given as a Malaccan flag. Hzh (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion, I deleted an unused file. Kept the other one because of COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malacca flag as shown in the Cantino Planisphere (1512).png

The map which was used as a reference is not reliable. Issue on the map's unreliability was not properly discussed in the previous discussion and not considered during the deicsion to keep the file. This same design of a red flag with black crescent was used on multiple Islamic kingdoms at that time, which includes the Ottoman Empire. We know that the Ottoman Empire did not use a black crescent but instead used a white crescent and a star, which was not depicted in the map. Although the government website states that the Malaccan flag used a red flag with a crescent charge, with no indication over what colour was used. Considering how in Malay vexillology, black over red is not common if even existent, it is fair to say that the map misdepicted this flag. It is more possible that the flag was white-on-red, but there is still a lack of evidence on that, so it is safer to keep the matter out of Wikipedia for now to avoid misinformation. EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malacca sultanate red swallowtail.svg

Same reason as File:Malacca_flag_as_shown_in_the_Cantino_Planisphere_(1512).png EmpAhmadK (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plan battle of Pydna-de.svg

I created this image many years ago completely based on original research as a high school student. I have serious doubts now that the portrayed situation has any historic accuracies or is supported by modern research. DieBuche (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request includes the other translated copies as well. --DieBuche (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:INUSE. You need to remove it from the article it's used in. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, trout the user who does not undertand Commons:Scope. This is obiously educational and useful for illustrating plot and background of the notable book. We even have an alt map at File:Europe in "Xavras Wyżryn" novel (EN).png, although this is not redundant as it has a better legend.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Europe Map, if the Nazis win WW2.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[People can see what the Nazi would do (Not 100%) Pragneshiscool (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:House of Al Orkani.jpg

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palolog flag.jpg

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BANDERA DEL ARTE por Luis Corradi.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandera hergert.jpg

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BANDERA DEL ARTE por Luis Corradi.jpg

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fantasy flag.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of East Palau.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hieuthuhai, 2024.jpg

Copyright violation, no CC license Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Interior of Thomaskirche (Düsseldorf-Mörsenbroich)

This church was designed by the architects Heinrich Roßkotten (1886–1972) and Edgar Tritthardt (1909–1992). The associated ticket covers the right of the photographer, Andreas Ladach, but not those of the heirs of the architects. The architects are notable and their works are protected. These three images present relevant parts of the interior architecture which are not in the public domain before 2063. As the uploader does not plan to get the permission from the heirs of the architects I am opening this deletion request to discuss this case openly.

AFBorchert (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankara’daki kart basma cihazı (ulaşım).jpg

COM:FOP Turkey ist not applicable indoors. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think it's forbidden because it hasn't passed through the turnstile yet. Thanks. Kayra (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Remy van Kesteren by Jorah Sarah.jpg

No permission from given photographer {c) Jorah Sarah Hoyanova (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Powered Djs - 53977473406.jpg

Out of scope: Unused personal photo A1Cafel (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Route Map of Hangzhou Metro Line 5.jpg

The contain was outdated. Benteds (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may upload a new version. If you have one, you can contact me to upload or apply the right. So maybe

Keep? Hehua (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful photo, regardless of the route being different now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manon Stéphan en 2020.jpg

Paparazzi 200.39.139.12 16:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Youtube-.png

Copyright violation. Seems to be the trademark of YouTube ජපස (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manon Garnier Artiste.jpg

C'est vraiment une artiste? 200.39.139.12 16:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adrien Coussonnet.jpg

Necesario? 200.39.139.12 16:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo des associés du média En Vrai.jpg

La bici es notable. 200.39.139.12 16:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:George-Harliono.jpg

Source:Website 200.39.139.12 16:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zistemo@800px.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be in use in a sandbox draft. I've nominated the draft for G13 on EnWiki; if the draft is deleted, we can probably delete this safely. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Wade421 (talk · contribs)

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FreebieLobster-logo.svg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecole des Racettes-Onex-04a.jpg

Possible copyvio: Photograph of a sticker, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Usher in 2018.jpg

Source URL does not contain this photo. Ownership cannot be confirmed. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in light of the precautionary principle. I am unable to obtain evidence that this photograph was released under some free license, and the source/licensing info provided seems to be dubious. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBW Ausbildung IT.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 129.185.170.119 as no permission (no permission since) Krd 17:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBW Ausbildung Holz.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 129.185.170.119 as no permission (no permission since) Krd 17:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The-art-of-war.djvu

Out of scope: near-duplicate of File:The Art of War (Giles, 1910).pdf. Both of these are unofficial electronic editions; the existing one is better put together. Omphalographer (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the two files are similar, they are stored in different formats that may be better or worse suited for different situations. Because of this, I don't think that the files are truly redundant to one another, and I think that keeping this one is reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Handwriter1 (talk · contribs)

LIkely not own works: look like official photos uploaded by new user, missing or inconsistent EXIF data (File:President Bongbong Marcos of Philippines witnesses signing of first ever UN Cooperation Framework.jpg credited to Author Eric_Ricafort, and marked as "(C)2011 All Rights Reserved").

P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by BerrowBoy44 (talk · contribs)

These are pre-existing shirt graphics used by other websites (eg. https://www.footballkitarchive.com/floriana-2023-24-home-kit/) with different logos, no evidence that the images are freely licenced.

Belbury (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ManuelCustodiaCrop.jpg

Duplicated. Already uploaded, this file looks too bright with the attempt to reduce light. Chaseleithold (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested under G1. "Test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content." as a Courtesy deletion. Goal was to enhance the file that I uploaded in February. Chaseleithold (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn, and in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ManuelCustodiaCrop.jpg

I violated Terms by submiting it as Own Work despite being featured in website FamousBirthdays. It is not mine, unlike one I previously posted of the actor at his team's request. As I do not seek problems, I am asking for its deletion. Chaseleithold (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ManuelCustodia1.jpg

I violated Terms by submiting it as Own Work despite being featured in website FamousBirthdays. It is not mine, unlike one I previously posted of the actor at his team's request. As I do not seek problems, I am asking for its deletion. Chaseleithold (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gondeort.jpg

Likely not own work: low-res/web-sized image without EXIF data by one-time uploader. And non-notable person, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fr. O'Flanagan's Funeral.jpg

Not own work. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now fixed. --RAN (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for fixing. Looks good now. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by EseJotaEme (talk · contribs)

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHedge Financial.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Linyax (talk · contribs)

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Energi People Logo.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Stone-Ideas.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo AL&M.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Bboles12345 (talk · contribs)

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vorentwurf zum Kaiser-Wilhelm-Volkshaus.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 1970gemini as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Das Werk ist nicht von Lavenenvi, das date stimmt ganz bestimmt nicht, er ist nicht der (C)-Inhaber, ... - ERGO Datei ist zu entfernen|3=-- Benutzer:1970gemini 20:41, 10. Sep. 2024 (CET) 1970gemini (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the description is wrong, and the image is basically the same as de:Datei:Vorentwurf Kaiser-Wilhelm-Volkshaus.jpg, but it should be PD by age, since the architecture contest that brought forth this design was held in 1913. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilayat Sinai logo.jpeg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant Whitechoccc (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Islamic State terror attacks.png

Unused duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attacks_done_by_or_inspired_by_ISIS.svg Whitechoccc (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rakishev Kenes Chechen.jpg

Not educationally useful. COM:PERSONAL Whitechoccc (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's useful by default because it refers to the persona of Kenes Rakishev Jokerman4 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yep. w:Kenes Rakishev. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bank of Taiwan Logo.svg

Calligraphy is subject to copyright per COM:TOO Taiwan, Creator is unknown therefore no evidence for {{PD-Taiwan}}. Wcam (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has existed at least since 1954, therefore it's copyright had expired under Article 32 of the Copyright Act. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 12:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This calligraphy was created by 王壯為 who died in 1998^[1]^[2]. The work is not PD until 2049. Wcam (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

公司logo版權屬於公司法人，不屬於設計師個人。--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
这并不一定如此。根据經濟部智慧財產局：「例如：受雇或者委外的法律關係下，約定著作人為公司或法人組織的情形，就是所謂的法人的著作。……若是自然人創作完成取得著作權後，再另外移轉著作財產權給公司，則還是自然人的著作。」目前尚无法确定本作品属于哪一种情形，依据COM:PCP原则，应当将其视作著作权保护期较长的自然人著作。 Wcam (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - 設計師只是受聘工作。商業務實中沒有企業讓版權外流設計師道理--北極企鵝觀賞團 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:German Empire Lands with Sudetenland and Austria.png

Not educationally useful Whitechoccc (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But people can see how does the map looks German Empire with austria Pragneshiscool (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kamal arifi.jpg

Copyright Mounir Neddi (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nội Thất MOHO (talk · contribs)

Promotional materials for a Vietnamese company (uploader's username matches company name). Outside of COM:SCOPE.

Marbletan (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RLaul.jpg

Doesn't look like own work for me. Kakan spelar (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like a selfie. Are you saying that the uploader is not actually the photograph subject? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/incategory:PD-ROC-exempt airport logo

None of the exempt items in {{PD-ROC-exempt}} can describe these images. If a symbol is part of an official document, a verifiable source is needed to prove it.

Wcam (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg, clearly PD-textlogo, Taichung International Airport logo.svg and Taoyuan International Airport MRT Logo(Logo Only).svg, probably too? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 09:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as these logos show more complexity and creativity than the "Sunshow" and LV Monogram examples in COM:TOO Taiwan that are not OK. Wcam (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taoyuan International Airport Seal.svg only consists of several rectangles without containing more complex patterns. I think it doesn't exceed the scope of "Sunshow".-- 人人生來平等 TALK 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuini Nga wai hono i te po.jpg

Unless this user is the official photographer for the kingiitanga then they are not the owner of this work as claimed - it would be a wonderful photo to use if its status could be assured. Maungapohatu (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been cropped from the image - credited to the Kiingitanga - seen here: https://www.teawamutunews.nz/2024/09/the-king-of-kotahitanga/ The same image with the Kiingitanga flag overlay is seen on Waikato Tainui's Kiingitanga page here: https://waikatotainui.com/about-us/kiingitanga/ Quilt Phase (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sangolfvietnam (talk · contribs)

Promotional materials for a golf course. Uploader's username matches the business name. Files are taken from a website that is marked "Copyright belongs to Sangolfvietnam.vn". Either these files should be deleted as promotional content that is outside of COM:SCOPE, or evidence of permission from the website is needed.

Marbletan (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khrennikov Piano Concerto 2.png

Copyvio, "own work" is obviously wrong since composer died in 2007 Mautpreller (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 10 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely not a reason to delete for something that once was right. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 3IUT du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 1 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 9 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 3 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 4 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 2 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 7 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 8 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 5 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne NAV du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne DIM du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ligne 6 du réseau de bus RTCA.png

Schéma caduc Jondu11 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Murals in Belfast

No FOP in NI

Dronebogus (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these should be

deleted, but there are a few that might warrant further attention. First, there are some where I think the mural is arguably de minimis, where the photo primarily shows the situation of the mural rather than its content (they would be useful with the murals blurred out):

This one might be below the threshold of originality:

File:Murals in Belfast 2014 001.jpg

These could survive through a combination of de minimis and failing to meet the threshold of originality, since the only major artistic component is a rather bad rendition of the Union Flag:

On the other hand this should be

speedily deleted as a scaled-down duplicate of the one just above:

File:Loyalist mural south Belfast 1981.jpg

Finally, I'm a bit unsure about these. The individual parts look like they're mostly unoriginal or in the public domain through age. The assembly on the wall might be original, but it's also a little three-dimensional (the individual parts are proud of the wall), so maybe it's a sculpture or a work of artistic craftsmanship rather than a graphic work:

--bjh21 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belfast loyalist mural 3.jpg, File:Jeanne Boleyn sandy row mural.jpg, File:Mural in Loyalist south Belfast 1981.jpg can all be kept. I tried to filter out TOO-below murals but couldn’t catch every single one because the category is overflowing with copyright violations Dronebogus (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Murals in Belfast 2014 001.jpg. If someone could strike those from the request as removed that would be great Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. --bjh21 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of The Islamic State of Iraq.jpg

Fictional flag Whitechoccc (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BikersForTrump1.RollingThunder.WDC.29May2016 (27672036472).jpg

deriative work (the "bikers for Trump" logo is almost certianly copyrighted). Therapyisgood (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Varondán (talk · contribs)

Sculptures installed in an Spanish museum. The uploder likely took the photos, but they are not the copyright holders of these works. They were created after 1980 so they are still protected in Spain (70 years pma).

Günther Frager (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. Desconozco bastante el funcionamiento de los derechos de autor. Ciertamente soy el autor de estas fotos y son del interior de un museo (aunque una de las esculturas nominadas es anterior a 1980), pero este museo es de entrada totalmente gratuita y permite hacer fotos sin restricciones. Además todas estas esculturas (ninots) formaron parte de una Hoguera (similar a las Fallas de Valencia) y estuvieron expuestas en distintas calles y plazas de la ciudad. Por ejemplo este ninot puede verse expuesto en la calle como parte de una Hoguera en esta foto que lleva años en Commons [4], pero en la actualidad, como puede verse en una de las fotos nominadas, está en el museo [5]. El resto de la Hoguera fue quemada, que es el destino que le espera a todos los ninots, excepto a los que son indultados por votación popular, que son los ahora expuestos en el museo. Un saludo. Varondán (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attacks by ISIS.png

The worst and outdated version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Attacks_done_by_or_inspired_by_ISIS.svg Liliiii64 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Borderwallbrownsvile.jpg

There are two problems with this image. The first can theoretically be fixed by editing; the second can't.
First, this was the sole edit of a new user. Their edits on other wikis comprise only of adding this image to an article. What reason do we have to believe this actually depicts what it claims? It's in use in several places based just on the description of a single-purpose account.
Second, and more importantly, per COM:PEOPLE we shouldn't be hosting photos that depict an identifiable person committing a crime (or accusing that person of committing a crime). The fact that we've hosted this for fifteen years is a massive failure on our part.
It's possible we could blur the person and change the description to say something like "person on a fence, possibly crossing the US-Mexico border illegally", but then we're running into COM:SCOPE questions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your second point: How does that relate to photos of war crimes and genocidal atrocities being committed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen some argument along the lines of "overwhelming public interest" used in journalism for use of media they wouldn't otherwise publish. Might be applicable on Commons, but it's a case-by-case thing. In this case, I think COM:DIGNITY applies (or, if it doesn't actually depict what it claims to depict, COM:SCOPE). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I just looked at this photo, though, and I doubt the man is very recognizable. So that could enable us to keep it, no? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The person is not recognizable. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes zooming in/brightening to have a pretty clear picture. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the man's facial features could be blurred further and the current version could be revision deleted. I think the photo is useful but totally get the points you made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-9fd57b26c7afc8a448937ad5180cd760-V.jpg

Ei vasta konkursi tingimustele Liilia Moroz (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-5d9a0bb8e9c164bd8f2a40bd17f8bd1c-V.jpg

Ei vasta konkursi tingimustele Liilia Moroz (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-6c41df60f047abd9e7c97fd1581c7302-V.jpg

Ei vasta konkursi tingimustele Liilia Moroz (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-a4401ac1bb4ca3812a41901468781a4c-V.jpg

Ei vasta konkursi tingimustele Liilia Moroz (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Company-LOGO-1.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sayas2.jpg

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:קורס GLAM-Wiki (מחזור 42) בספריית בית אריאלה – מפגש 1, 10 בספטמבר 2024 10.jpg

Identical to another file – File:קורס GLAM-Wiki (מחזור 42) בספריית בית אריאלה – מפגש 1, 10 בספטמבר 2024 9.jpg מקף־עברי (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sila Vilavong.png

potential copyvio, what year was this made, who took the photograph? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ມະຫາ ສິລາ ວິລະວົງ.jpg

potential copyvio, what year was this made, who took the photograph? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azov Battalion and SS Emblems And Symbols.jpg

This image falls under category “Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack”. The image description makes inaccurate allegations and falsely relates the Azov logo with a nazi symbol, which even its creator has denied. Olivier101 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E7%89%8C%E5%8C%BE%E9%A1%8C%E5%AD%97%E8%88%87logo%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%88-215008775.html

[2] ttps://www.sokaculture.org.tw/exhibition/%E7%8E%8B%E5%A3%AF%E7%82%BA%E6%9B%B8%E6%B3%95%E7%AF%86%E5%88%BB%E5%B1%95

[1]

[2]