Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/13

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

September 13

[edit]

copyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1950 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2000, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2045 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just a holiday photo; no educational value Schwede66 00:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Ooligan as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1 RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The image itself is not a copyright violation, as it was produced by the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library and published on the National Archives website which is all public domain. As for the logo on the shirt, it is de minimis, hence it is below the threshold of originality for copyright. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A1Cafel, you have been uploading for years, so should know:
    that this t-shirt artwork is not a "logo."
    that this artwork covers about 20 percent of the entire photograph and is a focal point in the photograph, so it is definitely not de minimis, hence unrelated to the threashold of originaity.
    that threashold of originaity is not relevant "... If a work contains a portion that is complex enough to receive copyright protection, then the whole work is considered to be copyrighted." -- Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Yeah this is not de minimis as per COM:DM US, since the US law requires "so trivial" that will not have legal consequences, not sure this image is still useful without the artwork on the T-shirt. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This t-shirt's artwork "Content is a clear copyright violation, with evidence that no Commons-compatible licensing has been issued by the copyright holder." The t-shirt's artwork has NO "reasonable possibility of discovering that the work is public domain through further research." NO "plausible argument that it is below the threshold of originality."
On the t-shirt itself are two American nonprofit corporations:
1. The National Wildlife Federation established in 1936 with corporate headquarters in near Washington, D.C. According to Wikipedia, "The National Wildlife Federation is the United States' largest private, nonprofit conservation education and advocacy organization, with over six million members and supporters, and 51 state and territorial affiliated organizations (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). The National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors are found here
2. Established in 1945, the current North Carolina Wildlife Federation Board of Directors are found here.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees respects the copyright of other American nonprofits per the official policy Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. where it states, "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." -- Ooligan (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1950 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2000, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2045 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for vandalism purposes. discospinster (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

violação de direitos autorais (o tema principal da foto é outra foto, portanto seria necessária autorização do autor da imagem do quadro para poder carregá-lo) SSoster (WMB) (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Bidgee as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: per F1. This is not a {{PD-textlogo}}, as it contains a complex graphic within the text. And this is a reupload. Bidgee (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was removed by the uploader with a misleading edit summary. Bidgee (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, but this type of file does not violate any copyright in Italy. The file comes from a site (The Movie Database) that creates fonts and styles for each film, whose images have not been deleted elsewhere, since they are free to use. no valid reason for deletion - made by US company Aaaaaa123s (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the images present on The Movie Database are creations by users for free use, therefore not protected by copyright... @Jameslwoodward I ask you for a little help, since you already took care of the discussion of the file on the Lord of the Rings (always present on The Movie Database) some time ago and thanks to you the decision was made to keep the file Aaaaaa123s (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on your talk page. “ How doesn’t this violate any copyright in Italy, and how is it relevant? Doesn’t matter what The Movie Database claims, it isn’t the creator or rights holder. Please read Commons:Copyright, it has to be copyright free from the country of origin and in the US.
Another contributor agreed with the view I had with the speedy reasoning. Bidgee (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this isn’t just a simple text logo, it has a complex graphic that is copyrightable in the US. Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Mad Max is an Australian movie, where the threshold of originality is very low. Yann (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There is also the Furiosa logo and it doesn't seem to me that anyone has removed it (and that is a real logo, not like this one since the madmax logo doesn't exist, since it changes from film to film). Here it is a writing created by a user with a free license, so it does not violate any copyright; furthermore, it does not exceed the threshold of originality. --173.44.36.157 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out and using a VPN isn’t a way to get a file kept. Using that other stuff exists isn’t a valid argument. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 14 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 uploaded by Freddycanaviri777 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in wiki-text or SVG if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (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.

“HISTORICAL BIBLICAL TIMELINE”s by Freddycanaviri777 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused {{Badjpg}} text-only files with trivial (frivolous, even) styling; should be conveyed in text instead.

-- Tuválkin 07:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Freddycanaviri777 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused calendars and star charts, probably related to previously deleted content (fringe religious/historical theories).

Omphalographer (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete -- Tuválkin 03:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de Direitos Autorais SSoster (WMB) (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

file loaded by mistake SSoster (WMB) (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de Direitos Autorais SSoster (WMB) (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

file loaded by mistake SSoster (WMB) (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio, doubtful this is own work TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as some derivative works of this painting:

No evidence of the claimed license. The fact that the physical painting is on display does not place it under a Creative Commons license. Omphalographer (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alamkhor (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unsourced, apocryphal family trees, a self-created "imperial blazon", and a ChatGPT-generated "genealogical report". All unused and unusable.

Omphalographer (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dubious own work claim: how did the photographer get into an Uyghur internment camp? The Chinese government isn't known for being transparent about them, quite the opposite. Buidhe (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, unverifiable (and likely DW) logo. Omphalographer (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, self-created "unofficial flag". Omphalographer (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Randomuser2412 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused, self-created "possible" and "alternative" flags.

Omphalographer (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: an unused family tree which attempts to make connections between Biblical genealogies and historical peoples. This is neither historically accurate nor consistent with mainstream religious belief. Omphalographer (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused flag of "un pais ficticio" (a fictitious country). Omphalographer (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused fictitious flag. Omphalographer (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random nude photo, little educational value. Note the images are also deleted on Flickr so there may be potential privacy issue

A1Cafel (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep. There is nothing trivial about these photos. They are nudist sessions featuring two individuals with self-harm scars, which are not found elsewhere on Commons. The fact that the Flickr account was deleted is irrelevant; I recall that this particular account was indeed reliable, and the Exif metadata confirms the authenticity of the photos (which, as mentioned, show that there was consent from the subjects, given that they are part of a session). Another incomprehensible nomination in your moralistic crusade against photographs of naked people... RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way, THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT DELETED ON FLICKR! A1Cafel didn't even tried logging in! Unlogged users cannot see the photographs as they are NSFW. Jesus Christ... How amateurish... RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per RobRabelo, indiscriminate nomination of clearly artistic images solely on the basis of including nudity. Dronebogus (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep These are not 'random nude photos'. We do have quite enough of those, but these are clearly distinct. They are not comfortable photos, but they are clearly a serious artistic endeavour and of merit. The 'deleted on Flickr' claim also appears to be incorrect, but I can't see the relevance to that here anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 3D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source clearly states "Copyright © 2020 The Morung Express" in the footer. No evidence of release into public domain. C F A 💬 03:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 3D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The 'copyrighted banner' is COM:TOO trivial to attract copyright protection in such a way. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the photos on it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from AKI Press, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


{{duplicate|File:Grapicgo_Logo.png}}: Nithinjoseph.ggo (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make sense. A file cannot be a duplicate of itself.  Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


unused logo: out of scope Ankry (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by SportRation (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by DesignerProd (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yaroslava-vt (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled-down version of File:Khazar coin Spillings Hoard.jpg. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Norway A1Cafel (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Ukraine A1Cafel (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep (see username); no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Scrabbluser (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Faysalalmahmud (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No metadata with the file suggesting it be an image not taken by the upload themselves. Rht bd (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fictional map without sources and advertising content Beyoglou (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: unused, probably unusable drawing of a man and woman (patterned after the Pioneer plaque) standing under an abstract tree. Description is pseudoscientific word salad unrelated to the image. Omphalographer (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Leo Vuyk (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams of personal fringe science theories; largely incomprehensible.

Omphalographer (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused drawing / text about a personal fringe science theory. Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by MileGedojzna (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams of personal fringe science theories.

Omphalographer (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Amdcpu28 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams of personal fringe science and social theories, and a few bits of personal artwork.

Omphalographer (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project Michel Bakni (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by IGScience (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams of personal fringe science theories.

Omphalographer (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal artwork; no clear educational use. Omphalographer (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, inexplicable collage of mathematical formulas and other images (including an electrical socket for some reason?!). No clear educational use. Omphalographer (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. I have copied the text to Category:WikiMuseum. JopkeB (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Golden ringlet (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams of personal fringe science theories.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downloaded from a copywrited website. https://publimicro.cl/con-la-presencia-del-alcalde-de-linares-mario-meza-comenzo-campana-linares-ayuda-a-tomas-ross/ The Emptiness Machine (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentions the Municipality of Linares, and the link provided in the request is from a newspaper, so likely reusing the content of the government without citation. The likely source is https://www.corporacionlinares.cl/index.php/mensaje_del_alcalde. I couldn't find the terms and conditions to verify it has a CC-BY, but as the description also claims it has a GFDL I'm inclined to think the licensing claims were made up. Unless there is a law in Chile that requires all public data to have a free license I would support  Delete. Günther Frager (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, extremely crude image of a black hole. Omphalographer (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo with unkown author and status from Fandom Leokand (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a gallery page: without any 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. I have copied the text to Category:Wikimedia. As far as I know, there is not such thing as a Gallery DAB. JopkeB (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Talk:Wikimedia and  Delete Talk:Wikimedia (disambiguation). Also  Delete Wikimedia after gazillions links are fixed (technically my bot can do it, but it's current approval doesn't include this task ...). We know that Wikimedia is important, no need for gazillions of redundant pages about it. Not sure whether the disambig at Category:Wikimedia is good. Ideally, Category:Wikimedia should be deleted too in favor of Category:Wikimedia movement. So { {vd} } for Category:Wikimedia after links are fixed. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your information: Category:Wikimedia had a redirect to Category:Wikimedia movement. I did not want to just delete the information in the gallery page and so I made this page the DAB. JopkeB (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:EugeneZelenko @User:Jameslwoodward @User:Krd: Category:Wikimedia is fixed. Two junk talk pages are deleted. Can I fix the links to Wikimedia with my bot making deletion possible? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that such a state has ever existed. The article (a very very short one and without any source) was deleted on Russian Wikipedia and no articles in other Wikipedias are present. Leokand (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since). The licence "Als Quellenanbabe bitte verbindlich zitieren: Land Tirol/Tiroler Kunstkataster" is now shown with a ciopy of the relevant document and in the exif data. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since). The licence "Als Quellenanbabe bitte verbindlich zitieren: Land Tirol/Tiroler Kunstkataster" is now shown with a copy of the relevant document and in the exif data. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverletzung. Deklariert als Eigenes Werk, tatsächlich aber von http://www.rhenania.at/ 2A01:5241:70A:7600:0:0:0:48EF 07:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image, uploader is not the author 223.197.32.97 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: These images are all screenshots of plain text newsletters which were inadvertently imported from a Flickr feed. They have minimal educational value as images; the actual newsletters are all available online at https://esahubble.org/newsletters/science/.

Omphalographer (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very bad quality, very low resolution, better File:Oswald Achenbach - Küstenlandschaft bei Neapel, um 1880.jpg Oursana (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It could be deleted without discussion. Jedudědek (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for temporary posters in Germany. Rosenzweig τ 08:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


no permission, copyvio see metadata that state: Author Daniel Gouweleeuw Copyright holder All Rights Reserved DAGfotografie.nl Hoyanova (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Daan Gouweleeuw is the Photographer. He made this picture for us? Thunderdre (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? Is this single contribution of the user own work? Is it a modified version of the image given here? Wouter (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This German Notgeld (emergency money) bill from the 1920s is a work of Georg Kutzke, who died in 1962. So it is not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the file should be deleted. It can be restored in 2033. Rosenzweig τ 09:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong date, and probably not own work. Published on the Internet as early as 2016. Yann (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. The text is also on Category:Stockholm Internet Forum. JopkeB (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several copies on the Net. Source may be http://www.mackenziechildsyankeeferry.com/victoriadada/yf41200.jpg (enlarged?). See [1], credited to JMWColson. Yann (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://ibes.brown.edu/news/2023-09-26/heather-chaplet Yann (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444873204577535250132385634 and https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-TU382_hodChi_HD_20120717172732.jpg Yann (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


copyvio no permission from given photographer see metadata - Author Linde Dorenbos Copyright holder Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. Hoyanova (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have permission from Linde Dorenbos to use this foto as we paid her for her work. 185.65.52.99 15:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean you own the copyright. You need to contact COM:VRT and show them that you do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of the uploader {{User|POS78}}talk 10:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted building (replacement of an old building that burned down in 1990s according to w:en:Basilan, so the architect isn't yet dead for more than 50 years). The Philippines does not provide Freedom of Panorama. All local uses of this image on enwiki have been replaced by three local images from Patrickroque01. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this picture is not interesting for an encyclopedia SantoshGaha (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Commons is NOT an encyclopedia. Nevertheless: Personal photo by non-contributor, request by uploader. m:Special:CentralAuth/SantoshGaha Taylor 49 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this should become a Project page, not a Gallery page. But I do not know how to do that. JopkeB (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, and this commercially-licensed image infringes the city hall architect's copyright. Local uses on enwiki have been replaced by Patrickroque01's w:en:File:Lamitan City Hall (Rizal Avenue, Lamitan, Basilan; 10-07-2023).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Screenshot from website. The website doesn't say Creative Commons or Public Domain The Emptiness Machine (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something went wrong with the scan, and the image is no longer available online on Wellcome. However, I wonder if this is still in copyright, one of the creators died 1985 (according to this). -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the HK メイド理世 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the HK メイド理世 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyrighted Film poster in Hong Kong メイド理世 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image carries an embedded copyright notice: "© Adam Orgler". No evidence that this was released into the Public Domain


Rlandmann (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Even as the uploader, I can’t really argue with this since there is no post from him that says it could be used, especially when the watermark appears to have possibly added by NOAA themselves. ChessEric (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Very strong delete per @Rlandmann and @ChessEric. This has a copyright notice; approaches copyvio territory. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per COM:CSD#F1. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated HoQuocDu (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This image was taken in the United States on March 31, 2023, by Zachary Hall and published to X.

There is no claim or suggestion that he was working as an employee of the US federal government or that this image was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as an image created in the US after 1989, copyright came into being as soon as the image was made.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is not a pic; it’s a screenshot from a video. ChessEric (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Video screenshots are protected by copyright also. Nv8200p (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete No evidence that this file has been released into the public domain by the person who took it. This may, however, be used as a NFCC file on Wikipedia if it is deleted here, as it is a relevant photo of the tornado that can't otherwise be reproduced. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated HoQuocDu (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Outdated HoQuocDu (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Outdated HoQuocDu (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Outdated HoQuocDu (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason for deletion. As you might have already noticed we are collecting older material too! Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Suspected copyvio. The source website copyright policy states "Fair Use". Please check: https://kinmen.travel/zh-tw/copyright HH Wik (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AlessioRO (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These images do not come from a trusted source, so their authenticity is questionable.

Gikü (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the sources for both coats of arms. These are either taken from the website of the two town halls or on Facebook, where I found them. They are not made by me and from my point of view there is no clear reason for their deletion. AlessioRO (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2024 (EET)

possible copyvio © Sophie Stark - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, also out of scope The way of Changpian (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Peter Putz - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Matthias Ritzmann - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. The way of Changpian (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. The way of Changpian (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license does not match the original license of the Flickr image, which says "All rights reserved" ScarletViolet (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "not the actual" book cover. Out of scope. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It turned out that these color signals are not standard. (Nominated by uploader.) RuzDD (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This SVG vector image has been superseded by a better version and I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:XYXYZYZ from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts

[edit]

All copyrighted photographs from the web site of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. The museum's Terms and Conditions specifically forbid non-commercial use of their images. The uploader has assigned a false CC-BY-SA license. These are three-dimensional objects (vases, etc.) so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a gallery page: with no images (only a logo). 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. I have copied the text to Category:Wikimedia México JopkeB (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? Is this single contribution own work? See here with the comment " Courtesy of Sony Music". Wouter (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not free image Librero2109 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Librero2109: Which are the reasons? -- Ωm3gД213 Desahoguense aquí 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not PD-Chile Librero2109 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can change it. Ωm3gД213 Desahoguense aquí 15:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

l'immagine potrebbe essere sottoposta a copyright Michæ.152 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Heinrich Blunck, who died in 1963. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2034.

Rosenzweig τ 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Images uploaded by User:XYXYZYZ from the British Museum

[edit]

All copyrighted photographs from the web site of the British Museum. According to the museum's Copyright and Permissions page, the images are licensed CC-BY-NC-SA, a non-commercial license incompatible with the Commons. The uploader has assigned an invalid CC-BY-SA license. These are three-dimensional objects (vases, objects of clay and wood, etc.) so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work. Also all other contributions by Gharee. ed g2stalk 13:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Christina Riedl - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper gallery page: withno image but a logo. 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. I have copied the text to Category:Wikimedia Chile. JopkeB (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no exif data, copied from the web. exmaple: https://en.somoynews.tv/news/2024-09-05/sFY9swFt Dead.rabbit (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:XYXYZYZ from the Science Museum, London

[edit]

Copyrighted photographs from the web site of the Science Museum in London. The license on the image pages and the museum's Creative Commons page is CC-BY-NC-SA, a non-commercial license incompatible with the Commons. The CC-BY-SA license assigned by the uploader is invalid. This is a three-dimensional object, so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stolen from the web. no exif data https://bdnews24.com/education/e567a0e81c54 Dead.rabbit (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Livorno1971 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Peter Pulm died in 1960. His works will be in the public domain in 2035.

Ruthven (msg) 14:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violação de direitos autorais (o tema principal da fotografia é outra foto. Precisaríamos da autorização do fotógrafo original para carregá-la no Commons). Sintegrity (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel-stadt/geburtstag-bernhard-christ-80-jahre-im-dienst-unserer-res-publica-ld.2384871 - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
This is a photo tagged "ZVG" which means in German "zur Verfügung gestellt" (in English: given to the newspaper by the person in the photo - in this case Bernhard Christ - for free publication).
Therefore, I used this photo to illustrate the Wikipedia article about Bernhard Christ.
If you do not consent with this argument, there is no problem, as I will ask for another photo.
Best regards,
84.72.20.208 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - I forgot to log in: Uto (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Xyxyzyz from the Musée d'Archéologie nationale

[edit]

Copyrighted images by photographer Franck Raux, uploaded from the web site of the Musee d'Archeologie Nationale. The museum's terms and conditions forbid all commercial use. The PD-old-70 license assigned by the uploader applies only to the object, not to the photographs. This is a three-dimensional object, so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as as NOAA image "taken or made as part of an employee's official duties", but assuming that the employee is this Jeff Snyder, he didn't start work at the NOAA until November 2013, 5 months after he took this photo.

It's a moot point anyway, because the image carries a faint watermark that says "© 2013 J. Snyder". It's far more visible in the other images from the same set, but it's definitely there in this one too. Boosting the contrast in an image editing tool makes it pop right out.

There is no evidence that this was released into the Public Domain.


Rlandmann (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Based on the wording, “taken or made as part of an employee's official duties.” ChessEric (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per the evidence given that the creator was not working for the NWS or NOAA at the time the image was taken, and included a copyright watermark, which would have also violated the original {{PD-NWS}} rationale of copyright watermarks and violating {{PD-NOAA}} as they didn't work for them at the time. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real author in metadata is stated "Tomas Karlik facebook.com/karlikphoto". Gumruch (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio from https://www.germany.travel/en/campaign/de-oranjeroute/de-oranjeroute-een-vorstelijke-vakantie.html - used for contentspam on nl-wiki Hoyanova (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal "art" image of light streaks, not northern lights, misleading and unusable, COM:WEBHOST. P 1 9 9   15:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Roman Fuchs - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Di (they-them) as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Lonsdale is a British brand, and the UK has a very low threshold of originality. See COM:TOO UK. Yann (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Claus Berner (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own works, screengrabs. File:Brad Wall while in the Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan.jpg is an obvious photo of a screen, so unreliable uploader.

P 1 9 9   16:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the person's face is not visible at all in the photo. Norbert'sh (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


believed to be a copyrighted image from Forbes Thailand https://x.com/Billkin_Ent/status/1690680268154351616 Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No privacy issues, but recently-created murals are considered copyvios. See COM:FOP UK, as Bangladesh's copyright law is based on the UK copyright law. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribsuploads) 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Bangladesh has it's own copyright law, as per Bangladeshi law, it is allowed. Please see {{FoP-Bangladesh}}, UK law is completely irrelevant here. —MdsShakil (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MdsShakil irrelevant now, because Bangladeshi FoP is already dead since last year thanks to the new (2023) copyright act that is leaning towards U.S.-style fair use standards, see my comment below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep According to the Copyright Act, 2000 of Bangladesh, the country allows freedom of panorama. —Yahya (talkcontribs.) 17:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep According to the Copyright Act, 2000 of Bangladesh, the country allows freedom of panorama. agree with Yahya. Lahsim Niasoh (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, I don’t find any issues per {{FoP-Bangladesh}}TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 21:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Bangladesh. Please check sec. 72(20) and also sec. 36(c) under sec. 2. Unfortunately wall art or painting is excluded from "any other work of artistic craftsmanship" mentioned in sec. 36(c) under sec. 2 --Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon reviewing Section 72(20) of the Copyright Act, 2000, it indeed states that photographing and publishing artistic works, including those permanently situated in public spaces, is allowed under the freedom of panorama. This includes paintings, drawings, engravings, and photographs, provided that they are permanently displayed in accessible public spaces.
    Regarding Section 36(c) under Section 2, it defines "artistic work" to include “any other work of artistic craftsmanship”. This type of Graffiti would likely fall under this category if considered a form of artistic craftsmanship, which strengthens the argument that graffiti permanently situated in public spaces is covered under the freedom of panorama exception.
    Therefore, both Section 72(20) and Section 36(c) support the claim that graffiti, as an artistic work permanently displayed in a public place, can be photographed and published without infringing copyright. —MdsShakil (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MdsShakil A small misinterpretation happening with the provisions of the 2000 act.
    The act explicitly allows per section 72(20) “The making or publishing of painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work falling under [only] section 36(c), [...].” The section 36(c) of provision 2 includes any other artistic craftsmanship, excluding "a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;" [36(a)] and "a work of architecture;" [36(b)]. However FoP for any derivative works for architectures [36(b)] are granted per section 72(19), therefore leaving no FoP for any artistic works falling under 36(a) of provision 2 (only excluding sculptures) wherever they are, even in the open place or a place having public access. There was a previous discussion regarding the status of graffiti inside Bangladesh in an undeletion request which can be found here. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Bangaldeshi FOP is similar to the British one, which allows on "work of artistic craftsmanship", such works are clearly not. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Clearly no violation of any law. The allegations are unfounded. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete What I understand from the reading of the Bangladeshi law, I agree with Wasiul Bahar, this photo violates the copyright law of Bangladesh (and does not fall under the exceptions). Legaleagle86 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I agree with Wasiul Bahar's later statements explaining the interpretations, an extension of the explanation by Mdaniels5757 in the linked un-DR. Post that, {{FoP-Bangladesh}} and COM:FOP Bangladesh should be reworded to specify the nuances -- DaxServer (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, Bangladesh revoked their Freedom of Panorama last year, as part of the introduction of the new (2023) copyright law to align their law to U.S. fair use standard (which typically does not provide FoP) and depart from U.K. fair dealing standard. See COM:VPC#Bangladesh for the discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos by Antonia Mulas uploaded by User:XYXYZYZ

[edit]

From Eros in Pompeii (1975) (published in the UK under the title Erotic Art in Pompeii):

From Eros in Antiquity (1978):

Copyright violations. The images are scanned or photographed from two books published in Italy and the US in 1975 and 1978. The photographs in both books are credited to Italian photographer Antonia Mulas, who died in 2014. The books and their contents are under copyright in the US for 95 years after publication; the photographs by Mulas are under copyright in Italy and most other countries for 70 years after her death. The PD-old-70 licenses assigned by the uploader apply only to the objects, not to the photographs. These are 3D objects, so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image on Instagram that do not specify CC permission to use https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct6J3d3PNap Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image on Instagram that do not specify CC permission to use https://www.instagram.com/p/C0irSunPizi Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image on Instagram that do not specify CC permission to use https://www.instagram.com/p/C0LgPyQvXyp Ginphuaktidfun (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ultramegavolt (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Picture was posted to Reddit a day before being uploaded to Commons, and the usernames are unrelated: https://www.reddit.com/r/GelBlaster/comments/1ewsrig/hows_my_p90_setup/

Belbury (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are my images, I deleted the reddit post just in case Ultramegavolt (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination now that the same Reddit user has posted about Ultramegavolt's Wikipedia content. Thanks for the clarification. Belbury (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Xyxyzyz from Catherine Johns, Sex or Symbol (1982)

[edit]

Copyright violations. The images are scanned or photographed from the book Sex or Symbol: Erotic Images of Greece and Rome, published in the UK in 1982. The author, Catherine Johns, is still alive. The illustrations were drawn from a large number of copyrighted sources: see the photo credits on pp. 154-155. The PD-old-70 license assigned by the uploader applies only to the objects, not to the photographs. These are 3D objects, so PD-Art does not apply. Crawdad Blues (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

extremely bad quality, the person ist hardly identifiable. MeAmME (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per description, portrait belongs to en:Amitabh Mitra. Missing permission and licensing from Mitra. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Judging by the surname of the uploader, the original author is probably a relative of the author, meaning that there should be no permission issue. I am happy to vote for Keep and undo this deletion request if that is the case. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fake licence. Pessimist (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mr Assika (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused very low quality images of random people, ouf of project scope

~TheImaCow (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation. Taken from noviglas.eu, no evidence of permission. — Yerpo Eh? 17:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per nom. A09 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly admits it is for private use. I would agree, as it seems to lack any educational value. Remsense (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not have accurate metadata and the uploading party cannot verify its accurate inclusion in any of the assigned categories. Mordant Fuzz (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the order of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the transition to the Latin alphabet, this armband is officially recognized and is worn on the arms of military personnel of the Military police Body. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A03:32C0:1:7478:50EC:E6B6:9B29:5A3C (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Не надо здесь распространять ложную информацию. В Вооружённых силах Республики Казахстан - нет нарукавных знаков с текстом на латинице. Только на кириллице. Эта картинка в формате .png - чья-та личная фантазия. Я представил фото реального нарукавного знака изготовленного из ткани.
Kalabaha1969 (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Steffen Sollorz - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a news photo, not the Flickr user's original work Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use[3] clearly state « You can't use or redistribute these images on free stock photo websites or apps, [...] and you can't sell and/or redistribute these images as stock photography». This clause doesn't comply with the licensing policy. Also is no clear the photographer had the right to reproduce these miniatures. Günther Frager (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh – then it is not just the copyright in the miniatures, but also the copyright in the photo. Gnom (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date, probably wrong author and source Xocolatl (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't specify the source of the works depicted (book covers) Piracalamina (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The subject of this photo is the books. There are a bunch of books on the table, but the nine books on top of the piles are the only significant objects in frame, and their covers are clearly visible, making this photo a derivative work of those covers. Omphalographer (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. per above Nv8200p (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP. 186.172.252.6 19:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Indeed. Per COM:FOP Peru: Resolutions No 0372-2006-TPI-INDECOPI and 0760-2010-TPI-INDECOPI (El Comercio v APSAV) specifies the situations in which the work may be legitimately reproduced for acts of exhibition. A "public place" (like MVCS: "bien de dominio público", with exceptions for "dominio privado estatal", see Works by the Peruvian Government)[29151/1991, updated in D.S. 008-2021-VIVIENDA Art. 3.3.2][46] is an internal or external location that is permanently available to the public including museums. (Bolding added). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pic has copyright watermark and appears to be spam Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:HK Four Seasons Hotel IMG 4926.JPG.

Jonteemil (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sushilnix (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media banners from the Hubble ESA Flickr account

[edit]

Out of scope: These files were imported from Hubble ESA Flickr account. These images in particular were used as banners to make announcements about upcoming events and to promote their social media presence; they have negligible educational value. (The spacetelescope.org URLs in the file descriptions and in some of the images are no longer operational.)

Omphalographer (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Amateur artwork from the Hubble ESA Flickr account

[edit]

Out of scope: Like the images above, these files were also imported from Hubble ESA Flickr account. The ESA ran several outreach events which solicited artwork from the public, particularly from children; these images are some of the results they posted on their Flickr account. Some of them are kind of cute, but none of them are likely to be usable in an educational context. (I'm also uncertain of the copyright status of these images; while they were posted on Flickr as CC-BY 2.0, I'm not sure that ESA properly obtained permission from the artists.)

Omphalographer (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep if there's no copyright issue;  Delete if there is. The reactions of children to Hubble could be valuable in a study, and we ought to have more humility than to prejudge future studies so easily. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a stretch. Our benchmark for scope on Commons is that files should be realistically useful for an educational purpose - not merely that they could hypothetically be useful to someone someday. Besides - if some future researcher is interested in analyzing this artwork, they can probably obtain all of the submissions (rather than the subset of them which were featured online) from ESA directly rather than going through Wikimedia. Omphalographer (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons doesn't lack space or save space by hiding images. The project I suggested is quite realistic, and it could easily be focused on images that were used online. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF sources to Photographer, Eric Laignel Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sourced to ROBERT BENSON PHOTOGRAPHY Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Douglaschegemundia (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very bad quality, very low resolution, better file:Oswald Achenbach - View of Florence.jpg Oursana (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: plain text, personal fringe science theories. Omphalographer (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused infographic of a personal fringe science theory. Omphalographer (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: various selfies. I've left out a few images where the subject was posing with a potentially notable person or location.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Abhishekireo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded by company rep ("Abhishek ireo"); no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Theories of scientists (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unused diagrams based on an incorrect understanding of gravity. (Gravity is not the effect of air pressure.)

Omphalographer (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article screenshot, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Abonev (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:14, 13 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 uploaded by Subarnabhd (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, commons is not your webhost for advertisement

Enyavar (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Subarnabhd (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Deadpooley8987 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 11933Darlington (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SPAM, promotional images uploaded for nonnotable magazine; no usage, out of scope

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AZERTYUIOP454 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Scan and Buy (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sławomir Łaptos (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Gugu Corporation (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page, that prevents appropriate renaming of its target file Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 22:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduces a painting that, according to the uploader's description, is a self-portrait and thus isn't by the uploader and can't be covered by the uploader's copyleft declaration. Hoary (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not own work, probably copyrighted Bultro (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parce que c'est pas lui Yao3103 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]