Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/14

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

September 14

[edit]

Derivative work of the Touhou Project

Trade (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade so this is not an FOP issue to clarify? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I keep conflating these two terms Trade (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete File:Moriya Shrine, Suwa Photo-6433.jpg, The Suwako and Nitori is a from Touhou LostWord, copyrighted. メイド理世 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@メイド理世 do you believe any of the images would be permitted, since you only mentioned one. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unused low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   00:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of text inscription, no context/location, no clear purpose, out of scope. P 1 9 9   00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused promotional photo of non-notable band, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9   00:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Eexpss (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused promotional corporate images, logos, and screenshots, COM:WEBHOST, no educational purpose, out of scope.

P 1 9 9   01:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure that this photograph is by the user who uploaded it. User had uploaded three images of Robinson that were deleted because they were copyvios (File:Mark side Headshot.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mark Robinson.jpg.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:3I3A3951.jpg), and it looks like a professional photograph.

reppoptalk 01:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused tiny image, no educational use, indistinguishable and unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9   01:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of existing photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9   01:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not own work: visual characteristics suggest screengrab. P 1 9 9   01:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of non-notable event, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Fuchs-TR (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused tiny diagrams without context or clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope.

P 1 9 9   01:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused poor photo of nondescript landscape, no context/location, little educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality photo of nondescript trailer, no context, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low-res diagram without clear purpose, no educational value, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused random photo of nondescript interior, no context/location, no educational use, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9   01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo is not copyrightable in the United States, but is copyrightable in its country of origin (China), because logos that use traditional Chinese characters are considered copyrightable. Astrinko (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free character animation Astrinko (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free magazine Astrinko (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Non-free newspaper Astrinko (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


authors request Thank you. Regards, Oleg (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Images by deceased third-party photographers hosted on NWS pages

[edit]

The uploaders sourced these files from the website of the US National Weather Service. All photos were taken in the United States. The second and third photos were taken after 1989. The first photo was taken in 1963, but appears to have been a photo from a family photo album submitted to the NWS as part of a public outreach. Its first known appearance on an NWS site is in 2004 and the following analysis assumes that the NWS website was its first publication and that this therefore took place after 1989.

The rationale for hosting them on the Commons has been:

  • a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain. (see also a previous DR for the 2008 image that kept it on the basis of this belief).
  • a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

  1. There is nothing to connect any of these images with the Sioux City office (they were published by the Huntsville, Twin Cities, and Topeka offices respectively)
  2. A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.
The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Over the last month, I have been reviewing the copyright and licensing statuses of files for which we previously relied on the above rationale. As I have been progressing, I have been reaching out to photographers for verification of whether they ever gave up their copyright, and if not, whether they would be willing to do so now.

In these three cases, this is complicated because the photographers (and presumed original rights holders) are deceased:

  • 1963 image -- two photographers credited (technically only one of which could have been the creator) believed deceased Jan 3, 2009[1][2] and Jan 26, 2012[3]
  • 2008 image -- believed deceased April 24, 2024 [4][5]
  • 2016 image -- believed deceased November 13, 2021[6]

Any copyrights they retained in these images would now be property of their estates or heirs.

There is no evidence that any of these people released their work into the public domain, and there is now no straightforward way to ask them. Any such exercise would involve determining the new rights holder.

Personally, I do not want to intrude on these bereaved families, not least of which because at least two of these deaths occurred under particularly tragic circumstances. And to keep these images purely on the basis that the dead can't say "no" feels like grave robbing to me.

The images will unambiguously pass into the public domain in 2083, 2095, and 2092 respectively (70 years after the photographers' deaths).


Rlandmann (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until respective times – the basis of keeping it on here would be a major violation of COM:PRP that essentially amounts to a “I can get away with it” statement. And I agree in not attempting to contact next of kin; especially given your recent discussions turning particularly heated (eg. The time the person cussed at you through the messages when you asked whether or not he would release into PD) Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Rlandmann; for any future images in which we find out that the author is dead, unless they either voluntarily released it or the copyright has obviously expired; let’s not even do any kind of research into figuring out next of kin; let’s just go ahead and nominate them for deletion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can even probably append them to here maybe? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the rationales are the same, and depending on the direction the discussion has taken by then, I will append any others that show up here as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, assume that unless otherwise noted, any future image appended here is an automatic delete from me; even if I don’t explicitly mention it in an !vote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann, When was the 1963 image first published? Because you said that before (I think 1989) that the copyright was based on when it was published. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the appearance of the image, complete with hand-written label, I'm assuming that the publication by the NWS on their website was the first publication. This would place it post 1989, and probably around 2004, which is when the Internet Archive first picked it up.
As assumptions go, I believe this a safe one. If it's wrong, then the analysis becomes more complicated; it might already be in the public domain, or it might enter the public domain somewhere between 2059 and 2084. Someone would need to find evidence of when and how it was published prior to it appearing on the NWS website and we would go from there. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work?! Mentiroso! 186.175.210.225 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um projeto autoral com registro e produção brasileira. 2804:2CAC:FFFF:F900:5CFB:8194:A65:FC89 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The linked article contains significant inaccuracies, including incorrect dates and misleading details about the event. These factual errors have caused reputational harm, and the content violates Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BLP). I request the removal of this link from this page and all related Wikipedia sites to ensure adherence to Wikipedia's standards for accuracy, neutrality, and protection of individuals. MrAR2 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Centro de Exposições MPEG.jpg Gisellegeo23 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 14 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 the category. JopkeB (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. 2804:214:D:229A:6D6D:FF78:AF71:2CB0 03:44, 14 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) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Russia A1Cafel (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: unused, almost certainly AI-generated image of a clay vase with some plants in it. Omphalographer (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I highly doubt that the uploader, who appears to be Southeast Asian from the bio they give on their user page, owns this photograph that they themself list as having been created on 4 August 1969. The actual source is probably not listed and this is very likely not their own work. Yue🌙 04:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He breaks the rules Liadtalker 1234 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The C is quite stylized so indeed likely above COM:TOO Italy. Jonteemil (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for book; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower quality duplicate of this image: Where the Streets Have No Name during Joshua Tree Tour 2017 in Pasadena 5-21-17.jpg Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file should be deleted because the author-photographer (Genia Reinberg) died less than 70 years ago. Trauenbaum (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have it here under a CC license, not as PD. Is there a reason to think the license is invalid? - Jmabel ! talk 08:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Per this press release, Wellcome Images, where this comes from, released loads of images under that CC license in 2014 (which were then mass-imported into Wikimedia Commons). In Category:Portraits in the Wellcome Collection, you will find many old images, like File:A bed-ridden man, with deformed feet and hands. Line engravi Wellcome V0010497.jpg from 1620, with that license. And every time I've looked one of those images up on the Wellcome site, they now claim that it is in the public domain (for the Sergent photo as well). Conclusion: That CC license under which they released their images in 2014 was not based on any rights they had to the images themselves and is not valid for them. They might have intended to release their scans (as opposed to the original images) under that license. Anyway, it's not there anymore.
Wellcome Images with a dubious license tag were deleted before, compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:A monster spewing out the word "Alcohol" is attacked with a Wellcome L0038321.jpg. In the Sergent photo case, that the photographer Genia Reinberg died in 1968 was not readily available knowledge until Trauenbaum figured it out in French archival records (which are now available online), so people might have had the impression that she died over 70 years ago. --Rosenzweig τ 11:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a verifiable source for the statement that Génia Reinberg the photographer died in 1968? BNF only has "18.." to "19..", Musée d'Orsay has no dates, The National Portrait Gallery has not dates. I'm finding evidence of Reinberg (or at least Photo Studio Génia Reinberg ) being active as late as c.1930 (or more definitively October 1928). — Tcr25 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikidata d:Q121072352 or directly [7] (page 8 of 21, under her birth name Guittel Gourfinkel, which may explain why it is a bit hard to find). --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that name change is not obvious and makes it hard to track down... —Tcr25 (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this will be out of copyright in France 1 January 2039; for the U.S. we would need a publication date, and if that is any later than 1933 (which it almost certainly is) this will be copyrighted in the U.S. until the January following 95 years after that, imaginably as late as 2060 or so. - Jmabel ! talk 12:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to my research, she was active as an artist-photographer from 1916 to 1935. While I couldn’t find much information, I did come across some memoirs from her son, Alain Reinberg (Des êtres sans importance, 2013). In them, he mentioned that she was a portrait photographer who developed her talent and practiced photography with his help, as he often served as her model. This is evidenced by this portrait from 1933 (ENTHOUSIASME), published in 1934 in La Photo pour tous. --Trauenbaum (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If her professional career ended in 1935, would people consider it safe to say "undelete in 2041"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why 2041? If you mean the URAA, that would be 1935 + 95 + 1 = 2031. So URAA should not be a problem unless there is reason to think that the Sergent photo was first published later than 1943 (since the French copyright will expire on January 1, 2039 and 1943 + 95 + 1 = 2039). --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did the math wrong. So barring delayed publication, French copyright will be the later to expire: 1 January 2039. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a scan, not an own work picture. Donarius (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Obviously a scan, not an own work picture. Donarius (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Obviously a scan, not an own work picture. Donarius (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Likely copyrighted in Russia. COM:TOO Russia states that "simple creative works" are copyrightable. The section above that deals with currency specifically (COM:CUR Russia) states that while currency and currency symbols aren't copyrighted, drafts for these are. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyrighted in Russia. COM:TOO Russia states that "simple creative works" are copyrightable. The section above that deals with currency specifically (COM:CUR Russia) states that while currency and currency symbols aren't copyrighted, drafts for these are. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Bangladesh Wasiul Bahar (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


copyright violation; contemporary artworks; pd in 2084.

Martin Sg. (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The artist Linda Naeff died in 2014. The photos are uploaded later by her daughter Laurence Naeff. Please wait with a deletion. I will try to reach her to send a permission for all the images. --Alraunenstern (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copyrights tag on this file, however, it doesn't seem (?) to match the actual information of this file. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by JoshiaKadi as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Согласно указу Президента Республики Казахстан о переходе на латиницу, данная нарукавная повязка официально признана и носится на рукавах военнослужащих Органа военной полиции. В том числе и на надписях на автомобильной технике. Yann (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, no viable reason for deletion. Since it's one of the official symbols of government entity of Kazakhstan, it isn't protected by copyright (text of the law). Красный wanna talk? 20:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann — Не выдавайте желаемое за действительное. Это действующий на данный момент нарукавный знак. Его носят сотрудники военной полиции. А вот нарукавных знаков на латинице - в Вооружённых силах Республики Казахстан - не существует. Kalabaha1969 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Chainwit. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unlicensed image from a museum dated to "unknown year". Compliance with PD uncertain. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Chainwit. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Unlicensed image. The uploader claimed "unknown year", taken from a museum. Yann (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Chainwit. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source cited (book) is copyrighted, not the CC license as claimed. Yann (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://niimel.by/o-nas/istoriya Yann (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://niimel.by/o-nas/istoriya Yann (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of sculptor's copyright. Works of unknown authorship are still copyrightable. As the Philippines does not provide Freedom of Panorama, this commercially-licensed image is an infringement. The work dates to 2019 as claimed by the description. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sie dürfen unser Haus nicht zeigen, entfernen Sie es umgehend!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renzotanne797 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datenschutz Renzotanne797 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Kein Löschgrund. Bitte mal de:Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache lesen und einen Anwalt fragen. --Achim55 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, so this commercially-licensed image infringes the sculptor's copyright. The statue was unveiled in 2003 as per the plaque present here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, making this image under commercial CC licensing an infringement of sculptor's copyright. The information plaque is partly blurry but the dedication date is indicated as in 2000s (2003/5/8, due to blurry part of image the last digit cannot be properly inspected). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file has been superseded by a better one, so I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file has been superseded by a better one, so I recommend deleting it quickly. 反共抗獨光復民國 (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking the entire category as having commercially-licensed images that infringe the sculptural artists' copyrights. These recent food sculptures are in the Philippines that does not provide Freedom of Panorama.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicated for no reason of File:LazioWiki logo family with text transparent.png --Camelia (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a derivative work of Valon huone, a 1992 sculpture by Irma Laukkanen (b. 1958, Q16982646), located in Kuhmo, Finland. The author of the original work (the sculpture) is still living, so it is still under copyright and thus not in public domain. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola tc 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The file is a derivative work of Kekkosteiden muistomerkki, a 1990 sculpture by Matti Hynynen, located in Kuhmo, Finland. The original work (the sculpture) is still under copyright and thus not in public domain. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola tc 12:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Japan, This photo of Touhou Project was taken in Japan メイド理世 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Images of works by Risto Saalasti in Kuhmo

[edit]

The following photographs are derivative works of sculptures by Risto Saalasti (1937–2024, Q98555900), located in Kuhmo, Finland:

The original works (the sculptures) are still under copyright and thus not in public domain until 2095-01-01. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. ––Apalsola tc 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola tc 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Unlike the other two photos I uploaded-which are mine-this one was uploaded as "own work" but belongs to a friend. I wish to take it down so that she can upload her version. Isabellaaguilar.es (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image is taken from some random blog, which obviously didn't make the picture. Google Lens also shows it being used many other places. Possibly copyrighted. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did make the picture, thats the main source of the picture haha. I contacted the owner (possibly copyrighted) for use and he accepted because it was for the wikipedia of Ziryab. AvidHistorian1 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:AvidHistorian1, that's not an acceptable license for Commons. Have the owner contact COM:VRT to give permission for uses including commercial ones. Otherwise, Commons can't host this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just a blatant lie. I also found this image from 2010, used by another person [8], that's 4 years before the blog used this image. And what are the chances that a random blogger is an incredibly skilled painter and uses those said paintings for their posts? Loads of paintings are used in that blog, all different artstyles (and some of which are well-known ones by other authors), you mean to tell me all those are theirs? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Indonesia A1Cafel (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Derivative work of a copyrighted screen A1Cafel (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per description, this is personal photo. Unused, no categories. If we do not know even country (the user's other uplooads are from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Germany), then we cannot categorize it even as "Nature in XXX country". Out of project scope? Taivo (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No freedom of panorama in Slovenia A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Such digital art is probably out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Such digital art is probably out of scope A1Cafel (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by User:Shizuha

[edit]

The information board depicted here says its text was authored in 1998, i.e. these files possibly violate the literary copyright. Yasu (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

著作権を侵害している可能性がある、とのことですが、該当の画像に使用されている文言について「文学的」だとする根拠をお教えいただけないでしょうか。なお、この場所を管理しているのは「快神社」であり、また、看板については、この場所を管理している氏子衆など看板に書かれている有志の方々などにより設置されています。--Shizuha (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
一体どの文書(?)の著作権を侵害しているというのか、御教示頂きたいです。これではどの作品の著作権を侵害しているのかが分かりません。 HWTOF (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph has been submitted as a low quality PDF file; a high quality large version in JPEG is also available as File:Anders Beer Wilse - Sigrid Undset - NF.WA02694 - Norsk Folkemuseum.jpg. The PDF version should be considered superseded. Thuresson (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Askmuhammad (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Soporte taurux (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots and advertisement of questionable notability.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Nepal, there is no freedom of panorama in Nepal. The sculpture looks modern. Probably the photo violates sculptors' copyright. Taivo (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bluetime93 💬 15:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is photo of photo. VRT-permission from original photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original photographer: I took the photo in 2002 and lost the negatives. Now all I can do is taking a digital picture of the photo El Pantera (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in public domain post-1945

[edit]

Post-1945 images (photos/film stills) from India, which were certainly still in copyright in India at the URAA cut-off date of 1996. Therefore their US term was extended until 95 years after their first publication, at present they continue to be under copyright in the US.

GaiusAugustine (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO commercial poster Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crop of File:Milanvanewijk.webp, which was recently deleted as a "promo/press photo". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

low quality image, redundant to Category:Christine Falls Bridge ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very low quality (scan). Also has a watermark. Files with such irreparable features and in combination with such low quality cannot be adequately used in articles, thus making this file out of scope. There are other files that could be used as replacement thus an argument about irreplaceability of this file is null. A09 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Flag of Armenia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stated license at the source (could not find the image there either). Furthermore, the metadata has a copyright notice to "Mint Images". This photo turns up on many stock photo sites like Alamy and shutterstock, also credited to Mint Images. Since this is a previously published work, policy requires that the copyright owner use the COM:VRT process to confirm the license. User accounts are essentially anonymous, so can't be used to license previously-published works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image for non-contributor, out of scope. Nutshinou Talk! 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kahanchandkapur (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images for non-contributor, out of scope.

Nutshinou Talk! 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, unused AI-generated illustrations, no clear educational value

Nutshinou Talk! 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect license used. Unlikely to be Sportstak's work as the full image was originally tweeted by BCCI in 2022 (See - https://x.com/BCCIdomestic/status/1566329528594710530). 2405:201:D002:319D:21F1:6C61:E704:43DD 17:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly NFC, DW, no FoP. Image contains a mural painting by Carmen Herrera (Verde, que te quiero verde, 2020/2023), photographed in the United States (no freedom of panorama). The owner of the work claims that it is in copyright, but I have to wonder as to whether the design of this mural would pass the threshold of originality requirements for copyright in the U.S. given its visual make-up - it's a series of monochrome triangles and squares. Personally I think it probably reaches the required standard based on arrangement, but I'm no expert. Defer to more informed folks. 19h00s (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this deletion request; exactly why do you think it should be deleted? Stevensaylor (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum claims that the painting in this image is copyrighted. If it is indeed copyrighted, images of the painting cannot be uploaded to Commons, as the United States does not have freedom of panorama (the legal principle that allows for people to publish images of copyrighted artwork permanently installed in public). --19h00s (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps pertinent: 1) Photo shows only a detail of the mural, which extends far beyond photo frame to the right; 2) The truncation, angle of the shot, and resolution make the image useless for making copies of the actual work of art; 3) This is a architectural photo of the exterior loggia of the museum, which along with the ceiling, floor, and columns, must necessarily show a portion of the mural. Stevensaylor (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo, COM:TOO Iran HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses).

In the absence of an explicit and proximate copyright statement, the only way we can know with any certainty whether an image supplied to the NWS by a third party is free or not is to approach its creator and ask. (And the answer has been "no" in almost every case, as documented here).

Unfortunately, this image was published anonymously by the NWS, attributed to an NWS Paducah Trained Spotter, ie not an employee, but a member of the general public trained to notice and observe severe weather events (see here and w:Skywarn)

When contacted, the Paducah regional office, which published the image, said that they have no record of the identity of the person who supplied the image. I have forwarded this reply to the VRT (ticket:2024091410006442).

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise source and evidence of permission can be found.

If the photographer is never identified, it will enter the public domain as an orphan work in 2118.


Rlandmann (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all @Rlandmann; it’s VRT, not VTR. Second of all; I’m going to agree with you and say  Delete on the grounds of PRP; and then wait about a century to resurrect it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 4ipid (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Commons:License laundering. None of these files are works created by the sources mentioned. Iranian news agencies such as Tasnim, Mehr and Fars have a conventional way of publishing their own photographs (mentioning the photographer's name and using a watermark). While lack of these do not necessarily mean that the photos are not freely-licensed, lack any further indication that these works are owned by those sources and the fact that many of these photographs are found elsewhere on the internet or obviously seem like screenshots, means that we'd better delete them.

HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Paydaar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not in the public domain

HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross=loaded from geograph in error by myself, without realising it had already beem so cross-loaded(File:Four Lane End Interchange, 3 August 2013.jpg). For some reason the search failed to find it. Chris j wood (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, creator en:Abbas Nalbandian died in 1987 HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio. Artist died in 2016 HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HeminKurdistan,
This song was posted on YouTube ten years ago in 2014 (during the singer's lifetime) and no complaint has been filed by the owner and it can be used freely.
Youtube Link: [9] Maracanazo53 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. 186.173.75.9 19:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Zafer (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, no educational value, out of scope. Zafer (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo by Esmail Mahmoudi (عکس: اسماعیل محمودی) from http://mazraehshadi.blogfa.com/ HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pooria hatamkhani (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyvio, files taken from the internet

HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Amirhosseinsotoudeh (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of scope PR-style files, possibly copyvio

HeminKurdistan (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader. I uploaded this image a while ago but this should not have been uploaded by me as it is not in the public domain. Please delete this upload on my behalf. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader. I uploaded this image a while ago but this should not have been uploaded by me as it is not in the public domain. Please delete this upload on my behalf. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused low quality image, no realistic use ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header combined image does not appear to be actual, historical art indexed to any concrete event produced by a historically located subject. In other words, it appears to be synthetic, automated computer output with no link, location, or responsibility to the topic. Use of such images presents several key issues as I see it: 1. they are not representations, however subjective, removed in time, fabricated, epistemologically unstable etc - rather, they are something like thrice removed "ideas" of what representations of things *like* the events they depict 'look like' in both form and content. 2. Consequently, they possess no historical content, indexicality, or information. They say nothing - or worse than nothing, they say something completely fake, with no relationship to ontic reality, actual phenomena, historical fact, style, etc etc. They cannot be affirmed or contested, debated or interrogated. 3. They cannot be attributed, no one is answerable to or for or about them - there is no responsibility in a literal and figurative sense. 4. All of the other box standard issues, e.g. private profit from public goods, copyright violation, etc.

Accordingly, per Wikimedia Commons policy, machine fabricated (aka misnomer "artificial intelligence") images such as this, that does not identify itself as such, and does not 'realistically useful for an educational purpose' are valid candidates for deletion. Wosewoes (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suscribo todo lo de arriba. Delete. 186.173.73.155 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة ليست لها اهمية Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User1648 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyvio if deemed above COM:TOO Germany.

Jonteemil (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة لها حقوق Mohammed Qays (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation. Anyn19789 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The quality is not good, it was uploaded by mistake. Fmendes2 (talk) 21:49, 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.

The statue of en:Minamoto no Yoritomo (ja:源頼朝) at the Genjiyama Park (ja:源氏山公園 (鎌倉市)) in Kamakura City was erected in 1980. [10] No FoP in Japan for 3D works.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No commercial Freedom of Panorama for copyrighted non-architecture in Japan.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated due to my mistake Admantine123 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible quality, awful blotchy compression errors, blurred; no realistic use, thus out of Commons scope MPF (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © M.JOURDAN - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader now blocked at En.Wikipedia and likely NOT their own work CNMall41 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualité médiocre Guillaumrs (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep File:Myd au Le Fairmount -- 1.png
 Delete File:Myd au Le Fairmount -- 2.png (even though this is currently INUSE)
Both images are poor, but merely mediocre for unofficial concert photos. But -- 1 is slightly better, so we should go with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. Personal picture imported from Flickr. Watermarked. Nv8200p (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a vacation photo collection and is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Nv8200p (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nv8200pa, define "educational purpose". RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing knowledge; instructional or informative, which seeing Kirt's friends at the beach doesn't do it for me Nv8200p (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily see these images on a textbook for learners of a foreign language, for example. Like I said, stock photos are clearly in scope. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thoughtless self-doxx I made when I was 12. Photo is not relevant, it only shows part of 200 meters long street in a 20k town. Also, this street has many 4k and 8k resolution photos in Category:Cicha Street in Lubartów from both 2020 and 2024. The file is not used in any Wikimedia project. Port lotniczy (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Nv8200p (talk) 23:12, 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.

Copyrighted logo, out of scope HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope (previous vote was delete, unclear if same image) Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COM:TOO Iran. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Daniel Gola - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by ايفة روزة (talk · contribs)

[edit]

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

Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded for site; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, I don't want it to be publicly visible anymore Oviedo64 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]