Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/26

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

September 26

[edit]

The icon is extracted from SAI1 software, but the actual copyright status is unknown. Thyj (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Way above TOO. Omphalographer (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This icon is actually the work of a DeviantArt user[1], licenced is CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.. Thyj (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Derivative work of the original icon (File:Paint Tool Sai Icon.png) which is non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the software icon is unknown Thyj (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person submitted a malicious deletion proposal.--Anilro (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not maliciously deleting it, the problem is the copyright issue of the pictures. Thyj (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the software icon is unknown Thyj (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by AridCeption (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These flags all come from https://www.crwflags.com/. I have no idea why they're marked as cc-by-sa. The website is marked "Copyright © 1996-2022 CRW Flags Inc. All Rights Reserved".

If they're free due to age, they need to get tagged as such. But beware that the coat of arms which is redrawn may own its own copyright. See Commons:Coats of arms.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I don't think you can be eligible for a new copyright on copying a flag into a gif, unless you add some new creative elements to the flag. The copyright boilerplate would cover any novel text the website has about the flags. If these have been in use prior to 1989 they would have to have displayed a copyright symbol on the flag and registered for a copyright. Some may be trademarked or laws may exist that they may not be used to misrepresent official government business. --RAN (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Labelled wrongly by me, is actually of a non listed building so no great value in renaming IMO Crowsus (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a building that might get listed one day. Nakonana (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labelled wrongly by me, is actually of a non listed building so no great value in renaming IMO Crowsus (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No FoP for 2D works in Taiwan A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: fictitious flag. Omphalographer (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Possibly bolshevism. Taylor 49 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like nazism. Also  Delete per nom. Nakonana (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer on Wikipedia. Aree2499 (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a borderline case.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "borderline case" of what? I see on your talk page that you have been asked to "stop mass-tagging files as copyright violations", is this another one of those supposed copyright violations?
If so, it seems to me that this image would fall under Commons:Licensing#Simple design and not be deleted. It's essentially just two crosses intersecting a circle with a mitsuuroko (not created by Nintendo), and the design is much simpler than many others in Category:SVG logos of Nintendo or those in Category:PD textlogo (especially the subcategories emblems and flags). Andreasl01 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very obvious derivative of Ness. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was sourced from a web page of the US National Weather Service, which is marked "All Pictures Copyright & Courtesy: The Waco Tribune Herald".[2]

It was taken in the United States in 1953.

Copyright on US written and artistic works (including photographs) published before March 1, 1989 depends on whether:

  • they were first published with a copyright notice
  • that the copyright was registered with the US copyright office at the time of publication
  • for works published before 1964 that the copyright was renewed in the 28th year after publication

Despite the notice on the NWS page, this image does not appear to have been published by The Waco Tribune Herald.

I eventually tracked it down to Life magazine, Volume 34, Number 21 (May 25, 1953). The photo appears on page 31, in a story titled "The Search for Miss Matkin" and is credited "Photographed for Life by John Dominis" (making it a "w:Work for hire")

  • this issue was published with a copyright notice on page 29 which reads "Copyright under International Copyright Convention. All rights reserved under Pan-American Copyright Convention. Copyright 1953 by Time Inc." ✓[OK]
  • copyright was registered at the time with the US Copyright Office, and appears in the Catalog of Copyright Entries for January-June 1953, page 88. Copyright for the May 25 issue was registered with the USCO on May 21, and given the registration number B417630. ✓[OK]
  • copyright was renewed as required during the 28th year following publication, on September 8, 1981. The renewal number is RE0000100255. ✓[OK]

Because all copyright formalities were correctly observed, this work is protected by copyright for 95 years since its first publication and will enter the public domain when copyright expires in 2049.

Rlandmann (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can not be serious...I feel cheated. ChessEric (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, "All Pictures Copyright & Courtesy: The Waco Tribune Herald" should have stopped you and led you to investigate (even if it turned out to be wrong...) --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong delete per copyright notice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann: To be fair (no pun or sarcasm intended), that was also when I 1st came onto Wikipedia and just assumed that all photos I found on NOAA sites were public domain.  Delete by the way. ChessEric (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah -- no problem -- it's an easy mistake to make, which is why this chaos around the NWS images exists right now. I think practically everyone has acted in good faith pretty much all the time! Things should be a lot better and a lot clearer going forward. I appreciate your patience and your ongoing good will while all this is sorted out! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be done, so there is no use in complaining about it anymore. LOL! ChessEric (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file is a derivative work of File:UK Conservatives ballot logo.svg, recently deleted by user:Krd with the reason "No permission since 14 September 2024" E L Yekutiel (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If the ballot logo has indeed violated community guidelines, I have no objection to deleting this image. NovaSpark451 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racist picture that has nothing to do with the market Zeniatta (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep COM:INUSE, and how is it racist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows if this are immigrants? They can be french in the 3rd generation. Or tourists. All black people labeling as immigrants is just racism. The usage is only in the Russian chapter - guess for what? I bed to show racism. And by the way: has anybody asked them if they agree to be published in Commons - available for everybody? Therefore, clearly delete it! Alpenhexe (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we second-guess the photographer on whether they were immigrants? It also sure looks like the subjects intentionally posed for the photo, so while a personality rights template could be added, you'd have to do more than engage in wild speculation to convince me there's a legal need to delete it. I also note that you haven't tried actually checking out what the Russian-language article says. Per COM:INUSE, it doesn't matter at all why this photo is being used, but why do you assume it's being used in a racist manner? Think carefully about how you answer
    that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 3 October 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 text of laws in Greece is public domain but the layout of the government's journal is not public domain. This is clearly stated in the same journal. Geraki TLG 07:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: the layout itself doesn't meet the threshold of originality Jcb (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:35, 26 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 text of laws in Greece is public domain but the layout of the government's journal is not public domain. Geraki TLG 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: the layout itself doesn't meet the threshold of originality Jcb (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:35, 26 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 text of laws in Greece is public domain but the layout of the government's journal is not public domain. Geraki TLG 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: the layout itself doesn't meet the threshold of originality Jcb (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 07:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 121.186.66.49 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights, unlikely to be own work, uploader needs to confirm ownership via VRT. Erokhin (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by User24072024 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The image is marked as too simple for copyright protection. In order to host simple images no permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Wiiformii as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No own work. DaizY (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information added after the cancellation report, I now think it is more correct ZioNicco (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a better ebook file from Bookdash. I wish to avoid duplicates. This file should be deleted Derek J Moore (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deletion was requested by the uploader shortly after upload, but file is still COM:INUSE at s:Index:Grandpa-farouks-garden.pdf. --Rosenzweig τ 15:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three images from Jeff Sisson

[edit]

The uploader sourced these file from the website of the US National Weather Service. The photos are part of a set taken in the United States in 1968, and appear to have been first published on the NWS website somewhere around 2006-2008. There is no evidence (or even suggestion) that these images had ever been published before.

Besides material created by NWS employees (in the public domain as employees of the US Federal Government), this site hosts material from other organisations and individuals under a variety of copyright and license conditions.

These particular images were part of a submission by a Mr Jeff Sisson,[3] who was 12 years old when the tornado struck. The NWS site does not claim that Mr Sisson took the photos himself. His father was an insurance assessor in Charles City.[4] We do not know who actually took these photos, but if it were Mr Sisson or his father, neither of them was an employee of the US federal government performing their duties, and there is no claim that these images are exempt from copyright for any other reason

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.
  • 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 these images with the Sioux City office (they were published by the La Crosse office)
  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
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.

There is no evidence that the photographer or photographers released their work into the public domain, and we must therefore delete them under COM:PRP.

Another image from the same batch from the same contributor to the same NWS page was deleted in August 2024 for the same reason.

Rlandmann (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No own work. DaizY (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Check the names of the states. This work is my own work. It was based on a previous work. But with names and a slightly different layout. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the work it was based on copyrighted? What were the licensing terms of the previous work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, you have only read the name of the file. Not its content! Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: This looks like globally locked Gondolabúrguer --DaizY (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, they say it's based on previous work that's probably copyrighted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No own work. DaizY (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is NOT the same as that one available until August. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous map, for example, lacked the region SÃO FRANCISCO, in the Northwest. Also, it lacked names of states. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No own work. DaizY (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This work is my own work, literally. It was based on a previous work, but with corrections. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT the map used until August. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map adds cities (yellow points) that were not present at the previous map. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No own work. DaizY (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'artiste n'est pas dans le domaine public, il est mort en 1962. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Linet Lucas Lévêque (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by V27092023 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These images seem to have been uploaded just so that spam links can be included in their descriptions, e.g. for File:Shrinkage_Reducing_Admixture_Market.png linking to the same domain as this user I just blocked on en.wiki. File:Tarot Reading.png is definitely not their own work as claimed either as demonstrated by TinEye, likewise for the Numerology one: [5].

Smartse (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Crystalcoin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Tight crop, square shape indicates its likely from the web. Other photos of her were copyvios. PCP

Gbawden (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the same files, there is an analogue of a smaller size, but the quality is the same 188.163.69.3 09:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Template:FoP-Belgium. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Possible copyright violation. The image seems to be taken from ddnavi.com. フランベ (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no mattter Merohi (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Useless copy from previous years. Iran didn't participate in the 2022 contest. Hanooz 10:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution, no EXIF, even though the image itself looks like was made professionally for promoting the person illustrated. Highly unlikely to be own work.  —Andreitalk 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © GEORG_TAFFET - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © GEORG_TAFFET - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no selfie as claimed but an official image made by a professional photographer meant to be used on a passport - see title "pas van robby" so no author given nor permission. Hoyanova (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a technicality. I suppose this could be resolved with the license {{PD-ineligible}}, applicable for passport photos? Chescargot (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no selfie/own work as claimed but an official image made by a professional photographer meant to be used on a passport - see title "pas van robby" so no author given nor permission. Hoyanova (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The depicted mural is clearly recent and above threshold of originality, thereby copyrighted. Unfortunately, France has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the painter is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem with this mural File:Rue de la Folie-Méricourt, 69 (Paris 11e). Mur peint.jpg.

Depicted stained-glass window is a likely recent work of art and thereby still in copyright. Unfortunately, France has no freedom-of-panorama exception. So, a permission by the original artist is required or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem with, which seem to be from 1957 and thereby still in copyright:

https://background.tagesspiegel.de/digitalisierung-und-ki/briefing/gehaelter-sind-immer-ein-schwieriges-thema-in-deutschland 213.23.84.232 11:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the original architectural plan or a modern recreation-adaptation of the latter? Obviously, if we're talking about the original one, then, it's all good and fine. However, if we're talking about a modern recreation, then, it's a completely different story in terms of copyrights. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 11:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

error of creation same as File:Revue pédagogique, premier semestre, 1916 (page 381 crop).png Newnewlaw (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission Krd 12:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a small part of the overall picture. Kfir Bibs was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023, together with his brother Ariel, his mother and father. The extended family approved the publication of all photos of the children. The photos are scattered all over Israel everywhere, including on my Facebook page. So who to ask for permission? From his mother and father who are in the hands of Hamas, I am not even sure that they are alive. I think this picture should be left because the face of a kfir is maybe 10% of the whole picture Hanay (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story is obviously tragic, but I don't see how it outweighs copyright. The depicted photo is clearly not de minimis. What is the exact rationale to keep the image? Krd 10:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission Krd 12:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a small part of the overall picture. Ariel Bibs was kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, 2023, together with his brother Kfir, his mother and father. The extended family approved the publication of all photos of the children. The photos are scattered all over Israel everywhere, including on my Facebook page. So who to ask for permission? From his mother and father who are in the hands of Hamas, I am not even sure that they are alive. I think this picture should be left because the face of a Ariel is maybe 10% of the whole picture Hanay (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story is obviously tragic, but I don't see how it outweighs copyright. The depicted photo is clearly not de minimis. What is the exact rationale to keep the image? Krd 10:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission Krd 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are no copyrights on the statue itself, as it's a generic lion. Could you please provide some more information about the reason for the deletion request? Itzike (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is no copyright on the statue. Is permission from the creator achievable? Krd 12:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the association that awarded it exist anymore. Itzike (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Debrajaditya34 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Suspected copyright violations: File:Dr. Srabana Misra Bhagabaty.jpg is clearly a derivative work, probably a photograph of a screen. The two others are low quality images with no EXIF.

MKFI (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is originally belongs to Srabana Mishra Bhagabaty shared to me in a word document Debrajaditya34 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Debrajaditya34: you have claimed these images as your own personal work which is clearly not the case here. We need VRT permission from the actual photographer. MKFI (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levon Ghalech photo 2024-09-26 12.00.56.jpg Zalkiv (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope material (?). 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, I have no objection to this file being deleted. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation du droit d'auteur Mickaël en résidence (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense chemical structure. Appears to be related to the joke or attempted hoax at w:en:User:DeclanMiner2023/sandbox. Marbletan (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, nonsense. MolView just allows anything that can be parsed via SMILES. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyright violations (© Simon Larvaron?); see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Blanchot Tijd-jp (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded to create a non-sense page on it.wiki. False caption. Not useful to the project. Rojelio (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission Vcohen (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission Vcohen (talk) 13:43, 26 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.

{{speedydelete| Subject of the photo has requested this photo to be removed and did not directly consent for the photo to be published.}} GSAPPstudent (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: There is no rule on Commons that stipulates people must consent to photographs of themselves taken in public. If you uploaded this work to Commons and it is indeed your own work, you have released it under an irrevocable free license. Unless you were breaking local laws by making this photograph, I don't see a clear reason to delete it. Per the website for the event this photograph was made at, the event was free and open to the public. Rowland, by agreeing to attend this public event, could not reasonably assume privacy, and their permission is not required to publish this image. I welcome other insights, but I don't think this photo should be deleted under the justification that the person in the image was entitled to privacy at a free public event. 19h00s (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The subject was speaking in a place open to the public to the US. Will add personality rights to file. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removing speedy delete request made by GSAPPstudent, re-listing as normal deletion request. This image was kept after a deletion request that was closed within the past week. Subject does not need to consent to this photograph being published as it was made at a free, public event. See documentation in previous deletion request (above). Image has been released under an irrevocable free license by the uploader, if it is indeed their own work. --19h00s (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ankry (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is usage was not authorized by Cameron Rowland and violates an explicit request to not have any images taken and/or reposted from this lecture. 66.108.48.178 13:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Speedy keep This has been litigated multiple times -- if you have proof that photos weren't allowed at the event, then you are welcome to submit a ticket with VRT. Otherwise, this photo is freely licensed and was made at a free event open to the public, which means there is no valid reason for deletion. --19h00s (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete images taken by the host institution require permissions from the participants, and Columbia did not request permission from Cameron 66.108.48.178 16:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-generic food package with non-ree logos and content 87.205.166.75 14:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still image displayed on screen in a youtube video. Publicity show and highly unlikely to be owned by the youtube channel owner. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not part of Nair caste, which is a copyrighted image used on serveral old Malabar census. Rename.c0⁵ (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image is from a show preview broadcast on the channel, copyright would be owned by production company, not this channel. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from song video, unlikly the youtube channel is the copyright holder, would be the production company of the video Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Rani.namb (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image from movie, questionable if the youtube channel owns the copyright on the film which would be with that production company. Ravensfire (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from a movie clip, unlikely the youtube channel owns the copyright here Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from a movie clip, unlikely the youtube channel owns the copyright here Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of [6] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No license. 103.185.24.249 15:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not released under free license, uploading account has a long history of uploading non-free images 89.107.221.228 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not released under free license, uploading account has a long history of uploading non-free images 89.107.221.228 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear Soumava2002 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There doesn't seem to be much added value in this gallery. It's a rather poor selection and mainly consists of the category tree that can also be seen on Category:Marktgasse (Bern).

Another issue is that when this was created, the infobox on the category was broken.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep unvalid rq, because the minimum requirements are fulfilled, see COM:G. --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curation isn't a matter of quantity, but of quality.
We don't need to display the subcategories twice.
Also, please make sure to fix infoboxes on categories when you create galleries.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite "funny". Please refrain trying to coach me 'bout how to create gallery pages (5 creations of gallery pages). Thanks for your understanding. --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the problem with category infoboxes after your gallery creation before.
Is it an intentional omission? Please clarify and explain the reasons for it.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox was totally fine with the creation of the gallery page. So there is and was no "problem". --Mateus2019 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A complete infobox was before at Category:Marktgasse (Bern).
By replacing the sitelink at Wikidata, you effectively emptied it. The correct approach would be to add the qid at category or not change the sitelink at Wikidata. There is a property to add galleries at Wikidata directly.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Ben Mangelsdorf - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auf der Webseite [1] wird das Copyright bestimmt: "Hier finden Sie eine erste Auswahl an Bilder vom Planetary Health Forum 2023. Diese Bilder können Sie unter Angabe des Copyrights gerne für Ihre Berichterstattung verwenden."
The copyright is determined on the website: "Here you find a first selection of images from the Planetary Health Forum 2023. You are welcome to use these images for your reporting, provided you mention the copyright." Silent.Phaedrus (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This file was uploaded with a CC BY 4.0 license tag. "You are welcome to use these images for your reporting, provided you mention the copyright." is not a CC license, nor is it acceptable for Wikimedia Commons (per Commons:Licensing). --Rosenzweig τ 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified casual photograph of a man in a white shirt in front of a plant. Category is Government minister of Ukraine (there are dozens of past and present ministers of Ukraine), no name or office is given; original upload by user is "own work" with only 6 edits and no activity for years. I see no usage of this file. FeralOink (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake. Please disregard. I just noticed that he has a BLP on Russian Wikipedia. He was Minister of Communications of Ukraine in 1996. I don't know what his name is in English. Sorry for nominating for deletion!--FeralOink (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandeau de statut erroné. Le journaliste J.-L. Dariel est mort en 2018, ce qui n'est pas il y plus de 70 ans comme l'affirme le bandeau.

Erroneous status tag. Journalist J-.L. Dariel died in 2018 [7], which was not more than 70 years ago as stated in the tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already uploaded this image on here months ago https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CNJ_No._113_at_Minersville_station_for_First_Community_Day_event_-_May_2024_-_02.jpg LostplanetKD73 (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CNJ_No._113_at_Minersville_station_for_First_Community_Day_event_-_May_2024_-_02.jpg I didn't know that you uploaded it under own work. So I am leaning to merging. Insomniac187 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image unrelated to title Scu ba (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No own work. Original work of the Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora. DaizY (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As defined in the upload, this is a work based on a previous 1977 work. The previous work is in public domain and available at the references of the article. Utilizador voluntário esporádico (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forse, se ho compreso bene, devo utilizzare le mie stesse fotografie in qualche articolo? Le avevo dimenticate e quindi avevo sbagliato? Se mi aiutate a comprendere, per favore. Se no davvero non riesco a capire, sembra un accanimento contro di me e tutto il lavoro che faccio nella mia regione. MI si può solo far capire? Grazie. Valérie Varsivolaffa (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No file information or evidence the photo was released to the public domain. It's also pretty clear that the file uploader wasn't the original author. NegativeMP1 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Mrepe (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused screenshots of messages from a messaging app, mostly text-only content, so out of scope?

Nutshinou Talk! 17:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These plates are from Icones Orchidacearum Malayensium, a work by botanist Johannes Jacobus Smith (d. 1947). They have been published in a local journal of the Buitenzorg botanical garden in modern-day Indonesia in three installments, 1930, 1934 and 1938. The 1938 installment seems to be erroneously indicated in some filenames as II Tab * (1930), so when restored or if kept they should be moved appropriately. As at the URAA restoration date in Indonesia 1996, the copyright term in Indonesia was 50 years pma, their US copyright term will not expire until 95 years after publication. The only way this could be avoided would be if it were simultaneously published in, say, the US, but other issues do not indicate any foreign address or means of distribution.

Felix QW (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW First of all, the publications were published in Dutch East Indies and not Indonesia, which became independent in 1949. I don't know if this might have any legal implications. I am pretty sure that copies of the work were distributed around the world as J. J. Smith had quite a big network of botanists around the world. One copy was for sure sent to Oakes Ames at Harvard. My statement might be true as the copies are listed in the catalogue for the Ames library https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01HVD_ALMA212194213880003941&context=L&vid=HVD2&lang=en_US&search_scope=everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Icones%20Orchidacearum%20Malayensium&offset=0] https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01HVD_ALMA211849234690003941&context=L&vid=HVD2&lang=en_US&search_scope=everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Icones%20Orchidacearum%20Malayensium&offset=0.
On this page of the 1922-23 issue you can see that it came to New York in 1922-23 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5018983. I don't know if this enough proof for a timely distribution of this series in the USA.
Best wishes Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that find! The Ex Libris also suggests that the volumes were offered by exchange. Maybe Carl Lindberg, from whom I have most of my understanding of "publication" in US law, could confirm whether offering a book for "exchange" to libraries in a different country, at least if done with the consent of the author, constitutes US publication? I am willing to believe that it would have been with the author's consent, since the author had a leadership role at the same garden which most likely offered the volume in exchange. Felix QW (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, for sure. The fact that it was published in French from the Dutch East Indies pretty much shows it was targeted to an international audience (and I do see some English in that 1922 edition). Seems likely that copies were distributed in the U.S. If they were sold for cash or other books, don't think that aspect matters. Indonesia would be the successor in interest to the Dutch East Indies, so I think that would still be the country of origin (though you could also argue simultaneous publication in The Netherlands as I'm sure it was marketed there, and throughout Europe really). Lack of notice may not have lost copyright (see Heim v. Universal Pictures), though the Copyright Office later said the UCC superseded that ruling after the 1950s. But, lack of renewal would have also lost copyright, before the URAA restored it (if it did). Just not positive that a few copies (less than the limit which triggered the manufacturing clause) would be enough to call it a "United States work" -- certainly seems to be against the spirit of the URAA. But it still might, given the international audience which was targeted. And the US was trying to avoid restoring anything it could. I don't think a few random copies which ended up in the US could cause something to be a "United States work", but something marketed to US buyers more likely could. Of course, it may have been difficult for copies printed in the Dutch East Indies to actually arrive in the U.S. within 30 days. Even today, the question of Internet publication is a difficult one -- see s:Country of Origin and Internet Publication. I would say anything mainly intended for another country would not be, but the audience of the international scientific community makes this one a lot more difficult and gray. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of painting by artist who died in 2001 (derivative work). Photographer (uploader) does not have authority to release the underlying painting under a free license. holly {chat} 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • LBelo (WMB), you are identified as neither the author nor the uploader (who are at least ostensibly the same person), so what right do you have to request a courtesy deletion? I'll save my hands by not repeating this remark for all your other deletion requests, but it applies equally to any that you did not upload or presumably shoot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Ikan Kekek. I'm helping to organize Wiki Loves Monuments Brazil and the 17 images that I tagged for deletion were at the author's request. Please note that the images have a watermark (signature), and for this reason they could not participate in the contest. We advised the author to overwrite the image without a signature, but he decided to upload duplicate images. The duplicate for the current image is here (Praça do avião Rio Negrinho.jpg). I apologize if my deletion request was not clear and thank you for your comment. LBelo (WMB) (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the real reason for the deletion request is that this is a duplicate image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eu particularmente coloquei a marca d’agua da minha assinatura canto superior da fotos, quando postei a foto site veio no meu pensamentos e fui verificar sobre dicas com o texto dizendo “não insira marcas d’agua”, na hora me arrependi e não deu tempo de tirar do ar. Inclusive pedi ajuda por e-mail pela Sandra e o Lucas, só duas fotos consegui tirar do ar, mais infelizmente as outras fotos não deu certo de tirar do ar. Fernando Lapis (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google translation:
    "I personally put my signature watermark in the upper corner of the photos. When I posted the photo, the website came to my mind and I went to check for tips with the text saying “do not insert watermarks”. At the time, I regretted it and did not have time to take it down. I even asked Sandra and Lucas for help by email. I only managed to take down two photos, but unfortunately I could not take down the other photos."
    You uploaded this photo on September 17, so a bit past the automatic courtesy deletion period. However, I do see the duplicate image User:LBelo (WMB) linked above, so it does make sense to  Delete this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author or uploader request deletion LBelo (WMB) (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C'est pour un teste. Le Leprechaun (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps screenshot in high resolution, cannot be published under a free licence Hijerovit (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Sanseverino: see the camauro on his head and the shield showing triple crown with crossed keys (papal insignia), red balls on gold (Medici). --LTB (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep deletion just leaves the errors elsewhere. We have discussion pages for disputes, but that is not a reason to delete, just present the evidence on the page. --RAN (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP Ukraine. Create 2012 Микола Василечко (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Etoile79 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Bulk COM:NETCOPYVIOs - general low res, no EXIF, elsewhere before upload (File:هشام الدكيك مدرب منتخب المغرب لكرة القدم داخل الصالة.jpg is here; File:القنصلية العامة لجمهورية التشاد بمدينة الداخلة، المملكة المغربية.jpg is here; File:الدار البيضاء،افتتاح “البطولة الإفريقية للرياضات الإلكترونية 2024”.jpg is here; etc.), uploader serial copyvio uploader, etc.

Эlcobbola talk 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is part of Youth of Moses, the same character here. But nobody says this man is Girolamo Riario. --LTB (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake license and authorship. taken from website (© FC Shakhtar Donetsk, 1998–2024. All right reserved.) DartRaiden (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin go home, don't upload your friends. 186.174.31.80 20:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by YESimkin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Uploader appears to claim to be the depicted person; however, in that case, they are unlikely to be the author/copyright holder. Therefore, no evidence of permission.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker in this video contacted us at Wikitongues and requested that this video be set to a private licensing, making it ineligible for Commons. Ktchernes (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker in this video contacted us at Wikitongues and requested that this video be set to a private licensing, making it ineligible for Commons. Ktchernes (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This video is licensed under CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter what the license is on YouTube now. Is any part of this inaccurate? "This file, which was originally posted to YouTube: WIKITONGUES: Suri speaking Yiddish – View/save archived versions on archive.org and archive.today, was reviewed on 9 May 2017 by reviewer Daphne Lantier, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date"? I won't post on all your deletion requests, because I expect them to all have similar problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This video is licensed under CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This speaker requested the licensing be CC-by-NC, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This video is licensed under a Protected Copyright, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kristen from Wikitongues here. This video is licensed under a Protected Copyright, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Satdeep--Kristen from Wikitongues here. Unfortunately, this video is licensed under a Protected Copyright, making it ineligible to be added to Commons. Thank you! Ktchernes (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain in Argentina but not the US since it became PD in 2005. Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per Commons:Hirtle chart and this DR. – El Gráfico files published until February 28, 1989 are allowed on Commons, as it is detailed on Category:El Gráfico, 1989. El Gráfico was published in the U.S. (more specifically in NYC), as well as other countries in Latin America, and Canada. The legal disclaimers about that, can be seen on page 3 of the following issues here (1977), here (1981), and here (1986). Fma12 (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1987 photograph, became PD in Argentina in 2008, which is after 1996 so URAA applies. Abzeronow (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1972 photograph, source doesn't to my knowledge show that this was first published in Iran before 1994. Would need more information about publication to determine if it's PD-Iran. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is surely not the creator or the copyright holder of this image; obviously it is some cover art of a Chinese military issue. No proof of a free CC license anyway. Msb (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map is misleading, as the green portion is said to represent "Litchfield Hills" which is essentially Litchfield County. Danbury and the rest of Northern Fairfield County are not considered Litchfield Hills by any means. Rather, they are part of the Western Connecticut Planning Region and Fairfield County. With that said, this is an inaccurate representation of the regional boundaries of the state. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Composer Giuseppe Blanc died in 1969 so he can not have licensed his composition under a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What license should be used then? Ironzombie39 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source provided IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These plates are from Icones Orchidacearum Malayensium, a work by botanist Johannes Jacobus Smith (d. 1947). They have been published in a local journal of the Buitenzorg botanical garden in modern-day Indonesia in three installments, 1930, 1934 and 1938. The 1938 installment seems to be erroneously indicated in some filenames as II Tab * (1930), so when restored or if kept they should be moved appropriately. As at the URAA restoration date in Indonesia 1996, the copyright term in Indonesia was 50 years pma, their US copyright term will not expire until 95 years after publication. The only way this could be avoided would be if it were simultaneously published in, say, the US, but other issues do not indicate any foreign address or means of distribution.

Felix QW (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Felix QW First of all, the publications were published in Dutch East Indies and not Indonesia, which became independent in 1949. I don't know if this might have any legal implications. I am pretty sure that copies of the work were distributed around the world as J. J. Smith had quite a big network of botanists around the world. One copy was for sure sent to Oakes Ames at Harvard. My statement might be true as the copies are listed in the catalogue for the Ames library https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01HVD_ALMA212194213880003941&context=L&vid=HVD2&lang=en_US&search_scope=everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Icones%20Orchidacearum%20Malayensium&offset=0] https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=01HVD_ALMA211849234690003941&context=L&vid=HVD2&lang=en_US&search_scope=everything&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=everything&query=any,contains,Icones%20Orchidacearum%20Malayensium&offset=0.
On this page of the 1922-23 issue you can see that it came to New York in 1922-23 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5018983. I don't know if this enough proof for a timely distribution of this series in the USA.
Best wishes Badlydrawnboy22 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that find! The Ex Libris also suggests that the volumes were offered by exchange. Maybe Carl Lindberg, from whom I have most of my understanding of "publication" in US law, could confirm whether offering a book for "exchange" to libraries in a different country, at least if done with the consent of the author, constitutes US publication? I am willing to believe that it would have been with the author's consent, since the author had a leadership role at the same garden which most likely offered the volume in exchange. Felix QW (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting, for sure. The fact that it was published in French from the Dutch East Indies pretty much shows it was targeted to an international audience (and I do see some English in that 1922 edition). Seems likely that copies were distributed in the U.S. If they were sold for cash or other books, don't think that aspect matters. Indonesia would be the successor in interest to the Dutch East Indies, so I think that would still be the country of origin (though you could also argue simultaneous publication in The Netherlands as I'm sure it was marketed there, and throughout Europe really). Lack of notice may not have lost copyright (see Heim v. Universal Pictures), though the Copyright Office later said the UCC superseded that ruling after the 1950s. But, lack of renewal would have also lost copyright, before the URAA restored it (if it did). Just not positive that a few copies (less than the limit which triggered the manufacturing clause) would be enough to call it a "United States work" -- certainly seems to be against the spirit of the URAA. But it still might, given the international audience which was targeted. And the US was trying to avoid restoring anything it could. I don't think a few random copies which ended up in the US could cause something to be a "United States work", but something marketed to US buyers more likely could. Of course, it may have been difficult for copies printed in the Dutch East Indies to actually arrive in the U.S. within 30 days. Even today, the question of Internet publication is a difficult one -- see s:Country of Origin and Internet Publication. I would say anything mainly intended for another country would not be, but the audience of the international scientific community makes this one a lot more difficult and gray. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://planetaryhealthforum.de/fotogalerie/