Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/25

Copyright violation: https://www.metropoles.com/entretenimento/bbb/estrela-da-globo-alinne-moraes-detona-bbb23-nao-deveriam-assistir 201.20.171.59 01:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, No evidence of copyvio, image on the linked site is from after this one was uploaded. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmartin969, this photo was originally taken in 2021, at the São Paulo Fashion Week, here are more photos: https://vogue.globo.com/moda/noticia/2021/11/alinne-moraes-muda-o-visual-para-ao-spfw-na-passarela-da-torinno.html, see? Same clothes, same hairstyle, and the photo I'm trying to delete has a digitally added mole. 201.20.171.59 15:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digitally altered photo. Not own work. 201.20.171.59 01:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work by Pablo Picasso exhibited in Pas-de-Calais in 2021. There is no freedom of panorama in France. 81.41.185.128 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info, Picasso’s painting depicted here would be eligible for undeletion after 2044 (70 years after his death), unless evidence related to its first publication is provided (if the work was first published in France, then 70 years p.m.a. would apply, but if it was first published in Spain, then it wouldn’t be PD until 2054, as Spain has a copyright term of 80 years p.m.a. for works first published and/or authors deceased before 1987). 81.41.185.128 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bystander selfie... JayCubby (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the deletion reason? COM:INUSE. Are you alleging a copyright problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not an expert on hand positions, but it looks an awful lot like someone took a photo of Weinstock. JayCubby (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, User:Girona7 says they took the photo and provides EXIF to that effect. So again, what is the problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is exif, so it's almost certainly her camera, but likely not her hand that took the photo. @Jeff G., your thoughts? JayCubby (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see. I didn't realize Girona7 was Maia Weinstock. I agree that this is an unlikely selfie, but it's certainly possible that she set up a self-timer, and it would be messy to delete a photo that's in use. The last time User:Girona7 edited here was 9 October 2023. Would someone like to try to contact her through her website? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could try @Ikan Kekek but is there any point? MaskedSinger (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if she says she took the photo with a self-timer, or if she can have whoever else took the photo contact COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ok @Ikan Kekek I'm on it! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep per COM:INUSE, no valid reason for deletion provided. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep don't see any reason why to delete it. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A copyright violation is a good reason to delete it, no? JayCubby (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep no valid reason for deletion. Cutlass^Ciera 01:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said above, it doesn't look like she is the person who took the photo. Therefore, a copyright violation. JayCubby (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In what way? Please provide evidence. Cutlass^Ciera 13:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the positioning of the camera -- it is such that it'd be hard for her to have taken the photo by herself. JayCubby (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for 2d stuff in Canada JayCubby (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I'd be ok with considering this as a 3D work. It's a freestanding outdoor structure, not like a painting. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmartin969 Interesting, I'd not thought of that. What about the fact that the cartoon characters depicted are not PD? JayCubby (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded for w:Analytica (company), no other use. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Company not notable enough for a Wikipedia article at the moment, but corporate logos are still within scope. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goring name Dmoney3333 (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete the image has my name on it. Please delete this image.Dmoney3333 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't any problematic identifying information be removed from the page, with the current version then revision deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep No reason for deletion per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Photo is within scope and proeprly licensed.Dmartin969 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep (with suppressed info removed.) Be aware: the military released that photo and that information, and there is nothing Commons can do to undo that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will suppress the name on the uniform. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Jmabel. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of Korean Central News Agency works are protected by copyright.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/10/205_384533.html:

"According to the Ministry of Unification, South Korean media outlets legally use photos provided by KCNA by paying copyright fees through a Japanese intermediary."

Hashflu (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Protected by copyright in North Korea, likely protected in the United States as per U.S. Copyright Office circular 38a.(both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention) File:Kim Ju-ae.png appears to be problematic for the same reasons. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don't see how this doesn't fall under Article 12 of the DPRK's copyright laws, which clearly states: "Documents for state management, current news or information data shall not be the object of copyright unless commercial purpose is pursued." KNCA is owned and operated by the North Korean government, and so, instead of this just being in the public domain under their laws, they have actively relinquished their own copyright by writing a law which places news material into the public domain. In a sense, it would be like if I owned a company which had a bylaw that all of our press releases are in the public domain. International law thus plays no part there; I, the entity which creates the work, have chosen to place it in the public domain. The creators of that photograph are KCNA which is a subset of the KCBC which is a subset of the Cabinet which is a subset of the Supreme People's Assembly which wrote the law. Thus, KCNA relinquished their own copyright of their own volition. That is, unless this is interpreted as "commercial purpose being pursued", but thus far I don't see explicit evidence that this specific image has been deliberately commercialized. TheTechnician27 (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do use these images commercially- they apparently charge licensing fees. This one in particular seems to have been licensed to the Associated Press, as per the Guardian article and the Associated Press's post at Alamy. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen disagreements and past deletion requests about this exact article of the DPRK copyright law and its interpretation, how has past consensus been? Would using a screenshot from Rodong Sinmun/KCTV be suitable instead since they don't seem to collect copyright fees?

I'd also be interested further on how copyright fees would be collected due to international sanctions. Perhaps it could be used as fair use on English Wikipedia with the {{Non-free USGov-IEEPA sanctions}} template? NAADAAN (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph likely not licensed CzarJobKhaya (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Copyrighted poster cropped out, no copyright issues remaining as far as I can see. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 1.33.123.150 as no source (No source since) Krd 05:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The source is own work, it's a large image, and EXIF is provided. The IP user who requests deletion needs to provide evidence that this image is stolen; otherwise, it should be kept, as it's COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis la personne sur cette photo et je n'ai pas donné mon accord pour la mise en ligne Sjanczarski (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

je suis la personne sur cette photo et je n'ai pas donné mon accord à sa publication en ligne Sjanczarski (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Datei ist veraltet und darf nicht mehr verwendet/gezeigt werden NachISO (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So it's a historical logo.  Keep if the company is notable and this is OK per the relevant country's COM:TOO;  Delete otherwise, and if the company is not notable, don't accept any replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend to save it as a historical file (logo) in terms of company history. NachISO (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you request deletion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have changed the CI of the company. We dont want to have the old logo anymore. NachISO (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the old logo anymore. That's irrelevant to Commons. Instead, read COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Within scope. Dmartin969 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A building that was built in 1913 by architects Armas Eliel Lindgren (1874 – 1929) and Wivi Lönn (1872 – 1966). The question is whether this counts as "collective work" (copyright protection for 70 years after publication) or whether it falls under the "standard" copyright rule (life of the last surviving author + 70 years) per COM:ESTONIA. If it's the former, then it's already PD. If it's the latter, then undelete in 2037. Nakonana (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing permission, not a simple logo, see COM:TOO Russia#Simple creative works. Romano1981 (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be AI-generated, and it does sound like text-to-speech voices reading out an AI-generated script. Unclear what COM:EDUSE this has, beyond being an example of AI text-to-speech. Belbury (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, see Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.

• File:Список обміну військовополоненими 1.jpg
• File:Список обміну військовополоненими 2.jpg
• File:Список обміну військовополоненими 5.jpg
• File:Список обміну військовополоненими 3.jpg
• File:Список обміну військовополоненими 4.jpg

Komarof (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These files contain information about terrorist acts committed by Russians against the Ukrainian people. Allowing Russians to block this information is a mockery of the memory of the war that Russia unleashed against Ukraine. BlackStar1991 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ikan Kekek, if you dare to read the policy carefully, your comments will be more useful. a. COM:INUSE: A media file that is in use... b. COM:SCOPE: The following are not considered media files, and may not be hosted here: ... Files which are representative merely of raw text, e.g. ASCII files, raw source code listings as mentioned above, etc. Komarof (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  COM:INUSE overrides that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Ikan Kekek, that is, you've got problems with perceiving coherent text. COM:INUSE is an integral part of COM:SCOPE. --Komarof (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't read Ukrainian at all, but I know what COM:INUSE says. We are not to override editorial decisions of sister sites. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems you don't read English at all. COM:INUSE is for media files. Komarof (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll let others judge who reads that page better, and that's a rude, very silly remark. I'm done talking to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, COM:INUSE is self-contradictory in regard to hosting text files, but that doesn't excuse your dumb ad hominem remark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The contradictions are not in the policy, but they appeared in your statements when you finally decided to read its text. Your patience ran out faster than mine, although it was me who had to deal with an interlocutor who stubbornly repeats the same thing, not knowing that his words contradict the policy he refers to. Someone else will decide whose position looks dumb. Komarof (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, we can create charts on wikipedia. no need to store. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 10:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the files are plain text and can be just written out (which would also make them more accessible). Nakonana (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? This is a photo of a photo of w:de:Eckhard Grimmel who died 7 Dec 2023. Who is is the photographer? Wouter (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the photo may be in the public domain, but without citing the source it is impossible to verify. so it should be removed out of caution. 87.205.173.60 13:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per COM:UTIL. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be PD-US, because it was made in Poland, not USA. 87.205.173.60 13:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep license fixed. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that this work is CC. It is derrivative works from book and LP covers: https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=pl&re=df&p=AbrfA8phCdEHU6o2CEYI86fUiyiVsQiT-OVnyVIL7ry5pHbrf2UwPcbSMPUl5vthf98UOpp3QRO_kUeJB9cpeLW9JZYM2jPc4OHmdz6f3y_sDwpHCnQwdWNNx5NvtYgsi6U438XYxe9h4uIFqurVg-j45D_jw_c6owmSCix2Lmo_eWXS4-7SIsRWrsFVX3BvRnsALoldqNYm_fO94A%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKRGMxTURBeU1EZGpMVGMyTm1NdE5ETmpOeTA1WVRjd0xUTmhZbUk0WkdVME5HWTJPUklmYXpSc01HeEdRVXQxTURSbFdVUnpaM0puWDBNeFVEWjBORWRaTkU1b2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsWyIzNzVmZDVlYi1mMGFkLTQ4MTQtYjM2Ni05OTY0NDU0ZWZjODEiXV0= https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=imgurl:https%3A%2F%2Fs.twojahistoria.pl%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F02%2FRobertJohnsonMK2.jpg&view=detailv2&iss=sbi&form=IRSBIQ&redirecturl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fimages%2Fdiscover%3Fform%3DHDRSC2&selectedindex=0&id=https%3A%2F%2Fs.twojahistoria.pl%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F02%2FRobertJohnsonMK2.jpg&ccid=eW5JCtSp&simid=608026666909510523&ck=875022F00A13C39A19A4D471E97F8A0E&thid=OIP.eW5JCtSp3JR05feYAtolSwHaFz&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.twojahistoria.pl%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F02%2FRobertJohnsonMK2.jpg&exph=752&expw=960&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.796e490ad4a9dc9474e5f79802da254b%3Frik%3DfwA9smYPAY4IXQ%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&vt=2&sim=15 https://www.tineye.com/search/613ca52f2a9e541e413ca4bce6241e62c97a9d85?sort=score&order=desc&page=1 87.205.173.60 13:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete See: w:File:Robert_Johnson.png, well researched copyright details. --RAN (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof that this photo is CC. It can be found in the web https://www.tineye.com/search/298db84898df3a5e005b197d19e5bd5567fc9d05?sort=score&order=desc&page=1 Also not PD-Poland without proof. 87.205.173.60 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep PD-Poland reads: "all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland." I have never seen a police mug shot with a copyright notice in Poland. We house a dozen of these images. --RAN (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown author cannot make photo CC. 87.205.173.60 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No publication date or publicator to be PD-Anon or PD-Poland. 87.205.173.60 13:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo can be CC, but original work in exhibition not. 87.205.173.60 13:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not like own work UltimoGrimm (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is the "Author" field in the metadata a problem? I don't know how to understand a long set of numbers as an author. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FOP for 2D works in Hong Kong per COM:FOP Hong Kong Yann (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded in 2005, in use. Regular DR is better. This would be OK in USA, not sure about HK. Yann (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: this is not "2D artistic craftsmanship" and should be deleted per COM:FOP Hong Kong. --Wcam (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:TOY and COM:PACKAGING JayCubby (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of the front of a book published in 2015. De minimis don't apply since the design is too complicated, with multiple colours and fonts. Ciell (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find more info about "De minimas" [EDIT: De minimis]? Oski (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:De minimis. Ciell (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to @Yann, the book cover is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. Oski (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Like I said, the book cover only contains factual information, and no original design, so it is not eligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is not about 'factual information', the question is if the design is complicated enough for it to be an original work. This design of the front cover is not a basic font, nor is it in one color. It may be a simple design but not simple enough to simple deem it ineligible for copyright - and please leave my DR template in place while this discussion is open, thanks. Ciell (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, facts cannot have a copyright. A simple book cover with the title and the author's and the publisher's names is not enough to get a copyright. You are an admin here, so you should know that. Yann (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann I don't think our difference of opinion justifies a "you are an admin here, so you should not that" reproach this early (twice within the first 2 hours) in a discussion. I am following procedures; please don't suggest that the decision that a work is 'ineligible for copyright' is a thing to take on lightly, nor that the application of copyright rules combined with Commons rules and regulations is the same across all Commons admins. Ciell (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain status seems quite obvious to me. I could understand that a new user doesn't understand the principle, but not an experienced user. Yann (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per COM:TOO Netherlands, especially these quotes from decisions by their Supreme Court: "[...]for a product to be considered a work of literature, science or art as meant in article 1 in conjunction with article 10 of the Copyright law (Auteurswet), it is required that it has an own, original character and bears the personal mark of the maker." "[...]excluded from this is everything that has a shape that is so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep this design is deminimus Vera ^(talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not like own work UltimoGrimm (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No matches on TinEye or Lens.Google. What's your evidence? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no prove for CC0 license of original file Albinfo (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "cross-wiki"? The only thing that saps value from this file is that the language, place name or whatever is not further identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean by "cross-wiki"? The only thing that saps value from this file is that the language, place name or whatever is not further identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Hello @Astrinko, i trust that you're doing fine, the file above is an audio pronunciation of the Nigerian name "Oluseye"[reply]

It's part of my contribution to the @Celebrating Nigeria names event. The project was approved and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation few months back and its aim is to create Wikipedia articles and Wikidata pages about indigenous Nigeria names, followed by uploading the correct pronunciation of these names to Wikicommons and subsequently linking them to the Wikipedia articles. This is an example of such article.

In case you're also concerned that some of these pronunciations(audio) are duplicated - it's because some (a rather small percentage) of the pronunciations are not correct and I had to upload a correct version.

In essence, the audio file will be linked to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oluseye which currently contains an incorrect pronunciation of the name. Dr Marve (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr Marve, thanks for explaining! Could you please add an instructive category to all of these files? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Astrinko, the file above is an audio pronunciation of the Nigerian name "Olaniyan"

It's part of my contribution to the @Celebrating Nigeria names event. The project was approved and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation few months back and its aim is to create Wikipedia articles and Wikidata pages about indigenous Nigeria names, followed by uploading the correct pronunciation of these names to Wikicommons and subsequently linking them to the Wikipedia articles. This is an example of such article.

In case you're also concerned that some of these pronunciations(audio) are duplicated - it's because some (a rather small percentage) of the pronunciations are not correct and I had to upload a correct version.

In essence, the audio file will be linked to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaniyan which currently contains an incorrect pronunciation of the name. Dr Marve (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, no educational value cross-wiki. Astrinko (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Astrinko, the file above is an audio pronunciation of the Nigerian name "Ebunoluwa"

It's part of my contribution to the @Celebrating Nigeria names event. The project was approved and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation few months back and its aim is to create Wikipedia articles and Wikidata pages about indigenous Nigeria names, followed by uploading the correct pronunciation of these names to Wikicommons and subsequently linking them to the Wikipedia articles.

This is an example of such article.

In case you're also concerned that some of these pronunciations(audio) are duplicated - it's because some (a rather small percentage) of the pronunciations are not correct and I had to upload a correct version.

In essence, the audio file will be linked to [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebunoluwa?wprov=sfla1 which currently contains an incorrect pronunciation of the name.

The same can be said about other pronunciations I uploaded. Dr Marve (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, so I decided it should  Keep in Wikimedia Commons. Astrinko (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep per uploader. Within scope. Dmartin969 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for 2d works in France JayCubby (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Il s'agit d'une plaque communale destinée à l'information du public installée sur une place publique. Jacques Rocquet (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The video might be free to distribute and use, but the whole song itself isn't. No proof yet that the song (in any form) is released under Creative Commons license. George Ho (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and lots & lots of non-free logos! JayCubby (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is pushing the boundaries of de minimis JayCubby (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Main subject of the image is the individuals, not the painting. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like the subject is the painting, specifically how Obama is looking at it. The camera isn't exactly pointed at him. JayCubby (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the solution is to blur the painting so that we can still recognize what it depicts but it's blurry enough to be de minimis. That seems like a delicate balance, so I'd trust someone else's judgment on where to draw that line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We've done that in the past, and that seems reasonable to me. JayCubby (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've uploaded an attempt at File:Ruby Bridges visits Barack Obama White House (blurred).jpg JayCubby (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That looks great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for other reasons: Per the exif: "This photograph is provided by THE WHITE HOUSE as a courtesy and may be printed by the subject(s) in the photograph for personal"

so... yeah... there's that. JayCubby (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in no way relevant. It's a work of the White House and therefore PD. I'm not sure what your conclusion is. Cutlass^Ciera 01:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for a lazy google search... Souza at one point worked for the White House. My other point is moot. JayCubby (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Dmartin969, the main subject is not the painting. Cutlass^Ciera 01:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Bangladesh since 2023 Syrus257 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per FOP-Bangladesh. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة لها حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 16:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status, very unlikely that uploader is the author (and their contributions were flagged many times for copyvio) Ђидо (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status, very unlikely that uploader is the author (and their contributions were flagged many times for copyvio) Ђидо (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status, very unlikely that uploader is the author (and their contributions were flagged many times for copyvio) Ђидо (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status, very unlikely that uploader is the author (and their contributions were flagged many times for copyvio) Ђидо (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status, very unlikely that uploader is the author (and their contributions were flagged many times for copyvio) Ђидо (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From an unreliable Flickr account, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 201240123@N05 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Ђидо (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, could probably be kept as not renewed or no notice, but impossible to know without date of creation. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Ђидо (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Source claims to have gotten the image from Commons, but I can't find the original. It may have been deleted. File could probably be kept under Template:PD-US-not_renewed. Dmartin969 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ceremonia prażenia zielonej herbaty na puzzlach 1000 elementów firmy Clementoni - luty 2021.jpg
• File:Kolarz 99 zdjęć z całego świata na puzzlach 1000 elementów firmy Ravensburger - maj 2021.jpg
• File:Kotek na puzzlach firmy Clementoni 500 elementów - styczeń 2021.jpg
• File:Latarnia morska na puzzlach 500 elementów firmy Ravensburger - maj 2020.jpg
• File:Poranek nad jeziorem Dawn at lake na puzzlach 2000 elementów firmy Trefl - kwiecień 2021.jpg
• File:Puzzle 1500 elementów firmy Ravensburger planety układu słonecznego i sfery niebieskie - maj 2021.jpg
• File:Puzzle 3000 elementów firmy Trefl Dachy Jerozolimy - listopad 2020 - 1.jpg
• File:Puzzle 3000 elementów firmy Trefl Dachy Jerozolimy - listopad 2020 - 2.jpg
• File:Puzzle 3000 elementów firmy Trefl Dachy Jerozolimy - listopad 2020.jpg
• File:Puzzle 500 elementów z latarnią morską - lipiec 2020.jpg
• File:Puzzle dachy Jerozolimy 3000 elementów firmy Trefl - grudzień 2020.jpg
• File:Regał z książkami na puzzlach 1000 elementów firmy Ravensburger - marzec 2021.jpg
• File:Skład towarowy koleji austriackich na puzzlach 500 elementów firmy Castorland - sierpień 2021.jpg
• File:Układ słoneczny i mapa nieba na puzzlach 1500 elementów firmy Ravensburger - marzec 2020.jpg
• File:Zimowy krajobraz na puzzlach 1000 elementów firmy Axel - luty 2021.jpg

Reproductions of likely-copyrighted images. The same user also uploaded these photos with only jumbled-up puzzles, so they might be allowed to stay, but I'm listing them just in case:

• File:Poranna kawa z ciastem przy puzzlach - kwiecień 2021.jpg
• File:Puzzle 1000 elementów firmy Axel - luty 2021.jpg
• File:Puzzle z herbatą i ciastem - marzec 2021.jpg
• File:Puzzle z kawą i ciastem - kwiecień 2021.jpg

(File:Puzzle z bliska w Poznaniu - maj 2020.jpg is a close-up of a near-featureless, and thus uncopyrightable by itself, part of a puzzle.)

~Sobsz ^{aka hecko} (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to present a source for what they claim to be an organisation's logo. Suspected copyvio as a result Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't this be PD-textlogo, considering the fact that the hammer and sickle is such an old symbol that it couldn't be copyrightable nowadays and the rest is just a red flag with white letters? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It could possibly be argued to be simple enough under that but the wider issue is they haven't submitted it as such (i.e. "this is RCI's flag but I don't believe it is protected by copyright"). Instead they have submitted it as their own work without sourcing it, which I would err from the level of knowledge I have in saying it is therefore a breach because they're claiming they created it in effect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That can be corrected and shouldn't require deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I’m the original designer of this flag for the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI). The design is part broader visual identity and goes beyond a simple arrangement of elements, so I don’t believe it falls under PD-textlogo. I have included some of the original Figma files and drafts here for reference: Figma link. Let me know if you have any questions! – Siha Haahr

Claiming an organisation's logo as their own work, suspected copyvio Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m the original designer of this flag for the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI). I have included some of the original Figma files and drafts here for reference: Figma link. Let me know if you need anything else for the upload to be kept up! – Siha Haahr Siha1917 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming an organisation's logo as their own work, suspected copyvio Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't this be PD-textlogo, considering the fact that the hammer and sickle is such an old symbol that it couldn't be copyrightable nowadays and the rest is just black letters on a white background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It could possibly be argued to be simple enough under that but the wider issue is they haven't submitted it as such (i.e. "this is RCI's flag but I don't believe it is protected by copyright"). Instead they have submitted it as their own work without sourcing it, which I would err from the level of knowledge I have in saying it is therefore a breach because they're claiming they created it in effect. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That can be corrected and shouldn't require deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also reminding myself that a typo in the filename needs to be edited out when the file is likely kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I’m the original designer of this flag for the Revolutionary Communist International (RCI). The design is part broader visual identity and goes beyond a simple arrangement of elements, so I don’t believe it falls under PD-textlogo. I have included some of the original Figma files and drafts here for reference: Figma link. Let me know you need anything else to keep this up! – Siha Haahr

Claiming an organisation's logo as their own work, suspected copyvio Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not public domain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork from the Philippines. Current license is wrong, and we would need VRT permission from the artist to keep. Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo uploaded by a blocked editor. It duplicates File:Tampa Bay Lightning 2011.svg. – Sbaio (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free elements, to the point of exceeding de minimis JayCubby (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above TOO, would need VRT perm JayCubby (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 19719. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Vasyl Odrekhivskyi. Микола Василечко (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also

• File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни с. Лосяч.jpg
• File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, с. Лосяч.jpg
• File:Пам'ятний знак воїнам-землякам, які загинули в роки Другої світової війни, с.Лосяч.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1986. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 19669. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image too small, there is a better version in: File:Campeche, José - Virgin of Solitude, from the Mínimos de la Victoria Convent - Google Art Project.jpg Ecummenic (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Автор выложивший это фото на Википедию взял фото без разрешения из моего Instagram. Yesyaaa (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUZeDMcIl7V/?igsh=bWw4cDkzbzlpZ2tp

я выложил фотографию 29 сентября 2021 года, сверху ссылку на мой аккаунт с этой фотографией, прошу удалить данную фотографию, потому что автор который её сюда выложил, автором фото не является. Yesyaaa (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COPYVIO. Nakonana (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license, not a self-work. Also, there are no exceptions contemplated for the Venezuelan currency in Commons:Currency Banfield - Amenazas aquí 21:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice at source: https://www.rct.uk/collection/exhibitions/hrh-the-prince-of-wales-an-exhibition-to-celebrate-his-sixtieth-birthday/prince-charles-after-receiving-his-wings. The Royal Collection's copyright policy makes no mention of Crown Copyright: https://www.rct.uk/about/policies/copyright, DrKay (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was published prior to 1974. Cliffmore (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that it was published in 1971, but that still means that it is copyrighted until 2042 in the UK because copyright on works by unknown photographers lasts for 70 years from publication. In the US, it will be copyrighted for 95 years. There is no evidence, and indeed there is contrary evidence, that it is Crown copyright. The source page says that it is not. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate. The Royal Collection, "acquired by HM Queen Elizabeth II" is the copyright holder. The individual photographer may be unknown but the copyright holder is not. And as such, the expiry date has already taken effect. Cliffmore (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The en:provenance has nothing to do with the copyright. There is a copyright notice at the source. There is no indication anywhere that it is Crown copyright. The Royal Collection Trust is not the Crown. It is a registered charity. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not meet the necessary standards for educational or illustrative purposes and has been used improperly on the "Kashmir Muslims" page in a context that promotes racism. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nothing wrong with the photo. If you don't like how it's being used, try to work on that, but I'm not sure what you're talking about, because I don't see any usage on sister projects. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo raises privacy concerns as it was taken without the consent of the individuals depicted. This lack of consent, along with the potential for misuse, makes it unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons and justifies its deletion. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you there, or did the men photographed personally tell you they didn't consent? If they want to tell COM:VRT they didn't consent, they have the right to do so. I don't see any reason to assume you speak with authority against the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per COM:SCOPE. Absolutiva (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you think photos of men in local clothing are out of scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File was moved, moved file no longer exists Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per guideline COM:FR#Leaving redirects. F7 does not apply because the page is being used as a redirect.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dann bleibt eben diese falsche Adresse, denn das Haus zeigt Hausnummer 23. Durch das Verschieben hat das Bild nun die richtige Adresse – Julius-Leber-Straße 21 ist einfach falsch. Mef.ellingen (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links given by the uploader do not provide any information about the copyright status of the logos. Per precautionary principle, they should be removed so the symbols are far above the TOO.

Files affected:

• File:Northwestern wildcats CMKY 80 100 0 0.svg
• File:NorthwesternWildcats.png

Fma12 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least as of 2016, Northwestern claimed to own all rights over their logos, but many of the logos (or, as they say, indicia) included on the page are obviously PD-textlogo under COM:TOO US, so I don't think we can consider their claims reliable. The relevant question is how old this logo is and whether it's old enough to be public domain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, the cat figure was introduced in 1981 so not even a "PD-US-no notice" license could apply there. Fma12 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per {{PD-US-1978-89}}. I don't see any registration for the logo by Northwestern University within the required 5 year timeframe. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]