Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/04

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No claim made at social media source that this image is either freely licenced or AI-generated. Deleted and restored at COM:UNDEL for discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from COM:UNDEL

There is no doubt that the photo in question was in fact, AI-generated. The account that posted the photo is not an artist, and has previously embraced AI art with open arms. [1] The tweet previous to the one listed as the source of the image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons shows the process by which an image is generated using Apple's image playground. Not to mention, the tweet after the next is literally the Image Playground.

There's also this article which shows a very similar photo to the one deleted from Commons under the "Final Thoughts" headline. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Apple's Image Playground. Does this mean that it's an AI-generated image that's been COM:DERIVed from a selfie the person took of themselves? Belbury (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, AI-generated images of a person are not based on a single photo, but rather a group of pre-existing photos on your device of a single person from the photos app. This would make the Image Playground similar to Craiyon, rather than a glorified Instagram filter. TansoShoshen (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article also says that You can also upload any photo to use as a base when creating any image in Image Playground. Uploaded photo can be of a person, animal, place, etc., so it is possible that this image was based on a single specific selfie. Belbury (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like even if you use a specific photo, the resulting image wouldn't be that close to the photo. Under the section starting with You'll also be able to choose from a few of their photos to decide which likeness you best like as the starting point. in the article, we can see a difference in the orientation of the face. This tweet of Plainrock's in particular shows a pretty different specific photo and resultant image.

It's still possible that he used a photo that was a straight headshot with nothing else in frame, thus making this image a more blatant COM:DERIV of his selfie. However considering his specific tweets, I think it's unlikely. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unless the article is approved (it was declined). Yann (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I didn't submit the article for approval in the first place. Someone else without an account submitted despite said article not being anywhere near complete.

2. Commons does not have a deletion policy based on Wikipedia drafts. The closest thing would be COM:OOS, by which the subject of the image would be in scope, having 2.51 million subscribers on their main channel. A previous discussion on whether an image of Plainrock124 should be on Commons is found here. TansoShoshen (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a displayed photograph at Ellis Island, per exif gps coordinates, etc. You can't take a picture of a photo and then call it own work. An unnamed, uncredited photographer is the copyright holder for the original photo. The newspaper in the photo is the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Thurs. Mar 12, 1959. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to claim that the image in my photo is my own work.

I took the photo that I uploaded though, and I don't think I've exceeded fair use in the portion of the other work that I've captured, the nature of the use, the effect on the market for the work, etc. and it's being used for education, research and related purposes, so I think it passes every factor of the fair use test.

If it was stated on the display whose work it was, I would have added that as context, but I have no idea. It's likely not even under copyright, unless it was registered and extended. I have no idea how to work that out. Dcrafti (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And while I doubt this will be taken as authoritative, I asked Gemini about how Freedom of Panorama would apply in this case. Gemini tells me that given the museum is owned by the NPS, and that non-commercial photography is generally allowed there, and that uploading to Wikipedia is considered non-commercial, it's unlikely that there would be a restriction on FOP in this instance. Dcrafti (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not allowed on commons. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well I'm not spending any more time on this, so do what you need to do... Dcrafti (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. No FOP in the Philippines. Sculptor died in 1976 (48 years ago). Also, it appears to have been taken with a flash which is a violation of the museum's visitor guidelines. PhiliptheNumber1 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhiliptheNumber1 Commons does not need to comply with museum rules, see COM:NCR. Any violation of museum rule is the burden of the uploader, not of Commons. The relevant issue is on sculptural copyright, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 Yes, Commons can't really do much about that... I'm not sure why I added that. Oops. The issue is certainly on the sculpture's copyright status.

Sincerely yours, PhiliptheNumber1 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Melmann as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7

Not eligible for G7; converting to regular DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No valid reason for deletion, in use at English Wikipedia. Dmartin969 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE. Melmann, please pay attention to who is pictured in photos and whether files are in use by sister sites. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is a living person, and has implicitly withdrawn consent for an identifiable photo of them being on Commons in Revision #965315417 (which, despite the irrevocability of CC licence and legality of retaining the file, we have a moral obligation to delete, in my estimation). My nomination is merely a refactor of their own incorrect usage of {{SD|G7}}, done as a courtesy. Melmann (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Deletion requested by the uploader, who is also the subject of the photo, in this diff Revision #965315417. The uploader/subject is not a high profile individual, and it is in my view not in community's interest to assert the irrevocability of CC licence. Deletion here would be in the spirit of COM:PEOPLE, and refusing to delete could engender needless negative setiment towards Wikipedia/Wikimedia community by the article/photo subject, especially as they have already shown willingness to provide a photo for Wikipedia's use. For additional context, the subject appears to have also asked for help off wiki here. --Melmann (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This photo was used in w:Sean Cole, who is clearly a high-profile individual. Is this not a picture of that Sean? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disputing the identity of the photo subject. Rather, even though they work in media as a producer, most notably producing quite a successful podcast, it is not obvious to me that merely working in media qualifies somebody as a high profile individual. In my estimation, we should err on the side of privacy, especially where such a request has been explicitly made by the uploader/subject. There is very little to be gained in not honouring the wish of an article subject who is trying to engage with the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community, despite the fact that the licence of the photo allows us to do so, and it is unlikely that complying is legally required. We usually require consent for image of identifiable living people in private places/situations, even when such consent is not legally required, and it seems to me that in this case consent for use of this image has been withdrawn. Melmann (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted. And my reply is that a person with a Wikipedia article should have a photo of them on Commons, even if Wikipedians decide not to use it on that article. If they'd prefer to provide a selfie they like better, we could consider deleting this photo and keeping that one. If they want us to have no photo of them, how are they "engaging with the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They've already voluntarily provided a photo. They've also attempted to follow the Wikipedia's Byzantine processes. I'm assuming good faith and assuming that if we're forthcoming in accepting their withdrawal of consent, they may engage constructively further, and provide a photo they find more amenable. Melmann (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please link the other photo they provided. As for Wikipedia, their processes aren't relevant here except inasmuch as this file is no longer in use, last I checked, so it could be replaced by another photo if they did provide one. I'm not willing to support deletion on the basis that they might possibly decide to provide another photo if we delete. They also might not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the subject wants the image deleted, they should submit a VRTS ticket. There is no proof that the owner of that account is the subject, request could be vandalism. Dmartin969 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The uploader added {{SD|G7}} to the page. They did so incorrectly, but still, the intent is obvious. There is no need to corroborate the post from reddit to the subject, when all the necessary details are on-wiki. w:WP:FAQ/AS instructs article subjects to reach out to VRTS only for serious legal concerns, and to otherwise engage in the standard editorial process. Melmann (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per Melmann above; the author requested deletion under criteria G7 in this edit, even if they added the template to the caption instead of the general page source. = paul2520 💬 02:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building is still the intended subject of the photograph. There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea, making this image an infringement of architect's copyright. The architectural work is likely recent, as the UNESCO Asia-Pacific center was first established in 2000. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD-PRC-exempt 茅野ふたば (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD-PRC-exempt 茅野ふたば (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Sri Lanka A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain further what the issue is. w:Aluvihare Rock Temple is ancient. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mural appears to be recent so it should be copyrighted. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's damaged. How recent would it be, and how would you know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This site has a photo of an undamaged mural, so I believe it is a recently painted mural. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and thanks for the link. It could also be old and nevertheless recently got damaged. I get that unless we can establish the age of it, it might not be in the public domain, so it should be hidden per COM:PCP, but I hope an admin restores it if they discover that it's not too new. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: could you please say what you believe to be the source of the artwork on the fan? I'm not unwilling to believe that is a relatively recent piece, but it could as easily be a century old and possibly out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 06:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The initial artwork seems to be The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. Creator Katsushika Hokusai died in 1849 so definitely entered the PD. However, it seems to be a modern and different derivative work that can attract new copyright. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo of ministry has yet to be decided. This not official logo MesinKetik (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean in terms of copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sudah dipakai di kop surat di kemenimipas.. Supardisahabu (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], this sculpture was "recently constructed" as of 1996. There's no FOP in US for 3D art and en:Robert Indiana died in 2018. The original sculpture of en:Love (image) was 1970, so it might be PD if there was no copyiright statement associated with its original publication, but post-1989 that was no longer required. Need opinions on whether a 3D reproduction of a free 3D item gets its own protection or whether the original is protected.

• File:Love Sculpture (UPenn).jpeg
• File:Love Statue.jpg
• File:Love-sculpture-university-of-pennsylvania.JPG

DMacks (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful attribution of this author who claim to be the actress herself while this picture doesn't seem to be a selfie. --Triton (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad SVG. Iming (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SVG文件清晰度已修復。SVG file clarity has been repair. SteveHongKong (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Fake SVG. But it seems not a delete reason. Hehua (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is the China Media Group (CMG), might be copyrighted. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep Video was uploaded to Youtube under CC-BY. Dmartin969 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is the China Media Group (CMG), might be copyrighted. Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep Video was uploaded to Youtube under CC-BY. Dmartin969 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Slovenia: non-free architecture by Marko Mušič. TadejM ^(t/p) 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Dmartin969 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Higher HQ version of same image Bramnickatriot (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to the author on the source link provided. So it cannot be conclusively clarified who originally took the picture. However, the source page used also has a copyright notice at the very end. It is also used on other websites with similar content, there also without a reference to the author and all with copyright notices. For this reason the image would have to be deleted. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 08:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio - the person who uploaded it is in the photo so they probably didn't take it TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. Architect was Rainer G. Rümmler, who died in 2004.

• File:2018-04-22-13-40-55-IMG 8395 (40142538423).jpg
• File:2018-04-22-13-41-18-IMG 8397 (40142539213).jpg
• File:Berlin - U-Bahnhof Osloer Straße - Linien U8, U9 (7618270464).jpg
• File:Berlin - U-Bahnhof Osloer Straße - Linien U8, U9 (7618337104).jpg

Lukas Beck (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep the first three and  Delete File:Berlin - U-Bahnhof Osloer Straße - Linien U8, U9 (7618337104).jpg. I've cropped a copyrighted poster out of one of the images. The first three no longer have any sufficiently original elements for copyright. The flag of Norway is in the public domain. All the remaining images are simply mundane subway walls and floors. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I'm not sure whether the wall covering of the station shouldn't be seen as a work of art based on the Norwegian flag. In this case, as I understand it, the work would again be protected by copyright. Lukas Beck (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio - source says own work but uploader says on another upload there name is Anthony Collier, which matches there username more than "Paul Taylor" TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. The date on the plaque is June 1988. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as de minimis. Almost none of the text is legible and the graphics are so badly worn as to be indistinguishable. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio - source says own work but uploader says on another upload there name is Anthony Collier, which matches there username more than "Paul Taylor" TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. Architect was Rainer G. Rümmler, who died in 2004. See also this discussion. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. No significantly creative interior elements shown. If there is concern over the tilework, the rightmost quarter of the image could be cropped. The remaining panels are not being focused on and blur away into the distance. These are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think some cropping or blurring is essential. As it stands, I do believe it would have to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors) User with contributions. Yann (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a personal photo, and if you do a web search, you'll find that the thob el-nashal is a type of garment, which she is wearing. My question is whether it's really own work, but that wasn't the deletion requester's claim. I would oppose deletion based on F10, as this is definitely a useful and usable photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The girl is obviously AI-generated, so I am not sure there is any educational value. Yann (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wondered whether the photo was fake, or whether she just has an incredible amount of makeup on, but there is a distinct look of her and the background being different layers on some program like Photoshop. So no objection to deletion on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-images can be identified via Photoshop...? (sorry for the potential off-topic question, but you got me curious) Nakonana (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I just saw what looked like layers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is not the uploader's own work; it is non-free copyrighted content. Vengeance • Talk 09:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is not the uploader's own work; it is non-free copyrighted content. Vengeance • Talk 09:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is dated 1980s. Images created after 1976 or published after 1978 are PD in Italy but not in the US as per URAA restoration. Also affected the derivative version: File:Angelo Sotgiu.jpg. Arrow303 (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memory_Studies_Association_logo.png Researchclari (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed with deletion please Researchclari (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memory_Studies_Association_logo.png Researchclari (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license used is in my opinion not correct. The image can be found using Google], but it is not the source. Wouter (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is not the uploader's own work; it is non-free copyrighted content. Vengeance • Talk 11:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not the work of the Fickr user. Previously published (December 1) at https://www.facebook.com/groups/40533741236/posts/10160436643406237, uploaded to Flickr on December 4. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality screenshot of an unknown source image with unknown licence Boylarva99 (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a possible copyright violation, an experienced editor should check this. TheSlumPanda (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is very similar. Looks AI generated too, or at least afflicted by. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama for 2D graphic works in the UK. Günther Frager (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete it? Ridiculopathy (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridiculopathy: an admin will do it when closing this DR. Günther Frager (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Ridiculopathy (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not in COM:SCOPE personal photo. Gikü (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete F10, personal photo. Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! If I may: can you help me out and describe how to correctly insert a CSD template [instead of opening DRs]? Gikü (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Manually edit the page to add {{speedy|F10}}. Nakonana (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently part of a larger effort at self-promotion using multiple accounts (Category:Sockpuppets of Bien Bones Banez, Jr.). Outside of COM:SCOPE. See prior deletion discussions at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bienvenido Bones and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Bienvenido Bones.

• File:Surrealmageddon Visual Poetry for Terrance Lindall & Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr in John Milton Projects 2009-2015 by Terrance Lindall Williamsburg Art & Historical Center, New York City.jpg
• File:Self Portrait Bienvenido Bones Bañez, Jr. In Robert J Wickenheiser & Terrance Lindall The John Milton Projects 2009-2015, Terrance Lindall Retrospective, & KunstHerz by Gerhard Habarta.jpg
• File:Surrealmageddon Visual Poetry In The John Milton Projects 2009-2015 by Terrance Lindall, & Emanations Zen, Echoes, We Secure Reign, The Sky-Shaped Sarcophagus by Carter Kaplan, & KunstHerz Gerhard Habarta.jpg
• File:John Milton Projects Surrealmageddon Visual Poetry In Robert J Wickenheiser & Terrance Lindall The John Milton Projects 2009-2015 by Terrance Lindall with artworks by Robert S Beal and Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr.jpg
• File:Bienvenido Bones Bañez, Jr. Holding Global Art Book of Robert J. Wickenheiser & Terrance Lindall The John Milton Projects 2009-2015 by Terrance Lindall with artworks by Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr and Robert S Beal.jpg
• File:Surrealmageddon Visual Poetry in Compromise Movements 666 by Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr.jpg
• File:"Nimrod Screaming Blasphemous Desires", Artwork by Autistic Suckpuppet Visionary Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr. New York, USA.jpg
• File:Not belong to Bien Bones in User Poeticswork, poeticworks, POEETICC but belong Terrance Lindall.jpg
• File:1st PHILIPPINE AVANT-GARDE DAVAO 2025 SOON! SURREALMAGEDDON VISUAL POETRY!.jpg
• File:"AI Surrealmageddon Suckpuppet Mandatory" Artwork by Bienvenido Bones Bañez Jr. Private Collection by WAH Center, Manhattan, New York, United States of America.jpg
• File:Avant Garde 2025 Is Not Dead! Inspired by the GLOBUS HYSTERICUS AGENDA 21 AI TECHNOCRATIC MILLENNIAL SUCKERS!.jpg

Marbletan (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Similar content was also previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blakkez - not currently listed as a sock but clearly part of the same family. Omphalographer (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, out of scope personal artwork and selfies. Belbury (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. I've added a couple more recent uploads to the list above. Marbletan (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

small size without EXIF, The uploader of the image has other images that were deleted here for the same reason here. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, those are not deletion reasons by themselves per COM:DR, but it looks like the other image you linked to was deleted because "all other images from the uploader are copyvios," which is a good reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission from author in metadata which clearly state "Copyright holder CESARDELONG" Hoyanova (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copivio from vk Kotofey2016 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously published at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1048328337295411&id=100063547631842&set=a.125574316237489. If the uploader is the photographer, I recommend uploading the original JPEG with the EXIF data intact instead of a PNG conversion. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

turns were changed in the page without authorisation of the photographer not even the model CIP Lalani-12 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview. This photo was made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. Tm (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Tm. What does "turns were changed" even mean, anyway? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably a typo ("terms were changed"). Nakonana (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't really understand what they mean, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is right away taken from the internet and stolen from the web. This image is not owned by the uploader in any form or any way. This is a copyright violation of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I request to permanently delete this image from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. 122.171.17.155 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is owned by Government of India. However the image posted here is stolen by the user or uploader to Wikimedia and WIkipedia platform without authorization and approval to be uploaded tto this platform. This image is stolen directly from the internet so has to be deleted as this is not a free or even a licensed image. Request this image to be deleted from Wikimedia and Wikipedia platforms as this is a violation of all rules and regulations from Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. Thanks. 122.171.16.82 03:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin? 186.172.223.4 16:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly licensed uniform image, these are copyright and need to follow fair use policy instead of a free license on the Commons. The uploader has also made no indication how he/she has permission to release the copyright owned by the team. Flibirigit (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the uniform itself would qualify for copyright. The logo might be copyrighted. And the png-image might be copyrighted if it wasn't created by the uploader. But the uniform is probably below the threshold of originality, especially because it is likely following some standards for uniforms that are imposed by a regulating entity for this sport. Nakonana (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar uniform images for the National Hockey League are tagged with "Do not move to Commons", and include a Non-free use rationale and a "Non-free sports uniform" license. See Category:National Hockey League uniforms for example. Other Ice hockey uniforms all have similar license. I fail to see why the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League is an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly licensed uniform image, these are copyright and need to follow fair use policy instead of a free license on the Commons. The uploader has also made no indication how he/she has permission to release the copyright owned by the team. Flibirigit (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the uniform itself would qualify for copyright. The logo might be copyrighted. And the png-image might be copyrighted if it wasn't created by the uploader. But the uniform is probably below the threshold of originality, especially because it is likely following some standards for uniforms that are imposed by a regulating entity for this sport. Nakonana (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar uniform images for the National Hockey League are tagged with "Do not move to Commons", and include a Non-free use rationale and a "Non-free sports uniform" license. See Category:National Hockey League uniforms for example. Other Ice hockey uniforms all have similar license. I fail to see why the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League is an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly licensed uniform image, these are copyright and need to follow fair use policy instead of a free license on the Commons. The uploader has also made no indication how he/she has permission to release the copyright owned by the team. Flibirigit (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that the uniform itself would qualify for copyright. The logo might be copyrighted. And the png-image might be copyrighted if it wasn't created by the uploader. But the uniform is probably below the threshold of originality, especially because it is likely following some standards for uniforms that are imposed by a regulating entity for this sport. Nakonana (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar uniform images for the National Hockey League are tagged with "Do not move to Commons", and include a Non-free use rationale and a "Non-free sports uniform" license. See Category:National Hockey League uniforms for example. Other Ice hockey uniforms all have similar license. I fail to see why the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League is an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion there is a possibility that freedom of panorama no longer exists under the new law. The file should be deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle. Syrus257 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Raymond as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, proably a scan King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File copyied from facebook (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1111762427189119&set=pb.100050661151631.-2207520000&locale=fo_FO) gpesenti (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image à supprimer DigiCrea (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo has a pattern in the background that may be crossing the threshold of originality. Taichi (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I would agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canular (lié à canular du même noim sur WP:FR Culex (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as now-unused personal photo / hoax. Belbury (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

atteinte a la vie privée Tomygsp (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview. This photo was made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. Third, as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Luisoni (52524728017).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni, this deletion request, where all open by three new users. Tm (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep all per previous discussions of a series of portrait photos of this model. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

atteinte a la vie privée Tomygsp (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview. This photo was made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. Third, as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Luisoni (52524728017).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni, this deletion request, where all open by three new users. Tm (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

atteinte à la vie privée Tomygsp (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep First, the photographer and flickr user licensed this photos as CC-BY 2.0 (the "authorisation of the photographer"), attested by flickreview. This photo was made in a nude photography workshop in Barcelona ("Taller de fotografía de desnudo, Barcelona" in spanish), made with a nude photography model, as per this context. Second, this is a case of a model posing, willingly to a workshop of nude photography, not of some sneaky photographer. Also, keep before per Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2023/06/19#Files_in_Category:Nicole_Luisoni. Third, as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicole Luisoni (52524728017).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Nicole Luisoni, this deletion request, where all open by three new users. Tm (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an edited picture of Ryan Trahan and not true to his actual image. JamesKeresey (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't seen the youtube video where it is taken from. --Achim55 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy keep COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not an edited picture. It's from a YouTube video. It's the only freely-available image of Trahan we have. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, copyrighted, no OTRS. Muri (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely recreation of File:Joda Combs.jpg, created by block evader Oyebode123344 Bovlb (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Likely copyvio and not own work as claimed. Found here, for example. Marbletan (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

taken from this source FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think these files should be delete. Because I think it is not suitable for freedom of panorama. I think it is a historical monument, but there is no specific date:

• File:Butler home-Ganja Azerbaijan 1.jpg
• File:Butler home-Ganja Azerbaijan 3.jpg
• File:Butler home-Ganja Azerbaijan home 2.jpg
• File:Butler home. Ganja, Azerbaijan 4.jpg

2. According to the laws of Azerbaijan, for a file to violate the freedom of panorama, it must appear specifically in the monument image. But there are not 1 but several monuments in these photos. Many of them were uploaded in the past, when I was first starting out. But if it doesn't suitable, I support its delete:

• File:Gəncə Şəhər İcra Hakimiyyəti.jpg
• File:Ganja city Haydar Aliyev Park.jpg
• File:Azerbaijan Ganja center street.jpg
• File:Ganja- Shah Abbas mosque.jpg
• File:Ganja Mall.jpg
• File:Cavad xan məqbərəsi - Gəncə.jpg
• File:Cavad xan məqbərəsi - Gəncə2.jpg
• File:Gəncə central street.jpg
• File:Gəncə şəhəri İcra Hakimiyyəti gecə.jpg
• File:Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası.jpg
• File:Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası 8.jpg
• File:Gəncə Mall - Azerbaijan.jpg
• File:Shah Abbas mosque 1603.jpg
• File:Gəncə Mall - Azerbaijan 1.jpg
• File:Gəncə Mall - Azerbaijan 3.jpg
• File:Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası -.jpg
• File:Samad Vurgun Park (Agstafa, Azerbaijan) 4.jpg
• File:Samad Vurgun Park (Agstafa, Azerbaijan) entrance.jpg
• File:House-Museum of Huseyn Arif.jpg
• File:M.Ə.Rəsulzadəyə silah gəzdirmək üçün verilən sənəd (solda) və M.Ə.Rəsulzadənin İstanbulda nəşr etdirdiyi "Odlu Yurd" jurnalı (sağda).jpg
• File:Ganja Philharmonic Hall.jpg
• File:Ganja Philharmonic Hall 8.jpg
• File:Gəncə Mall 2.jpg
• File:Ucar şəhərinin Bakı-Qazax magistralından girişi.jpg
• File:The old door, Ganja.jpg
• File:Triumphal Arch in Heydar Aliyev Park, Ganja.jpg
• File:The Flame Towers and Baku TV Tower in the background of the Caspian Sea.jpg
• File:The Flame Towers and Baku TV Tower in the background of the Caspian Sea-2.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72).jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 3.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 1.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 2.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 5.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 9.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 4.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 10.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72). - 8.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 6.jpg
• File:Tank monument of the Shusha (Gagik Avsharyan's T72) - 7.jpg

--Turkmen ^talk 19:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck and @Modern primat hello! I said I would open a discussion about it. You can comment if you want. Regards, Turkmen ^talk 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening this,  Delete per nom for the FOP issues mentioned, and the first 4 per precautionary principle. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 20:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per Alachuckthebuck,  silinsin. although, im confused about File:Ganja city Haydar Aliyev Park.jpg and File:Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası -.jpg maybe they are ok? because "Ganja city Haydar Aliyev Park.jpg" is could be considered as a photo of nature, structures in far away is in low visibility and "Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası -.jpg" could be removed but it is looking like plain wall. thank you dear Turkmen for your honesty. please re-apply after this discussion ended. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 21:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep all the tank images. Those are actual captured tanks, not statues of tanks. The buildings in the background are not the the focus of the image and can be treated as generic skylines. Also  Keep File:Ganja city Haydar Aliyev Park.jpg and File:Gəncə Dövlət Flarmoniyası -.jpg per modern_primat.  Unsure about the images of the Flame Towers. They are taken at such a distance and include the whole city skyline, that despite the title they may be de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry photo using poor quality camera, that doesn't include anything notable. Sadads (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend we also apply this rational to these others:

• File:Balotaje 2024 - Festejos FA Nueva Helvecia 11.jpg
• File:Balotaje 2024 - Festejos FA Nueva Helvecia 12.jpg
• File:Balotaje 2024 - Festejos FA Nueva Helvecia 20.jpg
• File:Balotaje 2024 - Festejos FA Nueva Helvecia 35.jpg

Sadads (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I agree that these are not high-quality photos. Do we have better photos of similar scenes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Pygos as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author Yann (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Yann! Would you please explain the rationale for setting up a deletion discussion instead of having it undergo direct speedy deletion? I am just inquiring this because it seems that nobody is replying to this discussion. Pygos (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright issue, and you need a valid rationale to request deletion. Anyway this is not eligible for speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for interiors in Japan. No permission available from architect, according to uploader. Support Ticket:2024120110009163

• File:OTAKA-Centro-Cultura-Chiba-1557.jpg
• File:KIKUTAKE-centro-CIVICO-Kurume-07-1331.jpg
• File:KIKUTAKE-Miyakonojo-06-1343.jpg
• File:TANGE-gimnasio-Tokio-2.jpg

Mussklprozz (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. COM:TOO Japan restricts photos of artistic works indoors (and outdoors they are limited to noncommercial use), but architecture is a different category of work separate from artistic works and is not subject to the same indoor-outdoor scrutiny. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first version of the font family Ogouwiki (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WDRB_2011_Logo.svg OWaunTon (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autor zrezygnował z publikacji Radioretro.hb (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translation: "The author resigned from the publication." Are there copyright issues? This file is COM:INUSE, but I don't understand what the problem is - Google probably didn't translate the Polish text well. Could someone please clarify? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google translating into Russian results in something along the lines of "Author declined publication" or "refused publication". I guess that means that there's no permission from the author? Nakonana (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's the uploader who is requesting deletion 10 days after upload. Nakonana (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CC-BY 4.0, should be fair use SDudley (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This is not fair use (or CC-BY 4.0). There is already a non-free image on Wikipedia uploaded with the Non-free biog-pic rationale. See Wikipedia:File:Brian Thompson.webp. Denniscabrams (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Source is listed as LinkedIn, no evidence of free license. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image improperly uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination. It is a poster advertising a TV program. Günther Frager (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete as copyvio, no free licence stated at https://www.instagram.com/p/DDKtxDpJnzK/ Belbury (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sheet music with little context as to what it represents. Abzeronow (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious to me as a musician: these are different ways to divide up 4 beats in a 4/4 measure, mostly using triplets (ternaer). However, the description and categorization are gibberish. The file could be useful to someone, but since it's not in use, it's inessential to keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the photograph of the uploader. Does not credit the photographer. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete the file was recently uploaded but it was available in the web since 2022, see https://venze.es/nethra-tilakumara-wiki-anos-novio-altura-familia-biografia-y-hechos/. Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a copyright notice in the bottom left of the original poster as seen on the ebay listing; '© 1989 Elektra/Asylum Records'. Not in the Public Domain, undelete in 2085.

• File:Metal Church 1989 (John Marshall).jpg
• File:Metal Church 1989.jpg
• File:Metal Church 1989 (Duke Erickson).jpg
• File:Metal Church 1989 (Craig Wells).jpg
• File:Metal Church 1989 (Kirk Arrington).jpg

PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very likely to be an imagevio: low resolution, gif filetype, no fileinfo, one-upload user; still we have many better images — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person on this file did not consent to getting their photo taken and the person has a protected identity and this file is dangerous. Mariasham (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the footballer or a terrorist? 191.125.0.170 22:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This official portrait is most definitely not the work of this inexperienced user. It is also found on other websites, without a license ofc. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size and the low resolution, the picture is very unlikely an own work, rather an uncredited work picked from the Internet. No evidence of reuse. - Daxipedia - 達克斯百科 (d) 22:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely non-free image uploaded to Commons TAnthony (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not official logo yet, there are several logos that being selected to the final MesinKetik (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the logos under consideration be hosted here? It's interesting to have a record of which logos were submitted, but not if there's a copyright problem with hosting them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]