Commons:Deletion requests/2025/01/18

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in Ireland A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of election posters frequently appear in the media here without any kind of obvious copyright permission being presented. I've sent off some legal queries to check what the situation is. Dwmalone (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that media have the right to fair use, but Commons does not recognize COM:FAIRUSE. Now you can save the money you would have spent on legal queries. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, the queries to friends in working in the legal and media area. The media would have no concerns about printing such a picture - I think not as a consequence of fair use or fair dealing, but because no politician has/would consider causing a fuss about reproduction of their election material, and so they don't worry about it. The legal friend reckons that the posters have just enough effort invested to be covered by copyright (point-and-click photographs don't necessarily have copyright in Ireland). They considered that any discussion around freedom of panorama in Ireland is probably driven by nonsense anyway :-)

I could request permission from the politicians in question to reproduce their posters - would that keep people happy? Dwmalone (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the politicians own the copyrights. Whichever artist(s) created the posters are the ones that would have to give permission. And "they wouldn't sue, anyway," while a practical consideration, isn't recognized by Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the political party has a photographer on staff, which wouldn't surprise me, particularly during an election. I'd suggest we delete the photo for now. I'll see if I can find out who political parties believe owns the copyright for their election posters, and I might reupload if I get a satisfactory answer. Dwmalone (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

どっかからとってきたやつだから TOO-700c (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question, I don't understand your reasoning, you don't think the uploader is the author of the image? Tvpuppy (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

著作権があるから TOO-700c (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper gallery page: with only one proper image, the other two are not about Restrepia teaguei and are on a lot of gallery pages. The rest of the information can be found on Wikispecies as well. I think this gallery page is not inline with the requirements in Commons:Galleries. JopkeB (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...not to delete.Orchi (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete it?

The gallery page has now three images. But they are the same as the three in the category, so there is no added value to keep the gallery page. JopkeB (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --BerndH (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orchi and BerndH: Why should this page be kept? Please give a reason. JopkeB (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article like countless other articles. (Only the pictures are very rare).Orchi (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. But perhaps a lot of those other articles should be deleted as well because they do not offer added value in comparison to the category. So again: why should THIS page be kept? JopkeB (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is correct.Orchi (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because information can be added beneath the pictures. Unlike categories. BerndH (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a general and probably unavoidable experience that galleries may have a certain overlap with the associated category, especially when only a very limited number of images/media is available.

After opening this DR, the content of this gallery has been updated and the deficiencies that existed at that time were remedied. IMO, the gallery now is in accordance with the COM:G-guideline and there is no convincing reason to delete it. So,  Keep. --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I  I withdraw my nomination. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Я Евгений Романов ( Tver777) являясь автором данной фотографии , прошу рассмотреть мою жалобу и удалить данное изображение. Фото размещу от своего имени соблюдая правила и тд Википедии. К отправителю претензий не имею. Добавлю то, что я лишь хочу разместить настоящий исходник ( без всех этих вотермарков и обработок) Эти самые фотографии отправил на модерацию. Tver777 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Я Евгений Романов ( Tver777) являясь автором данной фотографии , прошу рассмотреть мою жалобу и удалить данное изображение. Фото размещу от своего имени соблюдая правила и тд Википедии. К отправителю претензий не имею. Добавлю то, что я лишь хочу разместить настоящий исходник ( без всех этих вотермарков и обработок) Эти самые фотографии отправил на модерацию. Tver777 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Вы в принципе просто можете переписать данный файл оригиналом: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=City_of_Military_Glory_%28Tver%29_2.jpg&wpForReUpload=1 Nakonana (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Я Евгений Романов ( Tver777) являясь автором данной фотографии , прошу рассмотреть мою жалобу и удалить данное изображение. Фото размещу от своего имени соблюдая правила и тд Википедии. К отправителю претензий не имею. Добавлю то, что я лишь хочу разместить настоящий исходник ( без всех этих вотермарков и обработок) Эти самые фотографии отправил на модерацию. Tver777 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Я Евгений Романов ( Tver777) являясь автором данной фотографии , прошу рассмотреть мою жалобу и удалить данное изображение. Фото размещу от своего имени соблюдая правила и тд Википедии. К отправителю претензий не имею. Добавлю то, что я лишь хочу разместить настоящий исходник ( без всех этих вотермарков и обработок) Эти самые фотографии отправил на модерацию. Tver777 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Я Евгений Романов ( Tver777) являясь автором данной фотографии , прошу рассмотреть мою жалобу и удалить данное изображение. Фото размещу от своего имени соблюдая правила и тд Википедии. К отправителю претензий не имею. Добавлю то, что я лишь хочу разместить настоящий исходник ( без всех этих вотермарков и обработок) Эти самые фотографии отправил на модерацию. Tver777 (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is technically a gallery page, but the content is not. It only has a list of links and all links go to English Wikipedia, some lead even to dead links, like McEwan Brothers Railroad. I do not think that this is inline with the goals of Commons:Galleries. JopkeB (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This map has been of great interest. It should not be removed. 104.178.93.104 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the only map shown on this page, File:New Jersey railroad map.png; this map will be kept anyway.

This Deletion Request is about the page, with the long list of links, which does not belong on Commons. JopkeB (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page has new and better picture, there is no link from the FN 30-11 page to this picture Edwin76 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an empty gallery page, with only a redirect, which is redundant. JopkeB (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an empty gallery page, with only a redirect, which is redundant. JopkeB (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a gallery page showing the history of Palestine and the modern-day territories of Israel, West Bank and Gaza. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possibility. Who is going to do that? I do not see that as a job for me. My proposal is to delete it and when somebody wants to create a real gallery page, it can easily be recreated again. JopkeB (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper gallery page: with only two identical photos, while the category has just three photos. So I think this gallery is redundant. JopkeB (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per COM:FOP Japan. According to the this article[1], these manhole covers are from en:Zombie Land Saga. The copyright is still kept.

• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール7.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール6.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール5.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール4.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール3.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール2.jpg
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール1.jpg
• File:ゾンビランドサガさきマンホール.jpg
• File:リリィマンホール蓋.jpg

Netora (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep These manhole covers are public property with practical uses that were installed by Saga Prefecture as part of tourism promotion, and are permanently installed on public roads. Therefore, under Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Act, they can be freely photographed and shared as long as it is not for commercial purposes.

Furthermore, these images have been uploaded for educational and non-commercial purposes, and do not infringe on the interests of copyright holders.

The removal request claims that the all characters depicted on these manhole covers are from Zombie Land Saga. However, this is partially incorrect. Many of these manholes were created as part of the Romancing Saga project and depict Square Enix's Saga series characters. The copyright claim of Zombie Land Saga given as the reason for removal is partially based on a misunderstanding, and the removal request may not be based on the facts.

Finally, these manhole covers are public property for the purpose of promoting tourism in Saga Prefecture, and have been photographed and shared without the intention of commercial use. Considering these points, I support the survival of these files.

これらのマンホールカバーは、佐賀県が観光PRの一環として設置した実用性のある公共物であり、公共の道路上に恒久的に設置されています。そのため、日本の著作権法第46条に基づき、商業目的でない限り自由に撮影し、共有することが可能です。

さらに、これらの画像は教育的・非営利的な目的でアップロードされており、著作権者の利益を損なうものではありません。

今回の削除申請では、これらのマンホールカバーに描かれている全てのキャラクターが『ゾンビランドサガ』のものだと主張されています。しかし、これは一部事実と異なります。これらのマンホールの多くは『ロマンシング佐賀』プロジェクトの一環として制作されたものであり、スクウェア・エニックスの『サガシリーズ』キャラクターを描いたものです。削除理由として挙げられた『ゾンビランドサガ』の著作権に基づく主張は、一部誤解に基づいており、削除申請が事実に即していない可能性があります。

最後に、これらのマンホールカバーは佐賀県の観光振興を目的とした公共物であり、商業利用の意図なく撮影・共有されています。これらの点を考慮し、これらのファイルを存続させることを支持します。--ハポニアラ (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Romancing Saga's manholes were placed in 2021[2]. These manhole images should be removed too. Commons can't keep the images without commercial use permission. Read COM:FOP Japan. Netora (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to conditionally agree with the deletion of these files, based on the recognition that the manhole covers in question are likely artistic works under Japanese copyright law and that the uploaded images may not be eligible for commercial use. However, I would like to highlight the following issues regarding the original deletion proposal and suggest improvements for future proposals to ensure their thoroughness and fairness.

1. Concerns with the Original Deletion Proposal

1. Narrow initial focus on alleged copyright infringement by Zombie Land Saga:

The original deletion proposal claimed that these files infringed upon the copyright of Zombie Land Saga. However, this reasoning applies to only a portion of the uploaded files, as many of the manhole covers depict characters from the Romancing Saga project. This demonstrates that the scope of the proposal was initially too narrow and based on incomplete information.

2. Lack of concrete evidence for all files:

The source cited in the deletion request (a Japanese news site) does not provide sufficient evidence that the specific designs in the uploaded images match those referenced in the article. A deletion request must ensure that all uploaded files are individually accounted for with clear evidence.

3. Neglect of the burden of proof:

While it is the uploader’s responsibility to provide appropriate licenses and permissions, it is also the requester’s responsibility to substantiate claims of copyright violations. The lack of thorough evidence in this request demonstrates a prioritization of deletion over due diligence.

2. Conditions for Agreement

To address these issues and improve the quality of deletion proposals, I agree to the deletion of these files on the following conditions:

1. Comprehensive documentation for all files:

I have decided to conditionally agree with the deletion of these files, provided that this specific proposal is amended with sufficient and detailed documentation for each file. The requester must address the following points to ensure that the proposal is complete and accurate:

1. Clear identification of the depicted characters.

2. The name of the work they originate from.

3. The year the manhole cover was installed.

4. The copyright holder, installer, and owner of the manhole cover.

Without these details, the current proposal lacks the necessary thoroughness to justify the deletion of all files. It is the requester’s responsibility to provide this information to meet the standards of Wikimedia Commons’ deletion discussions.

2. Avoidance of generalizations or insufficient claims:

Requesters should ensure that all files included in a deletion request are individually reviewed and substantiated. This ensures that the scope of the request is appropriately targeted and supported by evidence.

3. Attention to detail and accuracy in future requests:

It is critical that future requests maintain a high standard of accuracy and care, avoiding generalized or poorly supported claims, to uphold the credibility and fairness of Commons deletion discussions.

3. Final Remarks

While I conditionally support this deletion request based on the recognition of copyright issues under Japanese law, I hope the concerns raised here will encourage greater care and precision in future deletion proposals. This will ensure that Commons continues to operate as a fair and transparent platform for sharing media while respecting copyright law.

Thank you for considering these points. ハポニアラ (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

現在も著作権が保持されている2つの作品のキャラクターのマンホールカバーという事実だけで削除理由として十分であり、設置年や設置者は削除の如何に影響しません。キャラクター名は明確化のため、言語障壁もあると思われるので代わりに書き起こしておきます。

• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール7.jpg - アセルス
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール6.jpg - サイシュウコウテイ
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール5.jpg - カタリナ
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール4.jpg - ギュスターヴ
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール3.jpg - アルベルト
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール2.jpg - ポルカ
• File:ロマ佐賀マンホール1.jpg - ウルピナ
• File:ゾンビランドサガさきマンホール.jpg - さき→サキ
• File:リリィマンホール蓋.jpg - リリィ

なお、コモンズで削除されるような屋外美術作品でも、ja:Wikipedia:屋外美術を被写体とする写真の利用方針(WP:FOP of jawp)に従えば、ウィキペディア日本語版(jawp)にアップロードしjawp内のいくつかの記事に利用することはできます。ただし、その著作物と密接に関連するjawpの記事にアップロード後速やかに表示し、サイズ制限、最小限の利用（1記事3画像以内）などの条件があります。利用できるであろう記事はja:ゾンビランドサガ、ja:ロマンシング佐賀くらいであり、それぞれの記事で3つ以内となります。--Peka (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)(訂正:15:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

私は投稿者本人として画像の速やかな削除を希望します。

As the poster, I would like the images to be deleted immediately. ハポニアラ (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image includes portraits of Malaysian Prime Ministers displayed in a museum. While the portrait of Tunku Abdul Rahman (the first Prime Minister) might be in the public domain due to the time period, the other portraits (e.g., of Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) are much more recent and are likely still protected under copyright laws. According to Malaysian copyright law, photographs and portraits are protected for 50 years after the death of the creator, or 50 years after publication if the creator is not identified. There is no evidence provided that these portraits were published under a free license or that permission has been granted for their use. Additionally, the fact that these portraits are displayed in a public space (museum) does not automatically make them free to use under Commons' licensing policy. Unless clear evidence of public domain status or a valid license is provided, this file should be deleted to comply with copyright regulations. Baginda 480 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV screenshots rather than own work. Small resolutions and no camera EXIF. Three of the files even have 'screenshot' (schermafbeelding) in the file name.

• File:Sardella 2025 1.jpg
• File:Huerta Anderlecht 2025.png
• File:Neuville Ypres 2024.jpg
• File:Schermafbeelding 2024-08-11 130339.png
• File:Schermafbeelding 2024-06-23 172316.png
• File:Schermafbeelding 2024-06-23 165843.png
• File:RSC Anderlecht 211-222.jpg
• File:Christian Kouamé playing for R.S.C. Anderlecht on loan in 2022.jpg
• File:Taylor Harwood-Bellis.jpg
• File:Josh Cullenn.jpg
• File:FRAncis AmuZU 1.jpg
• File:Nikolay Gryazin in his Volkwagen Polo R5.jpg
• File:Meersstraat 2.jpg
• File:Meersstraat 1.jpg

Jcb (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can say with 100% certainty that these photos are my own work. I always take a screenshot from from my google drive on the computer because this is the easiest for me and so I filter out the unnecessary stuff.

I can't do anything about the quality because this is always taken with my Samung S22 camera, by zooming in again and then taking a screenshot of the picture it is indeed not always sharp.... KALMPSPAZ (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send some of the original files to COM:VRT? Jcb (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem, I can send them all. KALMPSPAZ (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you send the e-mail to VRT, you should receive an autoreply with the ticket number. If you post that number here, I will take a look. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader went silent after the conversation above and as far as I can see we did not receive anything in VRT on these files, so I am afraid that they have to be deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I work on nlwiki, so is KALMPSPAZ, and I don't know what happened but he has gone silent for weeks now.

I must object against this delete requests because no real proof of copyvio is given. Just second guessing. For example tv-apps on computers have screenshot-protection for copyright reasons so the dutch screenshot-names ("schermafbeelding") are not derived from that. The football-photos are typically low quality because of smartphone limited zooming options. If they are taken from a television-screen they should have moiré-effects: wavy lines, rippling effects, like the example on this website.

Sincerely, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These filenames are what you would get if you make a screenshot of a part of your screen on an apple pc. It's very easy for KALMPSPAZ to show that these files come indeed from his own pictures. He can just send some of the original files to VRT and I will sign it off. But without it, it's highly unlikely that these pictures are own work. Jcb (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"highly unlikely" is not conclusive evidence. Alot of football photos on Commons taken in stadiums are low quality because smartphone lenses are limited. You really think he was not capable of "stealing" higher quality football screenshots if that was he was doing?

That's why his car photos are better. They are taking real-time closeby.

And throwing all photos under the bus because three photos are named "Schermafbeelding" ("screenshot" in dutch)? Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need conclusive evidence that something is copyright violation, we do need to have clear beyond reasonable doubt that it is not. It's on the uploader to show us. None of the nominated files have camera EXIF, they are all screenshots, which is admitted by uploader. The only thing that can save these files is the uploader showing they have the original pictures. Which the uploader knows since 18 January and on which they did not take action. All the other reasoning is pointless. Jcb (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Commons allows: screenshots of own work and low quality photos

What Commons not demands: camera EXIF

What Commons needs for copyvio accusations: hard proof, no wild guessing

Sidney.Cortez (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently not aware of the daily practice here at Commons. Many files are deleted here every day for these exact indications that they are unlikely to be own work. Jcb (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made my case. We'll see what happens. Sidney.Cortez (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello [[User:Jcb|Jcb]]

Just now the photos were forwarded in mail to VRT. Again I am an average user who takes screens mainly out of convenience. Since I don't use wikipedia on a daily basis either, this took some time to verify. Hopefully this clears suspicions and they can remain online and is the discussion off the table. KALMPSPAZ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb KALMPSPAZ (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an autoreply from VRT with a ticket number. Do you have that number for me? I cannot find anything in the permissions-commons queue. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of Panorama (FoP) in Indonesia Baqotun0023 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• w:File:Patung Surabaya.jpg has a template saying that the work will be out of copyright in 2090. This would imply a death year of the sculptor in 2019 for a 70 years p.m.a. country. Do we have evidence that the sculptor died in 2019? w:Sura and Baya Statue claims that the authors are Sutomo Kusnadi and Sigit Margono. Do we have a source for a death year? I can't find any. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same as File:تخطيط اسم محمد بن الحسن.png Yousiphh (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Own work? https://i.etsystatic.com/20669425/r/il/fce412/6465233363/il_1140xN.6465233363_341t.jpg Yann (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 17 жовтня 2011. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Василь Корчовий. Микола Василечко (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file should be deleted because it does not meet the requirements for free use. Although it is marked as being under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, there is no evidence that the uploader owns the copyright or has the right to release the image under this license. The image appears to be taken from Westcol's official Instagram account, which strongly suggests that the uploader is not the original creator. Without proof of proper licensing or ownership, the file violates Wikipedia's copyright policies. JeanSegura (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an empty gallery page, with only a redirect, which is redundant. JopkeB (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no educational value, see file name and description Veliensis (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Response to the deletion request for the file „File: Das Bild stellt das Zwei-Säulen-Modell der Betriebspädagogik von Paco D´Acquarica dar.png“

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to provide my response to the deletion request regarding the file "File: Das Bild stellt das Zwei-Säulen-Modell der Betriebspädagogik von Paco D´Acquarica dar.png":

=== Relevance of the Content ===

The diagram illustrates the "Two-Pillar Model of Vocational Pedagogy," a theoretical concept applied in workplace settings as well as in vocational training and inclusion research. It serves as a visual tool to explain fundamental principles of vocational pedagogy, particularly in the context of training and inclusion for individuals with disabilities.

=== Potential for Use ===

Although the image is not currently embedded in a Wikimedia project, I plan to include it in articles such as "Vocational Pedagogy" and "Inclusion in Training and the Workplace." In my opinion, the file fulfills Wikimedia Commons' purpose as a central repository for media files that can enrich Wikimedia projects.

=== Authorship and License ===

I am the creator of this diagram and have released it under the free license "CC BY-SA 4.0." This license allows anyone to use, modify, and share the image, provided that proper attribution is given.

=== Final Remarks ===

I kindly request a reconsideration of the deletion request. The diagram represents an important and specific pedagogical concept that could serve as a valuable resource for Wikimedia projects. Given the limited availability of literature and visual materials in this field, the accessibility of this diagram is essential for expanding the knowledge base. Furthermore, it contributes to the development of pedagogical approaches that provide significant societal benefits.

Thank you for your time and for reviewing this matter carefully. Franziscus Aqua (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized all Estonian ministry logo files in English to be .svg Risto est (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook in exif, too blurry to read  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getty Images are copyrighted Shadow4dark (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does it means Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be used on commons. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what about files from news archives??? Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bad quality duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bs_Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_H%E1%BB%93ng.png  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all blue links and I (1) kept a lot of them (and added gallery categories at many), (2) nominated a lot for deletion because they are only redundant redirects or have zero or only one image, (3) put some of them in Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format and left a note in the talk page. So this page has done its job and I do not see any use of it anymore. The user is not active anymore since February 2017. JopkeB (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user with history of copyright violations, files with small size, inconsistent EXIF, all about the same place, unlikely to be own works

• File:Liceo Alemán del Verbo Divino, Los Ángeles.png
• File:Liceo Industrial de Los Ángeles.jpg
• File:Liceo Coeducacional Santa María.jpg
• File:Liceo Técnico Juanita Fernández Solar.jpg
• File:Liceo Bicentenario Los Ángeles.jpg
• File:Universidad Santo Tomás, campus Los Ángeles.jpg
• File:Universidad de Concepción, campus Los Ángeles.jpg
• File:Cosecha de Trigo en los campos de Los Ángeles.jpg
• File:Parque Eólico.jpg
• File:Los Ángeles.png

 ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the inspiration was taken from a similar photo like this one. But then again, I'm not really sure about the existing criteria regarding such representations. However, I have to admit that I'm having a hard time finding any sort of likeness between this artistic portrait and the real looks of that person. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 18:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a photo of what it claims to be, or that it is the own work of the uploader. The only known specimen of Apatodon has been lost for many years, and there are no published photos or illustrations of it that I am aware of. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i want change new picture Ade Nader (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Document issued in 1966. Owner of document died in 1998. Unlikely to be original own work. DW author? date? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a party membership card. There's nothing copyrightable on it (aside from the photo). It just lists the person's name, member number, etc. It's {{PD-text}}. Nakonana (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Хрущёв Никита Сергеевич, партийный билет.jpg /

PS партбилеты остались у их владельцев после запрета партии в 1991 году (The party cards remained with their owners after the party was banned in 1991). So categorical (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Document issued in 1940-1960s Owner of document died in 1998. Unlikely to be original own work. DW author? date? Copyright status? Drakosh (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this document would be copyrightable, though? It's just like an identity card (more specifically: a personal record sheet of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) that lists the name of the person, the nationality, etc. There's no creative prose. One could say that there's no prose at all (it's just like "Nationality: Greek"). There are also no visual artistic elements (except for the photo). Nakonana (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole category for this type of document: Category:Personal sheet of personnel registration of the Soviet Union. Those documents were very standardized and there are different document types that pretty much all look the same (e.g. Category:Employment record books in Russia). They are like identity cards that list all the relevant personal information followed by a table with entries on the jobs that a person did. The entries usually list the place of work, the time when a person started the job, and what job title they had. Nakonana (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Indian Foreign Service Government of India.jpg
• File:Bhartiya videsh seva.jpg

Unused, very low resolution, unidentified logos. The source is also in question. --Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Wolfmann as "own work" which is clearly incorrect. Although this may have been released by police as evidence, that does not mean that it is in the public domain. Someone (possibly Behring Breivik, possibly not) took the photo. They hold the copyright, not the police. All derivative files should be included in this deletion request. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anders Behring Breivik portrait drawing.jpg should be considered a derivative of this image. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question, you are referring to the portrait in the fake police badge right? Because this photo clearly is taken by the author, but I agree with you the copyright of the portrait in the photo is likely owned by Behring Breivik. I suggest blurring the copyrighted part rather than deleting the whole photo, since the photo itself has educational value. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurring would be fine for this image. Any derivatives that are just the portrait should be deleted. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sofronio P. Vasquez III in 2025 (Enhanced) (cropped) (1).png
• File:Sofronio P. Vasquez III in 2025 (Enhanced) (2).png
• File:Sofronio P. Vasquez III in 2025 (Enhanced) (3).png

This is an AI upscaled image that introduces errors, particularly in the details of his shirt. It also makes him look like a wax dummy. Compare to File:Sofronio_Vasquez_at_Malacañang-01082025-05.jpg. Now that there's a higher-res image available, there's no use for this upscaled one, or the images cropped from it. Apocheir (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom

HurricaneEdgar 23:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These files should be migrated to English Wikisource. The source work is PD-US, but is not necessarily PD in Canada. Do not actually delete until migration has been undertaken.

• File:European Elegies page 2.jpg
• File:European Elegies page 3.jpg
• File:European Elegies page 4.jpg
• File:European Elegies page 5.jpg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source edition listed has a 1958 copyright notice. I am willing to concede one image may be too simple, if other contributors concur.

• File:Pirandello - Maschere nude, Volume I - Verona, Mondadori, 1965 (page 16 crop).jpg
• File:Pirandello - Maschere nude, Volume I - Verona, Mondadori, 1965 (page 19 crop 1).jpg Simple
• File:Pirandello - Maschere nude, Volume I - Verona, Mondadori, 1965 (page 19 crop).jpg
• File:Pirandello - Maschere nude, Volume I - Verona, Mondadori, 1965.djvu
• File:Pirandello - Maschere nude, Volume II - Verona, Mondadori, 1965.djvu

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: can you please explain the reason in details? Candalua (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The concern is that the listed media originates with a 1958 edition (per the copyright note in the work) or 1965 (the date given in the fileinfo), as opposed to the original work. This concerns NM/editorial which may have been added in that edition, including potentially the listed images.

However, File:Pirandello_-_Maschere_nude,_Volume_I_-_Verona,_Mondadori,_1965_(page_19_crop_1).jpg is merely a geometric border, and thus might not be original enough.

I will note that Italian Wikisource apparently considered the original text out of copyright, in order to host it. The concern was NM/Editorial added in 1958/1965. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 This work is in the public domain in the United States because it meets three requirements:

First published outside the United States (and not published in the United States within 30 days),

First published before March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice or before 1964 without a copyright renewal or before the country of origin established copyright treaties with the United States,

was in the public domain in its country of origin on the URAA date (1 January 1996 for most countries).’ The law extending copyright from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author came into force in Italy on 25 February 1996 as you can read here. On 1 January 1996, therefore, the law of 50 years after the author's death was still in force. Pirandello died in 1936 and therefore his rights had already expired on 1 January 1996. Myron Aub (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The concern isn't about Pirandello's contribution. The concern is as stated any editorial additions, Your reasoning is sound as respect to the original text :)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the djvu, and one page (simple geometric pattern). That leaves an unidentified artist for the flowers and portrait. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, This should ideally be replaced with an original edition, over the reprint. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00 Note that "critic editions" in Italy (i.e. revisions of the original text) are in the PD 20 years after publication (art. 85-quater). Thus, here, we don't really need, at least for copyright reasons, an original edition. Ruthven (msg) 14:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was something I didn't know about. Which might affect other works in the categroy concerned :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused, inaccurate AI-generated illustration. The image model doesn't seem to understand what a "light sail" is, and has given the satellite rocket engines instead. The result isn't a usable illustration; there are a number of more credible illustrations by NASA and others in Category:Solar sails. Omphalographer (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make a series on future predictions for inventions, discoveries and technologies, and a satellite with a solar sail is part of it. Now I must honestly say that I didn't think this image was the very best either.... Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it may be removed. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to File:疋-aorder.gif. Squishyawaylittle6 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to File:辶-order.gif. Squishyawaylittle6 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the photograph does not include a statement as to the image's copyright status. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

je veux changer la licence de droit d'auteur Hakama.ma (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the author is unknown (?) doesn't necessarily mean that the file in question is copyrights free... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author is unknown, the work entered PD in Greece 70 years after it is published. However, since it entered PD after the URAA date, it is still copyrighted in the US, so unfortunately have to  Delete this poster. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy: Actually, this case sounds quite similar to that one. Same type of poster from that same period. So, same copyrights status, as well, most probably. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 14:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as Speedy (db-advert). Here is an article Venezuelanalysis in 3 languages, but it has a different logo. I am not sure that the nominated logo is in scope. If it is old logo, then it's in scope. Taivo (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as Speedy (db-advert). Please consult en:Quartz (disambiguation) and decide, is the logo in scope or not. Taivo (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cited author died in 1913, but photo was taken in 1938 by a different photographer. No indication photographer died before 1954. Actual author was an unknown photographer working for Bassano Ltd. According to the website, that company was active until 1962. For what it's worth, there is no comparable photo with a free license in the parent category of the NPG, so it's obvious this is erroneously licensed. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]