Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/07

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

July 7

[edit]

Clearly not own work. The film premieded in 1954 so even if the artist died immediately after creating it, it would be copyrighted in its country of origin Italy (70 years pma). If the artists is known we can set an undeletion date. Günther Frager (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poster of Italian film La maschera del demonio released in 1960. The poster is not a simple photo, but a painting. The protection in Italy for artistic works is 70 years pma. Günther Frager (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seemed to be beyond COM:TOO, the icon is too complex Lemonaka (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep it's simple image. メイド理世 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still frames from the Italian film Senza Filtro released in 2001. They are still copyrighted in the US because it was published after the US entered in the Berne Convention (March 1, 1989).

Günther Frager (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still frames from Italian film Amarcord released in 1973. They uses {{PD-1996}} implying they are in the US public domain. However, the film was released in 1974 in the US [1], there is a copyright notice on the opening credits [2] and it was registered in the copyright office with registration number PA0000160546 [3]. According to COM:HIRTLE works published after 1964 with notice are protected for 95 years.

Günther Frager (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Died much before the date of "own work". 186.173.75.147 02:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the date. The person seems to be Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Eugene Halliday, the uploader the same as the author of the article at enwiki. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! So when you see someone writing an article and adding it an "own work" photo, you consider them to automatically have the copyrights? 186.173.121.194 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that?
Not more or less than any other user, even if they input the date in the wrong field. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused vague icon generated from File:Circle-icons-profile.svg. 0x0a (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots form Fellini's Roma published in 1972. The rationale used is {{PD-Italy}}{{PD-1996}}, but it is incorrect. The film contains a copyright notice on the opening credits [4] and it was registered in the US Copyright Ofiice with registry number LP41854 [5]. According to COM:HIRTLE works published with copyright notice and registered are protected for 95 years.

Günther Frager (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This file was initially tagged by Shaan Sengupta as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See Website Copyright Policy. It asks for Email Permission. Is the logo of Election Commission Of India covered under Threshold of originality? It should be uploaded under fair use at Enwiki at max. Yeeno (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary - This was created in response to ticket:2024070510007935 but is not what that ticket is actually asking for. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait by Steven Polson, who is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think it's safe to assume that this is a work for hire as an official portrait. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait by Steven Polson, who is still alive A1Cafel (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think it's safe to assume that this is a work for hire as an official portrait. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from the source A1Cafel (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{FoP-China}} doesn't cover text. メイド理世 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Illegally uploaded from https://www.flickr.com/photos/137241490@N07/52084919376/in/album-72157706334745325/. All rights reserved. VilianEst2007 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JeniferDeBellis (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Suspected copyright violations: these are all claimed to be own work from 2024, but they are clearly older as many of the people depicted such as Pope John Paul II or George W. Bush have died well before. Some of the images might be scans from paper photographs. Original source and author(s) unknown.

MKFI (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per COM:POSTER Wdwd (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though this is a poster, I argue that it is not a typical poster. It was created by an anonymous collective known for hanging their artworks without authorization in public spaces. The collective's primary aim is to provoke discussion and raise awareness about societal issues through their posters, which requires these images to be distributed and shared widely. Numerous media and news outlets have published photos of Dies Irae's artworks in the streets without any issues. Would it be acceptable if I contact the collective Dies Irae privately via Twitter to request permission for using photos of their artworks on Wikimedia Commons? Linusil (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nomination. @Linusil: we care about scope and copyright. The first criteria is likely met while the second one is definitively not. You may contact them, but be aware that they should provide a free license. That goes beyond authorizing Commons for its usage. Günther Frager (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. Does this mean that the group would need to publish the whole artwork as a free license? Linusil (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get your question. The poster has text and a photo of Schröder. They should be either the copyright holder of both or make sure the elements have a free license. Günther Frager (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The group is happy to give permission for using photos showing their poster designs. But in this case it seems as the photo of Gerhard Schröder used on the poster is a copyrighted work by another artist. So I guess this file needs to be deleted from Wikimedia. But other works of the collective that do not contain copyrighted material besides Dies Irae’s design could be uploaded, correct? Linusil (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Linusil Yes, if they own the whole copyright, then they should send an explicit permission following the instructions from COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High quality professional photo with no exif, I think we need VRT. PCP Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand...what is the problem? Brasszinator (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your claim that you took the photo yourself Gbawden (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Cvaldebenito1975 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Book covers, one with a bogus PD claim

Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but we will have to delete this photo because it depicts works of art that are protected by copyright and we do not have the necessary permission from the artist. Gnom (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask permission from the artist. What should I do next if I get it ? BACHELOT Pierre J-P 10:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) BACHELOT Pierre J-P 10:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, the permission must be provided in the process described here: Commons:Volunteer Response Team#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Please let me know if you have any questions. In the meantime, the photo may be deleted, but we can restore it later once we have received the necessary permission from the author. --Gnom (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but we will have to delete this photo because it depicts works of art that are protected by copyright and we do not have the necessary permission from the artists. Gnom (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict artworks by Frida Kahlo that are protected by copyright and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholder.

Gnom (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding File:Frida & Diego's house (33150575653).jpg. --Gnom (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep File:Frida & Diego's house (33150575653).jpg freedom of panorama in México allows this photo and the painting is part of the permanent collection of the museum El Nuevo Doge (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El Nuevo Doge: I don't see how the interior of the Museo Frida Kahlo (a private, for-profit museum in Mexico City) would fall under freedom of panorama in Mexico. --Gnom (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum has public access and freedom of panorama applies to both interiors and exteriors, therefore, the painting is definetely covered. El Nuevo Doge (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum is privately owned and operated. It charges a fee to enter. Therefore, unfortunately for us, it is not a 'public place', and freedom of panorama does not apply. Gnom (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who owns the place, what matters is that it is a place open to the public in one way or another and freedom of panorama applies definitively. El Nuevo Doge (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for this claim? Gnom (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The federal telecommunications institute says that a public space is one that is considered that way under current legislation. https://www.ift.org.mx/que-es-el-ift/glosario
In a deletion request it was clearly established that a public place is one that can be accessed by payment or invitation.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Catrinas_2.jpg El Nuevo Doge (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict artworks (a drawing, sculptures, and an art installation using plastic flowers) that are protected by copyright and we do not have the necessary permission from the rightsholders.

Gnom (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Daniel.9 as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: LogoMusicRoxo.png; clear space around image is difference, can probably be deleted  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio - not convinced this is own work, was uploaded to trask's instagram months before it was here TheLoyalOrder (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio - not convinced its own work, though I can't find it else where - but it has different camera specs compared to the other image uploaded by this person and I'm not convinced that other image is own work (other image File:Laura_Trask_parliament.jpg) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio! 186.173.121.194 10:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not certain why this photo has been marked for deletion. All the appropriate permissions have been logged with the Photographer and subject. If there is an issue with the image, please expound on that here.--Raggachampiongirl (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corroborating the above. Nikitag94 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality image A1989C2 (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording is a copyrighted performance, owned by the IOC and Universal Music: http://www.maniadb.com/album/704285Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Harrisonkrank (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Aren't these derivative works?

Yann (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative works of what? The actual clothes? Clothes are not usually protected by copyright, and their design (at least what's represented in these drawings) is very simple. Just a few stripes and a number. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep nonsense request. Clothes are utilitarian items and the patterns do not qualify as artistic works. Yann, I’m really questioning your administrative abilities right now, especially after closing an active discussion immediately after I voted. Dronebogus (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mediamaker123 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Stretched versions of File:Ismail Haniyeh in 2022.jpg, lower quality, unused

Nutshinou Talk! 12:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image has a watermark which does not match the uploader EUPBR (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely phantasy, self edited flag using flag of Macau, no source given after request in discussion JPF (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by FlorianH76 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wrong license, no source Yann (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work? 186.173.121.194 13:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work? 186.173.121.194 13:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: The uploader is not the author, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



"Cette photo est publiée sous la licence CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 Creative Commons " Might be some form of PD-old Multichill (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I've fixed the license. Even though the source is correctly quoted giving that CC-BY-NC-SA thingy (and no photographer), the image is old enough to be PD. And since this was apparently a postcard (note the stamp), it was also published around the date of creation. PaterMcFly (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NetEase Cloud Music is non-free software screenshot, copyvio. メイド理世 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo published in the Italian magazine Radiocorriere in 1986. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are now in 2024, I posted this file way later than 1996 Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo by Letizia Battaglia (still alive) published in Italy in 1984. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep it. Günther Frager (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Olga feodorovna (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons:What Commons is not#Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish lyrics by Otto Wille Kuusinen (1881–1964) et al. The recording isn’t currently available in the Raita collection: it has been digitized but not released online by the National Library of Finland. Geohakkeri (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original was deleted as a likely copyright violation - "visibly a screenshot". Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from Fellini's file Intervista released in Italy in 1987. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Screenshot from the film Yuppies 2 released in Italy in 1986. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Note that {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be used on file uploaded befreo March 1, 2012, not the case here. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Screenshot from the film Borotalco released in Italy in 1982. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from the film Tu mi turbi released in Italy in 1983. Film stills are protected for 20 years in Italy. This image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin, but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by KHRITISH SWARGIARY (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: plain text.

Omphalographer (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. Image has visible watermarks from planespotters.net which the summary fails to mention. Clearly not "own work". 2001:A61:1293:CA01:4463:5B1D:3432:7B93 15:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil drawing by uploader, no clear educational value Nutshinou Talk! 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio: Jon Kopaloff. There is no indication under the source mentioned that the photo is under a free license איז「Ysa」 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Dade70 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

de minimis and copyvio

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carole Berotte Joseph.jpg : http://www.educationupdate.com/archives/2012/MAR/HTML/cov-caroleberottejoseph.html - copyvio.
File:Osny Zidor.jpg COM:DEMINIMIS modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of the photo is an ad placed inside a bus in Germany. As it is a temporal object it is not covered by the German freedom of panorama. Also, one can argue that the interior of the bus is not a public place (notice that trains stations are not considered public places by the German legislation). Günther Frager (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in the USA. Günther Frager (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Kyleoffirt (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see for vasiliy krukov image: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8E%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ashot Fahradian (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Non-notable/hoax :en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th MIMINO Song Contest

Nutshinou Talk! 17:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tenposhin920 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

out of project scope, not notable, there is no article about him in projects.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Niklas Wittig - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this - https://www.haz.de/lokales/hannover/band-chicago-lane-mit-kajal-und-netzhemd-zurueck-in-die-achtziger-VIYH35PZOBAFJDLDGML4QJZFP4.html M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ahangarha (talk · contribs)

[edit]

photos of non contributors - possible copyvio(no metadata and low resolution).

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This action is harsh! Deleting all of my photos at once?
Please note:
  • File:Shahr-e Gholghola.jpg is my own photo.
  • SFD2020 is the program I conducted and all the materials are mine.
  • SFD2018 (۱۳۹۷) is for a program I conducted. The photographer is someone else who clicked them for us.
This bulk deletion is not constructive. If there is any objection, please be specific so that I can provide better response. Ahangarha (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""File:Shahr-e Gholghola.jpg is my own photo."" contact COM:VRT or at least upload high resolution with metadata please.
""SFD2020 is the program I conducted and all the materials are mine."" is it about a thing that is notable? is it in project scope?
"""The photographer is someone else who clicked them for us.""" if someone else created the photo then you dont own the copyright. @Ahangarha modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 18:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upload high resolution with metadata please" I didn't find any resource regarding the min-resolution required for sharing images. But I will consider it. It may take time since.
  • "is it about a thing that is notable?" and "if someone else created the photo then you dont own the copyright." If someone joined my event and clicked photo for my event and gave it to me, who is the copyright holder? How should I prove this? Let me know.
I understand the sensitivity of this issue. I appreciate your intervention. Ahangarha (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont remember any rule that indicates minimum res. but it is important to see some evidence that show us the file is own work. and high res with metadata is good for that.
if you didnt create it you dont own it. i cant find exact rule for that, but you should see: w:Monkey selfie copyright dispute
and: COM:SCOPE, w:WP:N modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried just for fun long back. 49.204.2.179 17:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tried this long back for fun Janakirajeshduvvuri (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused album covers of non-existant band "Reloaxa". Not in COM:SCOPE.

Günther Frager (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was a misidentified location on our wikipedia photo walk. The photo is misidentified and there are already pictures of this location Discombobulus (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was a misidentified location on our wikipedia photo walk. The photo is misidentified and there are already pictures of this location Discombobulus (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This was a misidentified location on our wikipedia photo walk. The photo is misidentified and there are already pictures of this location Discombobulus (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Used wrong account –xeno 17:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope as plain text / personal project The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the file to Commons as it is public domain in both the US and it's country of origin, Switzerland, for use with it's associated article. If this is not where it belongs, please let me know where it needs to go. Dunkahoop (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: The Last Screenwriter
 Delete Likely is public domain, however Commons only hosts media files, COM:TEXT. I feel that WikiSource would be a better fit for this content. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://genius.com/artists/Neobaka Below COM:TOO, but concerns on scope —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Mazbel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://virtualyoutuber.fandom.com/wiki/NEOBAKA Below COM:TOO but concerns on scope. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected copyright violation. The uploader of the file tagged the license as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International", however there does not appear to be any notice of such a license on the source website. GranCavallo (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo taken in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo taken in Italy in 1984. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Panini card published in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo published in Italy in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image. Günther Frager (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Photo published in the Italian newspaper La Stampa in 1983. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (20 years after creation), but it was not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image Günther Frager (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Duplicate of [the tif version], which is listed as the original. Nominating for deletion along with the png version. Also acceptable if the tif version is deleted and one of the others is kept. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this deletion request. It is a largely accepted practice to keep one variant per format, done by multiple upload projects before me. vip (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of [the tif version], which is listed as the original. Nominating for deletion along with the jpeg version. Also acceptable if the tif version is deleted and one of the others is kept. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with keeping multiple versions of a file in different formats? I would also note that Commons:File types#TIFF says Overall, PNG is a preferred format; however, the ability to upload TIFF files is offered as a courtesy. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of own work - heavily pixelated, obviously cropped out of another photo, no metadata, weird size. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to speedy deletion. According to speedy deletion: Copyvio from: https://denuk.nl/oud-politicus-aart-jan-de-geus-zonder-doel-geen-gevoel/ Speederzzz (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, [6] states "foto: privé-archief De Geus" meaning "Photo: Private archive of De Geus". It seems the uploader is De Geus himself. I am trying to get him to declare the profile is indeed owned by the subject of the image, so that everything is 100% clear.
Speederzzz (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panini cards published in 1986. They are currently in the public domain in Italy, but they were not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, they are currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep them.

Günther Frager (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Inutile, caricato per sbaglio Francesco Sanfrancesco (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Panini cards published in 1982. They are currently in the public domain in Italy, but they were not in 1996 at URAA restoration date. Thus, they are currently copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep them.

Günther Frager (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

No FoP in China, DM fails.

メイド理世 (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Kept: Half kept per COM:NOP China, the other half deleted, as they were closer to creative works than factual information. All that said, I'm not convinced any of these are in scope, so another DR from that angle might yeld a different result. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE - just a bunch of zoomed in, top down images of ice in cups and empty plastic trays.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why the photograph should be considered in public domain (even if the statue is). Ghirlandajo (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory license statements; the description states use under "fair use" (which would not be permitted on Commons), but the license tag lists a free license. At the very least, I think VRT confirmation of the licensing status from the copyright holder would be needed here. Seraphimblade (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (McBride, 2016) Glaube (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Mc'Bride's work is under CC-NC-ND but the picture is provided with a note "courtesy of Josef Repik" so IMO cannot be uploaded here. Glaube (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (McBride, 2016) Glaube (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Mc'Bride's work is under CC-NC-ND but the picture is provided with a note "courtesy of Darina Martinovská" so IMO cannot be uploaded here. Glaube (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (McBride, 2016) Glaube (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: McBride's work is under CC-NC-ND, so the file should be re-tagged with correct designation. And the author is McBride and not Birczenin. Glaube (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (McBride, 2016) Glaube (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: McBride's work is under CC-NC-ND, so the file should be re-tagged with correct designation. And the author is McBride and not Birczenin. Glaube (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is property of muzeumkresow.eu Glaube (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (M. Argasiński, Konspiracja w powiecie lubaczowskim 1939–1947, Zwierzyniec–Rzeszów 2010) Glaube (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been copied from copyrighted work (M. Argasiński, Konspiracja w powiecie lubaczowskim 1939–1947, Zwierzyniec–Rzeszów 2010) Glaube (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: Picture from Hulu, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although he is only the photographer. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader claims copyright, although they are only photographers. No statement of original author exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are screenshots of The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, directed by Alfred Hitchcock (1899–1980). Its UK copyright will not expire until 2051. hinnk (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small file size and lack of metadata are possible indications that this was taken from another website, as the user's other uploads were. Peter James (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"alternate History" fictional map. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"alternate History" fictional map. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"alternate History" fictional graphic. Unused private artwork, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the eagle graphics is from stocks, idk about license. But this logo hardly fits project scope any way Ignatus (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hardly notable singer, not an active contributor, out of project scope Ignatus (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement. Image is watermarked. MattTonner (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]