Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/15

Broken SVG, replacement available Yugoslavia-Army-OR-9 (1982–2006).svg Ђидо (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; this is a correctable fault, so changing to DR to allow for fix and conversation rather than speedydelete  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:  Keep Source URL has been updated by user. I recommend keeping since the necessary update was made. Diddykong1130 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Source URL no longer has a CC license to allow for upload. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; convert to DR to allow for a fix prior to deletion rather than speedy  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Source URL has been updated by user. I recommend keeping since the necessary update was made. Diddykong1130 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; allow for correction of source, rather than manage through speedy  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Source URL has been updated by user. I recommend keeping since the necessary update was made. Diddykong1130 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Diddykong1130 as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: F5, the source URL provided is to the Youtube channel not the video the screenshot was taken from. The source of has to be the video itself in order to review the license status; allow for correction of source rather than manage through speedy  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:  Keep Source URL has been updated by user. I recommend keeping since the necessary update was made. Diddykong1130 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Diddykong1130, where on the YouTube video's page is there any notice that there's a Creative Commons license? I don't understand why screen caps from this interview shouldn't be speedily deleted as obvious copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete The owner of the YT video must have removed the license. Originally I recommended the deletion because the URL provided by the uploader wasn't to the video itself - it was to YT uploader's page. When the URL got uploaded I thought I saw a CC license back then when I recanted. I withdraw my "Keep" vote. Diddykong1130 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand. The thing is, if it had a good license when you uploaded it, it would be fine to host it here. All you have to do is show that it did have the right license when you uploaded it, but I'm not sure how you'd do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as no source (No source since) Krd 06:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete There is no source, nor date when it was taken. Apparently it was published in some Italian newspaper after her assassination in 1992. Morvillo Francesca was at that time 46 (she was born in 1945) and this photo to be in the US public domain needs to be taken before 1976, i.e. on her late twenties. As she was a public figure, it is likely that the photo was taken when she was a judge. If it was taken after 1989, it is definitively copyrighted due to Berne Convention and if it was taken during 1980s, it has its US copyright restored by URAA. Günther Frager (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused file. Can be written in wikitext if needed in future. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: Either private family photo or some strange kind of professional promo photo. In either case photographer /copyright holder not credited and no permission. 87.150.15.9 09:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for deletion. Peter Luckner, the gentleman on the left, has been working on "multisensory design". The sensual experience of the potato crisps could be related to this - especially as it doesn't look like a pub scene. Ganescha (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio certainly is a reason for deletion. As long as we don't have the photographer's permission (so far, we don't even have a clue as to who the photographer is), this is a clear copyvio.

For the German WP, we also have a personality rights issue (Recht am eigenen Bild), especially as far as the young woman is concerned. --87.150.15.9 14:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any copyright violation. The user Oea Burg uploaded the image and named himself as the creator. I did nothing else when I uploaded images. The rights of the young woman in the picture, on the other hand, are indeed an issue. Whether that is a reason for deletion remains to be seen. However, I have pointed this out to the user on his discussion page in the German Wikipedia. --Ganescha (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why the picture can't simply be kept, with a user rights template added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/p6q45qb3 It is possible this item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. Works in this archive are available under a CC-BY-NC licence. Geohakkeri (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/vzzcqeyx It is possible this item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. Works in this archive are available under a CC-BY-NC licence. Geohakkeri (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a signature on the poster, Haywood Norfolk, but I'm not finding in searches anything indicating if this was a person or the printer. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From [1], copyright violation. RAL1028 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From [2], copyright violence. RAL1028 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia page in question should be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons. Firstly, the information on the page is significantly outdated, presenting details that no longer accurately represent the individual. For instance, key aspects such as career achievements, personal milestones, and other notable activities have not been updated for several years. This not only misleads readers but also undermines the credibility of Wikimedia as a source of current and reliable information. In an era where information is constantly evolving, it is crucial that public platforms maintain up-to-date content to ensure accuracy and relevance. Jamie Diamon (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason for deletion of this photograph. --Achim55 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the photograph isn't even in use. So the criticism above (whether it applies or not) is completely missplaced and should instead be made on the talk page of the relevant wikipedia article. PaterMcFly (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the file description can be updated. No deletion reason has been given, so unless there are copyright issues, it should be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion because a better version of the image already existed (dioma_Balinés.png). Cal1407 (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused file. No author given. Hard to find that the source given has this image. Public domain iimage? Estopedist1 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

from 15min.lt. Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, falscher Urheber NDG (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep Below COM:TOO Germany. However, it's almost definitely true that the author's name is incorrect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, falscher Urheber NDG (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete this one, because it's much smaller than the otherwise identical File:Theben Logo Claim 4c.png. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no freedom of panorama in this interior image, beside of this there are serveral trademark logos etc. Alabasterstein (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep We don't care about trademarks and the Swatch logo is obviously below TOO. Any other logos are so small that they're de minimis. PaterMcFly (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep per Pater. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested by the person being photographed Boat toad 舟集 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture shows young men wearing blue clothes in the temple and using his smartphone. I guess you mean that man photographed by you and he requested you to delete this picture? If yes, please read COM:PEOPLE. Additionally, the picture was taken in Taiwan, but we don't seem to have information about personality rights in Taiwan. It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide some some legal references. I believe this will help us understand local laws and can speed up processing significantly for deletion requests.--125.230.85.141 05:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brengt verwarring, het is beter dat deze redirect verdwijnt. Industrees (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bad copy of File:BV043424832.tif (see file size) MBH 15:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image lacks a proper source and is not in the public domain under the Commons:URAA. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a postcard in my collection and neither on the backside nor the frontside is there any information about the publisher or the photographer. There is a poststamp on the backside, so we know for the image must have taken at 1931 or earlier. It is to me unclear what the US rules are about unknown (orphan) works or pictures where the rigths have been bough by the postcard publisher. (The same principle as pictures without author names in newspapers)(in Europe it is mostly 70 years) In Europe many photografic archives/records where destroyed during the war years (or clearing up the old junk)

Ps: I Will Come back on the uraa and precautionary principle about old European postcards, later. (There are quite a lot of them) I need time to develop good arguments. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This other copy was posted in 1929. Getting closer to U.S. public domain. The postcard might well have been published before 1929. At worst, if deleted, it would be undeleted in five months when the U.S. public domain gets upgraded to published before 1930. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is: J. Sleding, Amsterdam Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#URAA-restored_copyrights_of_old_European_postcards Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you scanned the image, please indicate something like {{Self-scanned}} in the source field. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the publisher Category:J. Sleding, the Commons only have works from in and around Roermond. However there are also Amsterdam postcards from this publisher. see: https://www.lastdodo.nl/nl/areas/1092483-j-sleding-amsterdam. And from much earlier than mentioned in Creator:J. Sleding (1934), even 1908.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Deer carcass that has been covered by a mudslide" - I don't see it. Is this in scope? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like a blocked sockpuppeteer 😀 Delete. 200.39.139.4 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see exactly what the desc says. I see no involvement of blocked editors. I see a file that should be renamed per Criterion #2. DMacks (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sense of humor at all? I was refering to what you see exactly, but we others can not. By the way did you come to this discussion after me? Do you have an issue with me? 200.39.139.4 16:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy keep I don’t see any valid reason for deletion here. Dronebogus (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the statue of Genghis Khan, not Modu Chanyu. Okusulay (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows the sculpture of Modu Chanyu in Ulaanbaatar. The map bears the inscription "Xiongnu Empire" ("Хүннүгийн эзэнт улс" in mongolian), not Mongol Empire. KoizumiBS (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's not a deletion reason, anyway. Why would anyone want to delete an image, just because they think the description - which they can edit - is wrong? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these logos is at the borderline of the simple logos we allow versus the complex ones that we do not. Wiser eyes than mine are needed here. I have thus created a full discussion rather than opting for speedy deletion.

• File:NIILM University, LOGO.png
• File:NIILM University.png

🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NIILM University.png

is the logo Wiki-CBO (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NIILM University, LOGO.png is the secondary logo Wiki-CBO (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have any relation or personal interest from this i saw and read from niilmuniversity.ac.in Wiki-CBO (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source : https://www.niilmuniversity.ac.in/web/assets/img/logo.png Wiki-CBO (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded this as your own work. Can you elaborate on that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)

The logos i added from university website https://niilmuniversity.ac.in Wiki-CBO (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How i add to fairly used tag? Wiki-CBO (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my own work. Wiki-CBO (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NIILM University.png

Source: https://student.niilmuniversity.ac.in/images/logo.png Wiki-CBO (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment These files are now unused. The corresponding enwiki articles have been deleted. There is no Fair Use on Commons. Fair use on enwiki depends upon the image being used. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 11:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia hosts en:File:Handala.gif under fair use. whym (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work - photo of a 2006 sculpture Yann (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Arroser as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: il est indiqué "tous droits réservés" dans l'EXIF.... Yann (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 185.172.241.184 as Logo PD-shape? Yann (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: under copyright Yann (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't access the source, but if the image was published at that time, the license is plausible. Yann (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source can be viewed at archive.org, but it does not tell much. The gallery itself that held the exhibition has this webpage, which says that the exhibition was a collaboration with Getty and cautiously states that "This exhibition will include very rarely seen, possibly never before printed or exhibited images". So, some images might have been unpublished. That doesn't help much either. Commons does not have other photos by Ed Feingersh. That may be an indication that his photos were either published and copyrighted or unpublished. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: under copyright Yann (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [3] Yann (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [4] Yann (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [5] Yann (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [6] Yann (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [7] Yann (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the file page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Voorts as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: [8] Yann (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me why my speedy was declined. This image is very clearly still under copyright, per the link to Getty above. Moreover, it was not published until 2019, according to the source that's linked on the image page (via Google Translate): "The world became familiar with the images only last year thanks to a comprehensive exhibition in London." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Drakosh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.yaplakal.com/findpost/86499497/forum7/topic2044789.html Yann (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly not Own work of 2023. This man is 1924y born. Original date? Author? Copyright status? --Drakosh (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claimed by National Portrait Gallery. An US PD tag isn’t enough for (presumably) a British photograph. Geohakkeri (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep pre Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom: 70 years after creation if un published. 維基小霸王 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the National Portrait Gallery does not claim the copyright of the photograph but rather the copyright of the digitization, which is irrelevant for Commons as we don't follow that logic. Seems to meet {{PD-UK-unknown}} in addition to the American license. Curbon7 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Own work? Woozhiy, what do you smoke? 186.175.16.188 22:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep The graphics is only bywork, and the text is not copyrightable because it's too short and it's by the president. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Question Isn't this a text file, and therefore out of COM:Scope for Commons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]