Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/29

The photographer's name is mentioned (in Hebrew) in the file's details for the credit and his name is different than the one of the uploader. Without a proper VRT (formerly, OTRS) release note, it cannot stay in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This flag is fictious and is erroneously described as the flag of a historical exonym. In simpler terms, this is a made up flag for a made up polity. Normally I would not go out of my way to propose the deletion of self-works, but this flag is being used erroneously by users across multiple projects, as well as several search engines, to represent a non-existent polity. You can see my more detailed objections to the fabricated "Tunganistan" here, at the English Wikipedia: en:Talk:Tunganistan#Western exonym. Yue🌙 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map is fictious and is erroneously described as the map of a historical exonym. In simpler terms, this is a made up map for a made up polity. Normally I would not go out of my way to propose the deletion of self-works, but this map is being used erroneously by search engines to represent a non-existent polity. You can see my more detailed objections to the fabricated "Tunganistan" here, at the English Wikipedia: en:Talk:Tunganistan#Western exonym. Yue🌙 02:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entirely historical existent state, it existed in the 1930s, if you have a problem just change the images name, as for permission to edit out the ‘Tunganistan.’ Titan2456 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a single reliable source for the claim that Tunganistan was a state? Every source given before my edits to the English article and every source afterwards describes Tunganistan as an exonym, as I painstakingly showed in the linked discussion. The articles in the other WikiProjects (e.g. Chinese Wikipedia) are just mirrors of the older versions of the English article. Those older versions were misinterpretations of sources at best and hoaxes at worst. Yue🌙 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video capture from the official channel of the DeutscheOperBerlin Account. I cannot find any indication that the video was published cc-by at Youtube and i also cannot find any indication on the website of DeutscheOperBerlin (that offers a large numnber of videos by DeutscheOper) that any content of DeutscheOper comes with a free license. Also the file description is copied from Youtube and is actually a desctiption of the video not of the screen capture uploaded to commons. The author is obviously not "DeutscheOperBerlin", but "Chris and the FATSOX", more than two years after upload the file has not been license reviewed. the file cannot be opened by CropTool. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I'm the uploader. I'm also the original author of COM:WHERE, which explains how to find the Creative Commons license on various sites, specifically for YouTube under COM:WHERE#YouTube. It is, in fact, still marked that way on YouTube, do look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x590d65d4q0 .

I'm also a Commons:License reviewer, and the reason it hasn't been license reviewed is that there are far too few of us - if you are an experienced Commons editor, join us! Please be familiar with COM:WHERE, among other requirements, if you want to become a License reviewer. This stuff is complicated, which is why there are too few of us. --GRuban (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban YouTube has not shown the license to me and there have been reports lately of Youtube no longer showing license info. It may well be, that YouTube is doing A-B testing with different formats of presenting its videos and there is no way for me or other people getting the "B" version to see the license info at all for some or all(?) files at youtube. (and yes: I clicked the "show more" link on Youtube) C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows it to the Internet Archive. See https://web.archive.org/web/20240629033432/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x590d65d4q0. Can you see it there? --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. CC licence is visible in the archive here. Unsuccessfully trying to use CropTool on this image for inclusion on Notable Edinburgh University People was what led me here. I will also approach Deutsche Oper Berlin and BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra to see if they have any more recent images of better quality they'd like to share, and for which they know who clicked the shutter. Meanwhile, this image is licensed already so should not be deleted. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope. I do not see what this image is about, what we see. There is no proper desription explaining what we see. I would not know how this image can be reused. (I am an economics graduate and I never saw something like this before.) I have asked these same questions on the Talk page, but I did not get a reaction JopkeB (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo - Converting to regular DR to assess COM:TOO because it's been in use on sister projects since early 2023 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not our problem, no reason for deletion. The same goes for the other photos from this temple. --Rosenzweig τ 19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photography inside the temple buildings is not permitted. Tak1701d (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:César Cigliutti, Ilse Fuskova, Claudina Marek y Marcelo Ferreyra.jpg
• File:Claudina Marek (cropped).jpg

The CC-BY license in the website https://www.argentina.gob.ar only applies to the content the Argentine government produces. On the source page they credit Cynthia Sabat, an Argentine journalist [1]. Also notice that these images are from her personal collection, are likely not taken by her. Another photo from the same article credited to her is File:Ilse Fuskova azafata.png taken way before Sabat was born. Günther Frager (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not being used and a vector version is available at File:Pure Country Radio Logo.svg. Jigglypoof21 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tiny, no metadata - probably copyright violation Xocolatl (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as a {{Free screenshot}} but I would say the icons and user photos here were copyright-eligible parts or visuals of copyrighted software. I can see nothing at https://web.archive.org/web/20090726042522/http://www.iplaysocial.com/ to suggest that this 2009 Facebook game was ever released under the GNU General Public License. Belbury (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope.

• File:Seppo Laitimo Talvisodassa..jpg
• File:Kuva Konsertissa..png
• File:Metalngiht.jpg

Geohakkeri (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

insufficiently disguised GoggleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently disguised GoogleMaps CopyVio Enyavar (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The informative description itself is not a copyvio, by the way, so we can preserve it here. --Enyavar (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch: Karte für die Seite "Philister". Grenzen grob nach Aharoni/Avi-Yonah (1990): Der Bibel-Atlas und Avi-Yonah (2002): The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). Unterschiede: (1) Aschkelon und Jaffa waren den Phöniziern zugesprochen worden, dürfen also nicht zur Provinz Aschdod gerechnet werden. (2) Javne Jam und Umgebung gehörte wahrscheinlich schon zur Provinz Aschdod, wird gelegentlich aber ebenfalls als phönizisch betrachtet. (3) Timna und Tell Burna wird üblicherweise nicht zu Yehud gerechnet; neuere Ausgrabungen zeigen aber, dass Tell Burna vor den Babyloniern judäisch war und durch die Babylonier nicht zerstört wurde, und dass Timna vor der babylonischen Zerstörung wieder judäisch geworden war und nach der babylonischen Zerstörung provisorisch weiterbesiedelt wurde, bevor die Stadt neu aufgebaut wurde. Beide Orte werden in Neh zwar nicht genannt, sind danach aber wahrscheinlich doch Teil von Juda.

I don't see any evidence of a free license or equivalent at the source.

• File:Kirsten Wise (cropped to head).png
• File:Kirsten Wise (cropped).png
• File:Kirsten Wise.png

Yann (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Kia ora, just wanted to note that these two other photos we're uploaded by me under the same rationale so would also have to be deleted if these are.

• File:Nigel Simpson.jpg
• File:Nigel Simpson (cropped).jpg

So the website stating conditions isn't sufficient as a free license? In the section here Use of website Images/Photos it states "All other images/photos on the website are copyrighted to the Napier City Council, if you use these images you must state that the images/photos are copyrighted to the Napier City Council" - to me that's just them asking for attribution if you use it which implies you can use it. I did read some of the relevant pages on commons about licensing, it is unclear to me if this falls afoul of the guidance there. Having a look at other files tagged with this same Attribution template just now, I didn't find any that were this situation (though most of them were dead links to license pages so who knows what they said) seems like a point against these images though. Interested in what the outcome is here. Cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a sufficient permission. It is not irrevocable, and it doesn't allow derivative works, etc. Since they already allow some limited use, they may be willing to release some images under a free license. Yann (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked NCC about it, TheLoyalOrder? That's a very good idea as they seem open to making their content available; they just haven't gone about it the right way. I can guide you through the process of getting formal sign off from the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) if they reply in the positive and you want a hand with the next steps. Schwede66 02:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked previously two months ago but they ignored me. Maybe you could try? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. Let's see whether they get back to me. Schwede66 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the concern raised at File talk:Kirsten Wise.png. Schwede66 05:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait I've communicated with the mayor's PA, first by email and then by phone. Basically, their intentions are identical to CC BY 4.0, but she now understands that this is not what it says on their website. I've informed her of NZGOAL and she has asked me to put that in writing, so that others at their council can decide to make the necessary changes. She's asked me to write a suitable copyright statement for their website, which is what I've done. She will now try and get that approved internally. She thinks that given that NZGOAL basically asks them to provide material with an open license, this should not be too hard to achieve. I therefore suggest that we wait a wee while until I hear back from her. If they change their website accordingly, I'll let you know. If she can't get this sorted out, we can action this in a wee while (e.g. in a fortnight's time). Schwede66 00:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the licensing is vaguely worded but unfortunately a free license can't be definitively seen. Kiwichris (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since) Banderas (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has {{Insignia}} and {{PD-self}} tags Banderas (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not own work. May be public domain because of age or clause in copyrights law in country of origin. Proper license tag should be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect copyright license, with expired? links. According to [2], this is a painting from 김기창 from 1973. Unless the artist relinquished the copyright, it's not expired. 211.43.120.242 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The expired link I got this image from said it was public domain. Please delete it if that info is incorrect. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full sized image has been on the net since at least 2008. There are hundreds of sites that use it and none give attribution.

The Korean postal service used a detail from it for designing a postage stamp in 1993.

A thumbnail link to it, is at the National Library of Korea.

It seems the artist Kim Ki-chang in 1973, incorporated the opinions of historians and imagination for a possible commission from the Korean Government for using derived images of Sejong on bank notes and stamps, maybe held by Collection of King Sejong Historic Sites Management Center?

They, and or the library, might be able to give its copyright status. Are they government bodies, it seems to be a part of some national history reclamation project? If so, it might just be PD?

The uploader could write to them, or get a Korean contibutor to track it down. Broichmore (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributor. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributer. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mycket riktigt, Kristian Holmqvist ”passed away” 2015. Copyrighten på hans verk har ärvts av hans änka, min mor, som är 91 år och dement. Sedan tre år har jag en gällande framtidsfullmakt för alla hennes affärer. Hade hon kunnat skulle hon skriva och intyga att hennes önskan är att bilderna som hennes man gjorde fick en större spridning, så att fler får kännedom om Kristian Holmqvist och hans konst. Framtidsfullmakten som jag har gäller enbart om den visas upp i original. Otaliga myndigheter har i olika sammanhang uppmanat mig att skicka kopia på den. Till sist har jag gjort detta, med upplysningen att en kopia inte är giltig. Jag kan mycket väl tänka mig att skicka kopia på framtidsfullmakten om kontentan av det hela blir att mina egna foton på min fars konst (som jag för övrigt har ärvt och har i min ägo) vars copyright min mor ärvt, slutligen kan vara kvar på Wikipedia Commons för att i förlängningen kunna publiceras på Wikipedia, vilket varit min tanke från början. Anledningen till att artikeln inte skrivits förrän nu är att det inte funnits källor tidigare. Nu finns bland annat en källa, en bok/utställningskatalog utgiven av Staffanstorps kommun. 94.255.130.104 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributer. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributer. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributer. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist passed away 2015, he could not be the contributer. Stigfinnare (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this deletion request. Ownership of copyright has been established, please see VRT ticket 2024070610006854. Riggwelter (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by OneLittleMouse as Copyvio (copyvio)  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A derivative work from a proprietary file; this is a vandalized photo (by Andranik Ghazaryan) of the famous Armenian blogger Mikhail Badalyan; there is no reason to use this photo as an illustration in an article about gynecomastia.. --OneLittleMouse (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUPE of File:Donkey Kong (19724450802).jpg Gunnar^💬 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Firdavsjon Muminov (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is not nonsense as you mentioned, this is an information board shows service time of a station. But if the photo of this information board is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, then you should nominate deletion of all other photos of information boards that are posted on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. 重庆轨交18 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article Firdavsjon Muminov (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, @Firdavsjon Muminov please provide a valid COM:Deletion reason. It's a picture of the 2024 United States Olympic trials (track and field), and it could be used in that article or some others as many files from that category have been. --Habst (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize my dear friend Firdavsjon Muminov (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user generated "flags" of Italy. Commons isn't a personal file host.

• File:Bandera col Bisson bloeu stil Stat Unid.png
• File:Bandera col Bisson e color bergamasch.png
• File:Bandera col Bisson stil Stat Unid.png
• File:Bandera col Bisson.png
• File:Bandiera della Toscana.png
• File:Bandiera di Bressanone (senza stemma).png
• File:Bandiera di Camogli-altra versione.png
• File:Bandiera di Massa-altra versione.png
• File:Bandiera di Ovada.png

Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with mine, I thought they could've been useful on lmo.wikipedia but that was not the case. Sciking (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality noneducational files that were important from Flickr. Commons isn't a personal file host. So these images should be deleted as OOS.

• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865408797).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865409905).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865410495).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865411051).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865411753).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866237208).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866238952).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866241808).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866242356).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866242898).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866243444).jpg
• File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866244054).jpg

Adamant1 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all an obvious delete to me. We don't have other images of the interior of that church. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I'm fine with removing a few that show the interior if you want to point out which you think are worth saving. From what I remember they were kind of blurry though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not great, but I'd certainly save File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2865410495).jpg on that basis, and presumably File:CHRISTOPHE COMMUNION 2007 (2866242356).jpg as well. I'd have no problem with saving a few more that show other elements, but I think those two certain show a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have no issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genehmigung des Fotografen fehlt Barbasca (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uplaoder is not the author of the picture Culex (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See no reason why @User:Adamant1 marked these pictures for speedy deletion. They are taken by an uploader. If there is any doubts that is not true - the admin marking pictures for speedy deletion should at least briefly explain why. Otherwise it is a kind of harassment of the innocent user. Polimerek (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author claims this is a "remix" of public domain files, etc., but provides no links to said files and claims full authorship. We cannot tell if the image's components are public domain or not. Without links to sources, this image is a potential copyright violation (per Precautionary Principle) A loose necktie (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article 重庆轨交18 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is not nonsense as you mentioned, this is an official photo of the online cinema and it looks like "IVI" AND "START". But if the photo of this online cinema is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, then delete photos of other online cinemas that are posted on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Firdavsjon Muminov (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as this is a copyvio: This logo does meet the threshold of originality. These are not simple geometric shapes. 2A00:20:6010:7BE0:C28B:1C66:D19:338E 11:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original logo and it is not a copy, then the photo is protected by copyright Firdavsjon Muminov (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photos on the comtemporary poster are presumably copyrighted, and there is no freedom of panorama in Germany for temporary posters or inside buildings. Rosenzweig τ 13:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding

• File:2024-06-27 Blutspendeaktion Aula Kaufmännische Schule Tauberbischofsheim 43.jpg
• File:2024-06-27 Blutspendeaktion Aula Kaufmännische Schule Tauberbischofsheim 44.jpg
• File:2024-06-27 Blutspendeaktion Aula Kaufmännische Schule Tauberbischofsheim 45.jpg

to this deletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 13:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source of this photo has removed the image from Flickr. 146.115.150.146 14:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep EXIF data confirms this was authored by the Massachusetts Governors office and therefore public domain. SecretName101 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation 211.197.54.36 14:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#PD_tags. 178.68.18.139 20:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is made by EMI, who create all rights reserved for some Brazilian bands Vitor Hello? 15:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be copyvios. Varying sizes and quality, only 1 file with metadata but author's name doesn't match uploader's name.

• File:울산,공단,대교.jpg
• File:울산,달동.jpg
• File:태화강,울산.jpg
• File:Ulsan2.jpg
• File:Ulsan Station.jpg

--Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 15:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not educationally useful Markus13666 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly redundant variants or duplicates of images in Category:Emperor Napoleon III in Coronation Robes (Winterhalter), with no sources given - one is claimed as own work and the other flagged as {{Bad AI}}. User was blocked as a sockpuppet in February 2023.

• File:Portrait of Napoleon III, Emperor of the French, in Coronation Robes (by After Franz Xaver Winterhalter) - Palace of Versailles copy 5814x9000.jpg
• File:Franz Xavier Winterhalter - Napoleon III in Coronation Robes.webp

Belbury (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI image of user, out of scope, unused Quick-ease2020 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The is in the public domain in Japan, but it is copyrighted in the US due to URAA. The template {{PD-Japan-organization}} clearly states that images needs to be published before 1956 in order to be in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration on license may have been incomlete due to a lackness of the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I added this template. Probably I think that it is all right. Evelyn-rose (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing policy requires images to be in the public domain in the US or to have a free license. The template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be used in files uploaded before March 1, 2012 (I don't know if that is visible on the Japanese translation). Günther Frager (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poster published in Japan in 1953 is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA. The text of {{PD-Japan-organization}} clearly states that images need to be published before 1946 in order to be in the US public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The declaration on license may have been incomlete due to a lackness of the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. I added this template. Probably I think that it is all right. Evelyn-rose (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing policy requires images to be in the public domain in the US or to have a free license. The template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} can only be used in files uploaded before March 1, 2012 (I don't know if that is visible on the Japanese translation). Günther Frager (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i believe these photos are not ownwork and copyvio. and if user got permission to publish freely, he should contact COM:VRT, otherwise these files should go boom.

• File:1962NemBom.jpg
• File:NemBom1962.jpg
• File:Hu-hai-7759-1638881220.jpg
• File:DocLapPhu1962HuHai.jpg
• File:NguyenTrungCang1971.png
• File:ThanhVietHeRau.png
• File:ThanhVietKhaNangVanChung.jpg
• File:LuongHeVNCH.jpg
• File:Tung-lam2.jpg
• File:Danh-hai-tung-lam.jpg
• File:Tung-Lam-cuoi-doi.jpg
• File:Tung-lam-1950s.jpg
• File:ThanhViet.jpg
• File:Thanh-viet.jpg
• File:Kha-nang.jpg
• File:KhaNangTQSG1973.png

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio: unclear copyright status on these works. Clearly not own work as stated, as en:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh passed away last year.

• File:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh, in a chapter of his book 'Shiksha Vichar Manthan' has explained in Hindi the verses written in Awadhi language by 16th century saint Tulsidas.jpg
• File:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh ji has mentioned a poem by Hindi poet Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari in a chapter of his book Shiksha Vichar Manthan. This is the same page in which the mention of that poem is found.jpg
• File:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh (HBN Singh) was Indian Hindi Author and writer.png
• File:Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna Book By Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh.pdf
• File:शिक्षा विचार मंथन Book By Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh (HBN Singh).pdf
• File:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh (HBN Singh) was Indian Hindi Author.png

Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This content does not come under any copyright hence this content is copyright free and reusing. 2409:408A:1E89:C77E:E4A:55F9:8FEA:634F 20:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. Any creative work, such as these books, created in India is by default copyrighted by the author until 60 years after their death. While it's possible that HBN Singh released these books under some sort of permissive license, I don't see any evidence that he did so. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these all seem to be derivative works and should therefore be deleted. Freedom of panorama doesn't seem to apply here.

RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: RodRabelo7 - The issue of photos of the abductees has already come up in this discussion and it was decided to keep the photos. Additionally not all of the images that are in this discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.

For example, in these files the images are mostly unrecognizable:

• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 18.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 87.jpg

In these files the images are a small part of a larger work:

• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 15.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 17.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 46.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 47.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 48.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 49.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 75.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 80.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 83.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 84.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 85.jpg
• File:Kidnapped from Israel posters in Yehud during Iron Swords War, January 2024 86.jpg

Chenspec (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Chenspec, it's false to say that "it was decided to keep the photos". First, because the photographs nominated to deletion by A1Cafel are different from these ones. Second, because differently from what you claim, there was no consensus to keep the files; administrator Infrogmation even stated, "No prejudging relisting individual or smaller carefully sullected subsets of images". And I'm sorry, but not a single file I've nominated to deletion can benefit from de minimis (with maybe the exception of 18 and 87, as you pointed out); I've been very careful when I nominated these ones to deletion. When you state that "In these files the images are a small part of a larger work", you ignore that the "larger work" is almost entirely made of copyrighted photographs. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7 even though it consists of mainly copyrighted photos, that if photographed individually may hqve to be classified as "fair use", I don't think the claim that having lots of copyrighted artworks appear in a photograph, while in small size and on the verge of recognition – violates their copyright, and it should still be in the commons. Aren't there photos of Times Square on Commons?

The photographs that @Chenspec had listed above should stay, since they are not derivative works as claimed, and do meet the criteria of the FOP. מקף־עברי (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I didn't put these posters next to each other for the sake of photography - that's how they appeared in the installation. That is, they are indeed part of a larger work.

In general, with regard to the images of the abductees, the issue of copyright is affected by the circumstances and the context. This is because most if not all of the photos were taken for the family album by family members and friends, which means that it is unlikely that any professional photographer's livelihood will be affected. Also, the families of the abductees are the ones who provided the photos as part of the effort to return their loved ones. I mean, they are interested in as wide a distribution as possible and I can't think of a reason why they would want to sue someone who promotes this goal.

The many attempts to remove these images from the public sphere stem mainly from political considerations unrelated to the issue of copyright. This is of course against the wishes of the families, and with the intention of harming them and their efforts to return their loved ones.

Unlike similar cases such as the discussion of the photos of the installation "Each name is a whole world" where I was happy to contact the creator and ask for her approval, contacting the families in this matter is out of the question. These are people who spend every spare moment fighting for their loved ones in any way possible, most of them lost their homes, relatives or friends and did not stop to grieve or take care of themselves. They are busy with survival and saving the people who are most important to them - it is not appropriate to contact them and bother them with bureaucratic issues. I ask to consider the unusual circumstances of these photos. Chenspec (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "which means that it is unlikely that any professional photographer's livelihood will be affected", fair use doesn't exist on Commons. In regards to "The many attempts to remove these images from the public sphere stem mainly from political considerations unrelated to the issue of copyright", try not to cast aspersions, even if subtly. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: To the administrator who closes this deletion request, there's a topic about it in the Hebrew Wikipedia: here. I have no skills on the language, so maybe there's more out there. To the ones who have came here thanks to that topic, please try to base your comments on Commons policies. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to make personal accusations. I wanted to emphasize the point that although it is currently not possible to contact the families for ethical-humanitarian reasons, in light of the circumstances it can be assumed that this is desirable in their eyes and that there is no legal risk.

Also, following the same circumstances, there are indeed many discussions on the subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia, but we are here for the same goal of creating free access to the entirety of human knowledge. Disagreements or doubts about the ways to do this are legitimate and an integral part of the process - that's what the discussion pages are for. I take your comments to heart and I'm sure others will too.

I have been uploading photos for many, many years and except for a small number of individual cases there has been no problem with the photos I have uploaded. That's why I don't have much experience in deletion debates and of course the topic is sensitive - thank you for your patience and consideration Chenspec (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. This is not merely a reproduction of the poster - that is: a photo of a single poster, almost a scan - but a photo of a street display or a protest, and therefore it does not fall under copyright restrictions. An equivalent argument: you can photograph and upload here a street view, even if billboards are seen in the photo. MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does fall under copyright restrictions. In Israel, there's only freedom of panorama for works located permanently in public spaces (see hyperlink in nomination text). Once they are rescued, the poster will very likely be removed. In regards to the last sentence, it actually depends, I've seen lots of photos of streets being deleted. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Westlothian.png Elianfoo (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject image of the page is copyrighted under all rights reserved: https://www.flickr.com/photos/200967443@N07/53824292885/in/dateposted-public/ . Page spreads misinformation as it misidentifies creator of image and group/party associated with the image. Maropedia1 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Not an educationally useful image regardless of its copyright status; an article on this subject was speedily deleted on enwiki as a hoax: en:Draft:The Resistance of the Cross. Omphalographer (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Clear form of copyvio and the image was uploaded by an account permablocked on Wikipedia for vandalism. Red Phoenician (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced images. remove please.

• File:2012 AZ Presidential by CD.png
• File:2018 GA Lieutenant Governor.png

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced images. needs to be  removed.

• File:2024ballotaccessjune29.svg
• File:2024ballotaccessjune26.svg
• File:2024ballotaccessjune22.svg
• File:2024ballotaccespartiesjune22.svg
• File:2024ballotaccessjune3.svg
• File:2024ballotaccespartiesjune2.svg
• File:2024ballotaccessjune1.svg
• File:2024ballotaccespartiesmay24.svg
• File:2024 Ballot Access For Parties May 14.svg
• File:2024 Independent Ballot Access Deadline May 15.svg

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo published in Italy in 1981 is still copyrighted in the US due to URAA. Günther Frager (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by DaxServer as no permission (No permission since). It’s claimed to be own work, so it’s unclear why it would need a permission. Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this specific version of the flag (using 90°W and 60°S) ever existed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flag_of_the_United_Nations#c-Zowayix001-20240629051200-ALE!-2016-01-05T17:10:00.000Z Zowayix001 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image, along with all of Piimapoika’s other images, have minimal credibility. For example, he uploaded in image of June Palmer, labeling it his own work and that it was around 1985, but the wiki page says 1978. Anyway’s, along with all other images uploaded by him, these are labeled his own work and this is uploaded with a crazy claim Wcamp9 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image, uploaded as saying the year was 1985 (however, Palmer’s wiki page says 1978, is not uploaded by him and the rest of the images are the same, crazy claims come with them Wcamp9 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by myself at Strobe Studios Piimapoika (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is he an actor in scope? 186.172.180.105 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image, along with Piimapoika’s other images, are all claimed to be his own work. However, this cannot be farther from the truth. For example, the June Palmer image he uploaded from (as he claimed) 1985 is clearly not his own work Wcamp9 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very clearly not his own work Wcamp9 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this user’s claims for this image being his own work are untrustworthy and obviously false. For example, his page for June Palmer claims that the photograph taken from 1985 is his own work Wcamp9 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by myself at the Tangomarkkinat Piimapoika (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user obviously steals images from the internet and labels them with his own work. These claims are extremely false. Wcamp9 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His claim that all of these images, including this, are his own work, are very false Wcamp9 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was taken by myself at the Lumitango, Tampere Piimapoika (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Gaurav Shinde 186.172.180.105 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(c) Jan Versmissen according to watermark. Already published on https://www.ffam.asso.fr/fr/actualites/4678-championnat-de-france-drone-racing-2022.html and https://www.ouest-france.fr/normandie/brehal-50290/originaire-de-la-manche-swan-versmissen-est-champion-du-monde-de-drone-virtuel-d98a1f0e-6bf4-11ee-b2ff-3bb9482842ad

• File:Podium CDF 2022.jpg
• File:Yayou.jpg

Habertix (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sailko as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: contemporary art, no FOP in Italy Yann (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy the 2 following articles authorized the publication of an art work if its not for profit and if it contributes to the promotion of knowledge of cultural heritage, an you must give credit to the artist. So, it's true that there is no explicit FOP, but there are laws that regulate the photographic reproduction of art works.

Art. 70, comma 1, L. 22 aprile 1941, n.633 and the Art. 108, commi 3 e 3-bis, D.lgs. 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 ETIT123456 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of COM:FANART. Copyrighted character designs. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, seems to also be someone else's fanart, which isn't freely licenced: https://www.deviantart.com/thechamba/art/That-it-only-took-a-moment-99023382 Belbury (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Fma12 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.woodside.com/ {{PD-textlogo}}? Yann (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I tagged this logo because the TOO in Australia (country of origin of the company) is very low. Fma12 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright 186.128.41.113 21:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work (https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/fossils/hurdia-victoria/) Qohelet12 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

completely blurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mef.ellingen (talk • contribs)

Interesting beard 186.172.180.105 22:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own photographer took it, hence it's not my own work. 186.172.180.105 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal selfie. Out of scope. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 23:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No... --VANOCE2022 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]