Commons:Deletion requests/2024/07/04

I feel this may seem it's a duplicate of the file named File:Flag_of_Oland.svg. I do not think we actually need duplicate files of SVGs. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, you can keep it if you want. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Colegio St Margarets Calle 5 Norte 2.jpg
• File:Colegio St Margarets Bosques de Montemar 3.jpg
• File:Colegio St Margarets Bosques de Montemar 2.png
• File:Colegio St Margarets Calle 5 Norte 1.webp
• File:Colegio St Margarets Bosques de Montemar 1.jpg
• File:Colegio St Margarets Villa Hochschild 2.webp
• File:St Margarets Calle Limache 1.webp
• File:Colegio St Margarets Villa Hochschild 1.webp

In all cases, the uploader has correctly claimed these images come from the St. Margarets school website (https://www.stmargarets.cl/en/home/). They did not specify specific urls, but I have verified each of these images come from that site. However, in all case the upload incorrectly claimed a {{PD-US}} license. Frankly, the uploader doesn't seem to understand copyright and believes that simply because it's on the St. Margarets website, it's fair game and is in the public domain. This is clearly not the case. These are copyright violations. Some of these might have fallen into the public domain, but there's no certain way to ascertain this as we don't know the original publication of the images nor their dates of publication in their source country (Chile). Copyright violations, all of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake own work claim and license. The author Alexander Pekarev (d:Q21154353) died in 1979. Quick1984 (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave. Photo taken by the only son and heir --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake own work claim and date of creation, copyright status is unclear. Quick1984 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed the wrong license --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake own work claim and date of creation, copyright status is unclear. Romano1981 (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What made you doubt ticket #2017120710012171 ? --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correspondence and all necessary details are available to trusted volunteers via ticket #2017120710012171. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the VRT noticeboard. Wavepainter (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake descriptions, date of creation, author's name and license. These are not modern works OTRS permission is about, but derivatives with non-clear copyright status.

• File:Last Address Sign - Moscow, Malaya Dmitrovka Street, 18 (2018-12-23) 16.jpg
  • Leave. The license was indicated with only a minor error. I have corrected --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Last Address sign - Moscow, Staromonetny Lane, 33 (2020-09-25) 15.jpg
  • Leave. The license was indicated with only a minor error. I have corrected --Воскресенский Петр ([[User talk:Воскресенский Петр|
• File:Last Address sign - Moscow, Staromonetny Lane, 33 (2020-09-25) 17.jpg
  • Leave. The license was indicated with only a minor error. I have corrected --Воскресенский Петр ([[User talk:Воскресенский Петр|
• File:Last Address Sign - Moscow, Strastnoy Boulevard, 8 (2018-12-23) 01.jpg
  • Here the license is not clear --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick1984 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • И отдельная просьба быть снисходительнее уважительнее к участникам с приличным вкладом и возрастом, а не расставлять запросы абсурдно --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the CC license could be valid. While the file description gives the source of the data, that doesn't mean that the information in those sources becomes free to use.
The map is a close copy of that in Hayward's book, page vi (down to specific choices like the decision of which geographical features to include). Even though that map was modified with further information about the distribution of the individual languages from Ethnologue, Hayward's map itself remains copyrighted.
Speaking of Ethnologue, https://www.ethnologue.com/pricing/ is very clear that the distribution maps are only available to paying subscribers, and https://www.ethnologue.com/general-terms-use/ (specifically points 2 and 3) further states that all the information on their site is copyrighted. In particular, reproduction of any content is prohibited (this includes, but is not limited to, their maps), and using any content from the site for commercial purposes requires their written consent. There is no indication that different rules applied when the file was uploaded.
The copyright issue was first raised on the file talk page in 2009, about a year after the upload. The uploader/author did not reply to those concerns, even though they continued to work on the file until 2012 (and have remained active as an administrator on the German Wikipedia from 2008 until stepping down in 2016, and as a user on Commons until 2020). That is to say, I'm surprised they didn't respond to it.
The same applies to the two derivative versions, File:Omotic languages sv.svg and File:Omotic languages mk.svg (a third one in English that is linked from the file description has apparently been deleted in the meantime). Renerpho (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's relevant, but this image has been featured on the main page of the German Wikipedia in 2022. Archive Renerpho (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Ethnologue has additional fair use guidelines,[1] but those state that Maps may be used in reports, presentations, displays, and other uses as long as they are not altered. (i.e., as long as the copyright watermark isn't removed), and graphic is not modified. [...] Any other use requires prior written permission from SIL International. They also limit the time for which fair use can be claimed for educational purposes: Educational multimedia projects created for educational purposes, and for teaching courses, may use SIL incorporated material for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class. Use beyond that time period, even for educational purposes, requires permission for each copyrighted portion incorporated in the production. Renerpho (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s made by Mike Ter Maat and his team. Conflict of Interest. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Used on a few Wikipedia pages. LordBirdWord (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO India InterComMan (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. Per COM:TOO India, the threshold of originality is similar to that in the US. This is an exceptionally simple logo which consists only of text. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files with copyright notice crediting Parlamentsdirektion (Austrian Parliament). The Austrian Parliament terms of use explain that this copyright notice is not Commons compliant (COM:L) as it only allows limited non-commercial re-use and no commercial use or modifications.
Note, the last 3 files (one photo and and two logos) currently have {{PD-AustrianGov}} tag suggesting PD because they are "part of a law, ordinance or official decree issued by an Austrian federal or state authority, or because it is of predominantly official use" (COM:AUSTRIA), however I am suspicious of this because the publisher (Austrian Parliament) included a copyright notice which aligns with their terms of use.

• File:Werner Neubauer2011.jpg
• File:Deimek-Parlament.jpg
• File:Karlheinz Kopf 2014.jpg
• File:Auftaktveranstaltung zum Jubiläumsjahr 2005.jpg
• File:Reinhold Mitterlehner (2013).jpg
• File:Herbert Haupt (2007).jpg
• File:Oesterreichisches Parlament Logo 2019.png
• File:Logo Austrian Parliament 2023.svg

Consigned (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo was released on Flickr with a CC license by SPÖ (Social Democratic Party of Austria), however it contains a copyright notice crediting Parlamentsdirektion (Austrian Parliament), whose terms of use are not Commons compliant (limited non-commercial, no commercial reuse or modifications). This seems to me like COM:FLICKRWASHING: the Flickr account most likely does not have the ability to release the photo under a CC license, especially given that they elected to keep the copyright notice in the Flickr description. Consigned (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imported this in good faith, do whatever you want. Ailura (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still frames from L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo published in Italy in 1970. Still frames are protected by 20 years in Italy, and are indeed in the Italian public domain. However, the film was also published in in the US with a copyright notice [2] and it was registered in 1989 [3]. Thus, the usage of {{PD-1996}} is incorrect because the film was copyrighted in the US at URAA time. We can undelete in 2066 when the film enters in the US public domain.

• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Eva Renzi 1.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Eva Renzi 2.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Eva Renzi 3.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Eva Renzi 4.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Hornitus nevalis.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Quadro di Berto Consalvi (cropped).png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Quadro di Berto Consalvi.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Reggie Nalder.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Rosita Torosh 1.png
• File:L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo (1970) Rosita Torosh 2.png
• File:Raho L'uccello dalle piume di cristallo.png
• File:Umberto Raho.png

Günther Frager (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FoP for interior views in Germany and Germany has a standard of life + 70 years. The buildings architect is Richard Meier and he is still alive.

• File:Frankfurt Museum Angewandte Kunst innen 01.jpg
• File:Innenansicht Museum Angewandte Kunst.JPG
• File:Innenansicht Rampe Museum Angewandte Kunst.jpg
• File:M-fak-innen-ffm001.jpg
• File:MAK-Frankfurt-Aufgang-2013-Ffm-568.jpg

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio (c) Alexander Gerhardt - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to: File:YouTube social white squircle.svg. 0x0a (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Swatjester as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.pgmprecision.com/en/sniper-rifles/ultima-ratio/ -- user has repeatedly violated copyright on this account as well as undisclosed alternate account User:ElliotVFR. PD-textlogo, but may be out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is PD-textlogo, (I would not call it as such), it was uploaded under an inappropriate license as the author's own work; it is definitively not, as it is listed at the source as "©PGM Precision 2018". Swatjester (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the country of origin. It is certainly PD-textlogo in USA, but may not be elsewhere. Yann (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement that it is "certainly PD-textlogo in USA" (that is not an obvious statement, and Commons has long abused the threshold of originality argument in ways that do not comply with U.S. case law) but that's besides the point as the operative country presumably would be France, where PGM Precision is based, their website is hosted, and their "general policies" claim as the jurisdiction for any applicable disputes; see, e.g. [4] (Machine translation: "In the event of a dispute, the parties shall seek a conciliation, possibly through the establishment of their respective professional organisations. If this conciliation seems impossible, “the dispute will be heard in court in the Duquel district court where the PGM PRECISION social security office is located”, it is to be addressed to Annecy.") And again, regardless, there is absolutely no indication that this is the author's own work, and a very clear contraindication against the inappropriate licensing under CC-BY-SA 4.0. Swatjester (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that, and I think it is fine in France too. Yann (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invented and non-original logo. InterComMan (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. File is in use. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Cedric Sprick - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1–2: The "Füzuli" images are photographs of what I assume is copyrightable material.

3–5: The three close-up portraits raised suspicion because of their general fetched-from-the-internet look; why would you upload such low-res, awkwardly resized and/or uncropped images if they're your own work?

6: The larger portrait is used elsewhere on the internet, but not on websites that definitively predate the Commons upload, but I still think it warrants investigation or precaution because of the suspicious nature of the user's other uploads.

1. File:Füzuli Rayon Ziyalıları kitabı.jpg
2. File:Füzuli Rayon Ziyalıları.jpg
3. File:FarganaAbdullayeva.jpg
4. File:Cabbar Abdullayev.jpg
5. File:Fərqanə.jpg
6. File:Fargana.jpg

Sinigh (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentist flag map, unused and not possible to use in NPOV education. Better flag maps exist in "Category:Greater Israel", and also File:Israel Flag-map (including Area C).svg. Enyavar (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request a deletion discussion Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- those images are taken by my in-person camera. It is part of the news. Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Simply being taken by your camera does not make your image allowable on Commons, as in your case, the file is derivative work that contains copyrighted material, which is not allowable on Commons. Neither journalist or news material enters the public domain immediately after publication: they are subject to the same copyright law requirements, and you can easily found words like "Copyrighted — all rights reserved" in news websites.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Uploader is requesting VRT permission from the copyright holders (i.e. the respective political parties).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request a deletion discussion Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- those images are taken by my in-person camera. It is part of the news. Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Simply being taken by your camera does not make your image allowable on Commons, as in your case, the file is derivative work that contains copyrighted material, which is not allowable on Commons. Neither journalist or news material enters the public domain immediately after publication: they are subject to the same copyright law requirements, and you can easily found words like "Copyrighted — all rights reserved" in news websites.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Uploader is requesting VRT permission from the copyright holders (i.e. the respective political parties).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

still waiing for their reply. Thx for ur time! Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request a deletion discussion Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- those images are taken by my in-person camera. It is part of the news. Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Simply being taken by your camera does not make your image allowable on Commons, as in your case, the file is derivative work that contains copyrighted material, which is not allowable on Commons. Neither journalist or news material enters the public domain immediately after publication: they are subject to the same copyright law requirements, and you can easily found words like "Copyrighted — all rights reserved" in news websites.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Uploader is requesting VRT permission from the copyright holders (i.e. the respective political parties).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request a deletion discussion Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep -- this letter is a public letter to parliament and as a part of the parliament document it is subjected to https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/open-parliament-licence/. Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination After double-checking with the licensing provisions of {{OPL}}, it is found that OPL directly applies to this file.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: After enlarging the file, it can be confirmed that the letter used the free version of crowned portcullis instead of the stylized and copyrighted one. Therefore, the last concern about coat of arms for OPL is cleared.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thx mate. let me sum it up Notepadplusplusplus (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Kept}}

• @Notepadplusplusplus: Please wait until an administrator close the deletion request. Generally an admin will intervene after 7 days. As long as I provide valid reasons, the file should be kept.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eni logo exceeds the COM:TOO Italy, which - although it is actually high in Italy - covers simple geometric figures (as for the Inter and Milan logos), but not more complex figures such as animals. Some other Eni logos on Commons are currently subject to DR for the same reason. Arrow303 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an illustration of VR's new train. The picture is unlikely licensed for free use. [5] Puppe100 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "own work" claim, likely COM:NETCOPYVIO: low resolution, no EXIF, uploaded by a single-use account Wcam (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The work is owned by me. It has a low resolution because high resolution was never accepted. I took a picture of the work and cut out some of the unrelated information by using Paint so there is no EXIF. Xzx1337 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © ted bergland - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio. I haven't found the image anywhere else, but it seems unlikely that it really is a self-portrait. + Not in use. Sinigh (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality image of no encyclopedic value (we have lots of quality abseiling images) Aszx5000 (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is from X (Twitter) and its copyright status is unknown. Pierre cb (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, der Urheber soll "Premio Eugenio Garza Sada" sein - das ist aber nicht möglich, da Urheber immer nur eine natürliche Person sein kann Lutheraner (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There is no information on the source website (now dead, but archived close to the upload date) about the photographer. I'd guess the photo was taken around 1970. It's definitely not old enough for the copyright to have expired even if the photographer had died the day it was taken. There's also no indication on their website that PEGS intended to release anything under a CC license. Renerpho (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the source Flickr stream publishes under CC0, these four files have a copyright notice in the EXIF and are not work of the Moldovan Parliament.

• File:02.07.2024 Participarea membrilor delegației Parlamentului Republicii Moldova la Sesiunea anuală a AP OSCE - 53829904874.jpg
• File:02.07.2024 Participarea membrilor delegației Parlamentului Republicii Moldova la Sesiunea anuală a AP OSCE - 53830050946.jpg
• File:02.07.2024 Participarea membrilor delegației Parlamentului Republicii Moldova la Sesiunea anuală a AP OSCE - 53830291043.jpg
• File:02.07.2024 Participarea membrilor delegației Parlamentului Republicii Moldova la Sesiunea anuală a AP OSCE - 53830483390.jpg

Gikü (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:02.07.2024 Participarea membrilor delegației Parlamentului Republicii Moldova la Sesiunea anuală a AP OSCE - 53831453022.jpg has the same issue. Gikü (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kirilloparma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Video game screenshot Free license at source, but what about the license of game (as derivative work). Yann (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game is not CC BY-SA, but the screenshots on the game's itch.io were released under that license. Is there any policy/precedent for situations like this?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep we have other free media that includes parts of an unfree work, example: File:A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Trailer.webm. If it’s legitimately licensed by the creator I see no reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kirilloparma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Video game screenshot Free license at source, but what about the license of game (as derivative work). Yann (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep we have other free media that includes parts of an unfree work, example: File:A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Trailer.webm. If it’s legitimately licensed by the creator I see no reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Kirilloparma as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Video game screenshot Free license at source, but what about the license of game (as derivative work). Yann (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep we have other free media that includes parts of an unfree work, example: File:A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Trailer.webm. If it’s legitimately licensed by the creator I see no reason to delete. Dronebogus (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a few duplicates by mistake Pdanese (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a few duplicates by mistake Pdanese (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality, picture is too blurry, there are better pictures of the same object in the Category:Bereziniak botanic reserve Luda.slominska (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same logo, but since this file needed to be converted from a png file to an svg file, File:Wuthering Waves Japanese Logo.svg was uploaded, resulting in two duplicate png and svg files. SKTakek (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks loke a professional work, I really doubt this is the work of the uploader, compared to othere uploaded images Avron (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence of pd-us on the source Avron (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not own work, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ak12_5.45.jpg Avron (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, near-duplicate of File:0164jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 06.jpg. COM:REDUNDANT. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from trailer of Barbarella, published in 1968. The rationale used was {{PD-US-no notice}}, but it is incorrect. One can see in the trailer at 3:09 that it does have a copyright notice. According to Hirtle chart works published between 1964 and 1977 with copyright notice are protected for 95 years.

• File:Barbarella1 crop.JPG
• File:Barbarella1.JPG
• File:Fonda3.JPG

Günther Frager (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too dark and unusable. There are better images in the category that meaningfully depict the flyover.

• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 10.jpg
• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 11.jpg
• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 12.jpg
• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 13.jpg
• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 14.jpg
• File:0128jfKalayaan Flyover EDSA Fort Bonifacio Buendia Flyover Makati Cityfvf 15.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep. They are dark because these are really the only images which are taken from underneath the flyover. The darkness might make them less aesthetically pleasing photos in a compositional sense, but they accurately portray a unique perspective. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image that shows same information as File:Cap Elizabeth, Maine (6730203147).jpg Nv8200p (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, now that I uploaded a new version which is just shot in better lighting.

250px מקף־עברי (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

מקף־עברי, We can keep them both if you are the author. -- Geagea (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map appears to be based/using a style[6] very similar to the Ordinance Survey's commercial OS MasterMap Topography Layer map product, requiring a license. Likely not released with a free license, nor the one stated. Furthermore, unlikely to be mainly "own work", and another organisation Cadw has been given courtesy for some involvement. DankJae 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, an anon at User talk:LiamGM#File:CadwBR078.jpg claimed to be seeking permission for this file from the original holder.

DankJae 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no source, false langauge for description, misleading title, unclear what it shows Prototyperspective (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source file from which this image was extracted is deleted. Gpkp (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low quality version of File:Aplocnemus impressus (Marsham, 1802) (28562080274).png. If the file has to be rotated 90° it shouldn't be this low quality or in webp format Nutshinou ^Talk! 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Liverpool Pride Quarter (Oct 2023).jpg
• File:Liverpool Knowledge Quarter boundary and notable institutions.jpg
• File:Liverpool Ropewalks boundary and notable institutions.jpg
• File:Baltic Triangle and notable landmarks.jpg

These files appear to use a background of (the old skin of) Google Maps as the background. See these old skin maps of the area for comparison.[7][8][9] Data can be compared to re-skinned Google Maps, or manually looking at the old one. Google Maps imagery is copyrighted and not released under a free license for use on commons. --DankJae 17:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not used and now a SVG version like recommended at File:Rossy logo.svg 158.58.190.83 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

""""Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. This image is believed to be non-free or possibly non-free in its home country. In order for Commons to host a file, it must be free in its home country and in the United States. Some countries, particularly other countries based on common law, have a lower threshold of originality than the United States."""" this is from en wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Honor_of_Kings_logo.png . please  Speedy delete.

• File:Honor of Kings Wordmark Logo.png

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 17:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @modern_primat

If game or company logos from China cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because the logo is copyrighted (even if the logo is only text), why don't you add a file deletion nomination to the logo of Oppo, Xiaomi, Vivo, Realme, Tencent, etc. logos? The brand I mentioned comes from China too. Astrinko (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if these kind of images you had mentioned is actually cropped version of original version, i would put these in DR too. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the logo I uploaded was a cut from the original version, as long as the file does not meet the copyright threshold, the file I uploaded entered the public domain. I don't think the Wikimedia Commons administrators removed the logo. There are still many Chinese company logos on Wikimedia Commons that are text only, but they have not been removed. Astrinko (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

show me an example please. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 19:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look the logo File:Douyin wordmark.svg, that's the Chinese version of the TikTok application logo, even though the logo is in the form of text and the logo is cut from the original version, the logo is still on Wikimedia Commons and has not been removed until now. Astrinko (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh... thats interesting... maybe it should be  Keep then? modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A logo that is only in the form of text does not meet the copyright threshold and enters the public domain, so the logo should not need to be removed. However, I am waiting for the Wikimedia Commons admin's decision whether the logo will be removed or not. Astrinko (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrighted Mohammed Qays (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's my own translation and work based on a publicly available image, link: https://t.me/khodomonia_history/87

Furthermore I have been permitted to post and or modify the following image.

Care to explain what your problem is?

Arabic: هذه ترجمتي الخاصة استنادًا إلى صورة متاحة علنًا، الرابط:

هل تهتم بشرح ماهية مشكلتك؟

Farsi (Persian): این ترجمه‌ی خودم بر اساس یک تصویر عمومی موجود است، لینک:

آیا مایل به توضیح مشکل شما هستید؟ Mrox2 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Website given T&Cs state "You may use and re-use information free of charge from this website (not including the Royal Arms and departmental or Agency logos) under the terms of the Open Government Licence". Logos aren't under OGL, therefore the licence used is invalid. However, due to the simplicity of the logo, unsure if it meets the threshold of originality COM:TOO UK. DankJae 18:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these kinda look F10(personal photos of non contributors) to me. should we keep them or remove?

• File:Urbanizacion camino real.jpg
• File:Descanso cerca de las tuberias del desague.jpg
• File:Comenzando la excursion, salida centro cultural marianopicon salas.jpg

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! We would like to clarify that the photos uploaded are not personal but rather a donation from a participant in an activity organized by a recognized user group. They capture the essence of the village community and its cultural heritage. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!) 23:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this file violates Commons' file upload policy per South Korea's FoP laws. [10][11]. Please check and give input on this request. 00101984hjw (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I oppose the deletion of this photo for the following reasons:

This photo depicts the statue of King Sejong the Great in Yeouido Park, unveiled on December 18, 1998. The statue, created by the artist Ok Dong-hwan and Ko Jeong-su and commissioned by the Seoul Metropolitan Government.^[1]

If the artists have contractually waived their copyright to the Seoul Metropolitan Government, then Article 35 of the Copyright Act, restricting commercial FOP, would not apply. Under these circumstances, Article 24-2 would permit free photographs of the statue to be taken and used for commercial purposes. This would allow this photo to be legally shared and used, supporting its retention on Wikipedia.

Other photos of the statue in Yeouido Park are available on Gongu Madang (공유마당),^[2][3] a platform operated and directly vetted by the Korea Copyright Commission (KCC). These photos have licensing which allows commercial use. The Gongu Madang platform employs a process to ensure that content is free of legal disputes and correctly licensed under Korean law.^[4] The presence of this statue on Gongu Madang in pictures that allow for commercial use means it has passed this verification process, thus indicating that the KCC has confirmed the statue's copyright is available for public use as per Article 24-2. Nonabelian (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: AI-generated image of a forest. If "tepual" is a real type of forest (unclear given AI-generated text and irrelevant references in es:tepual), it should be illustrated with an actual picture of such a forest, not an imaginary one. Omphalographer (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the Spanish Wikipedia thinks it's in scope then it's in scope. Keep per C:INUSE. As I said in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pomponal.jpg, I'd immediately remove it if this were the English Wikipedia, but I'm not involved with es.wikipedia, and I don't know their standards. The discussion about the removal of those images should start on the article talk pages where the images are used. Renerpho (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion is happening at Wikiproyecto discusión:Antivandalismo#WP:HOAX, per Wikimedia Commons. Renerpho (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to  Delete, now that the image has been removed from the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. The article itself has been nominated for deletion. The image is no longer in use, and there's no reason to keep it. Renerpho (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

es:Tepual has been deleted as "original research, unsourced and non-encyclopedic writing". Renerpho (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: AI-generated image of a forest, similar to File:Tepual.jpg. Same reasoning applies here - if this is a real type of forest, it should be illustrated with a real image of such a forest, not a synthetic one. Omphalographer (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the Spanish Wikipedia thinks it's in scope then it's in scope. Keep per C:INUSE. That said, if this were the English Wikipedia, I'd immediately remove it when I saw it. I don't know the inner workings of es:wikipedia though. Renerpho (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My spain is very bad, but this looks fishy. An article about some kind of rainforest that has no article in another language and for which one needs an AI image for illustration? Is this a fake article? PaterMcFly (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion is happening at Wikiproyecto discusión:Antivandalismo#WP:HOAX, per Wikimedia Commons. At least I hope it is happening (the Antivandalism Project on the Spanish Wikipedia seems to have been largely inactive for years). Renerpho (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho, it is better that you publish the message here, w:es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual, so that your message has more visibility,, because in Spanish Wikipedia the Wikiprojects are somewhat abandoned. ZebaX2010 (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZebaX2010: Done, thank you. I suspected that the Wikiproject was abandoned, but wasn't familiar enough with either the language or the page in general to navigate it successfully. Renerpho (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to  Delete, now that the image has been removed from the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. The article itself has been nominated for deletion. The image is no longer in use, and there's no reason to keep it. Renerpho (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

es:Pomponal has been deleted as an "essay without reliable sources and non-encyclopedic writing". Renerpho (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by 158.58.190.83 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: reason=Not used and now a SVG version like recommended at File:Rossy logo.svg|subpage=File:Rossy logo.svg|year=2024|month=July|day=4 Yann (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. HouseBlaster (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sahistory.org.za/policy - """""Please note that these externally created materials on the site are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner."""""" it is not actually free licensed.

• File:Ismail Mahomed.jpg

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 18:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete it Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please delete it Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image has appeared in multiple websites: [12], [13]. No EXIF, so unlikely the work of uploader. Gpkp (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person MPM Menon is my father. This photo was sent to him for official usage as the Indian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 2600:1700:D10:1C60:5D44:ADFF:6B44:CCA4 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment 2600:..CCA4 You should have commented using your account: Sandeepina, from which you uploaded the file. --Gpkp (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? This single contribution of the user is not own work. See here. From a Dutch perspective, the filename "bierneger" (beer nigger) is a swear word, the description "bier" (beer) is not what the image shows and the username "Wikikankerpedia" is not an appropriate name. Wouter (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An official render by the promotion WWE. No copyright free HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, self promotional image; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by company; no usage, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photos of honorable yet non-notable subject, judging by by the uploader's sandbox on enwiki and a Google search. Only one of the photos is in use, and only in said sandbox. Potentially F10 (personal photos by non-contributors). (Also, I think it's in good taste not to keep private photos of children who likely did not consent to being publicized like this, especially when the photo in question isn't educationally useful, but that view doesn't align with any Commons policy that I'm aware of. Please let me know if I'm wrong.)

• File:Julzat the Palace.jpg
• File:Julz and Tia in Windhoek.jpg

Sinigh (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Eien20 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10 Yann (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Frojereds IF logo.png. No use in keeping this one. Jonteemil (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's possible to handle it like a duplicate? Eventhough it's different MIME types. Jonteemil (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No metadata available which would confirm indeed that it's own work, while the photo itself seems to be widely used by different media outlets. Also, there seems to be some form of similiarity with another similar case with another file uploaded by the same user. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 22:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful redirection 2605:8D80:545:E18B:1473:6131:3802:E1F3 22:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious flag that attempts to challenge the actual flag: File:Flag of Yugoslavia (1946-1992).svg. Serves no other purpose. –Vipz (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, because it is in low resolution and not related to the actual file above.

Güiseppi669 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this deletion request involves the following advertisements:

• File:O melhor café é o d'A Brasileira (Chiado, Lisboa).jpg
• File:Caf-A-Brasileira-3 (1).jpg
• File:O Velhote da Brasileira.png

my doubt is whether the source date is correct, because the name of the café only changed to include an "s" after 1945 following the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1945. in the book Os Cafés de Lisboa, the author Marina Tavares Dias claims that the ad is actually from around 1961. or at least one of the ads!

the possible origin of this advertisement can only be from 1945 to 1961, which would not qualify for public domain in Portugal, sadly.

however, according to the same book, the character (called "velhote da chávena", lit. "old man with the cup") and the logo are way older, both from 1906 (the logo with Z is from 1906, the logo with S is from 1945).

Juwan (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the tricky thing is trying to find these ads, but I don't know if I want to scour through several unrelated 20th-century newspapers for this, sorry. that's a challenge for someone else. Juwan (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]