Commons:Deletion requests/2024/12/31

30 December 2024

1 January 2025

Deletion requests on 31 December 2024

December 31

File:Azerbaijan 500 manat Karabakh obverse.jpg

It literally has a copyright notice on it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Clyde, in this case basically all images from the w:Azerbaijani manat article must be nominated for deletion.

I am no expert in Azerbaijani law but I just followed the rationales others have given to the banknote and coin images. Also, COM:Currency guidance says that Monetary signs, together with other state symbols, are explicitly excluded from copyright by the 2013 Copyright law of Azerbaijan. [636-IVQD/2013 Article 7] and explicitly allows Azeri currency images.

Maybe the guidance itself is wrong but that's what I've been following and it sounded reasonable to me (after all - does "monetary sign" mean "$¢€₴₤₹₪" or is it just currency - cf. расчетный знак (w:sovznak), which literally means "accounting sign" but was money for all intents and purposes? for me it can be both, and it's the parliament's job to pass laws that are unambiguous)

Maybe there's some text in Azeri that treats the copyrightability of currency, but I can't be arsed finding one, not least because I don't know the language. That said, if you believe the guidance is wrong and must be fixed, go open the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means @Szmenderowiecki: let’s nominate ALL of them for deletion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I know is that there is literally a copyright watermark on the actual banknote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I do see it as well, at the top of each banknote. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemoralis: Any chance you could be able to translate something for us? We were unclear on whether https://wipolex-resources-eu-central-1-358922420655.s3.amazonaws.com/edocs/lexdocs/laws/az/az/az109az_1.pdf, in "Maddə 7" on page 4, if part (b) covers banknotes? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says monetary signs (pul nişanları) are not protected with copyright. You can read COM:CUR Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Clyde, what do you mean by watermark. Are you talking about "© AMB 2021"? I checked the all banknotes I have, they all had it Nemoralis (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I’m talking about. It literally has a copyright notice on it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like "pul nişanları" means/includes banknote, see https://www.cbar.az/page-28/currency-in-circulation. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some kind of policy that I don’t know about, by the AMB that allows for commercial reproduction of Azeri banknote designs; then it is non-free. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is commemorative banknote issued by AMB: [1]. In case you didn't know, AMB means Azərbaycan Mərkəzi Bankı (Central Bank of Azerbaijan). Nemoralis (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did know that @Nemoralis, but thanks for clarifying that for others who maybe don’t know what that means. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the AMB claims if the actual law says banknotes are not "objects of copyright". Since that appears to be the case,

Keep. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757, could we be interpreting Azerbaijani law wrong? I would like someone (preferably someone who knows the Azeri language) to post a word for word translation on the relevant law. Because I could see “monetary signs” referring to the “₼” sign, rather than the design of the currency. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Clyde Nemoralis, above, is Azerbaijani. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The big question then @Nemoralis is whether or not “pul nişanları” does in fact cover banknotes. Because if it only covers the manat sign for instance, then the design of the banknote can still be copyrighted (which is my theory based on the “© AMB [YYYY]” on all of the banknotes); but if it does in fact cover banknote designs, then the AMB is posting an erroneous copyright notice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the “monetary signs” part seems very ambiguous. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article 7b of Azerbaijan Copyright law says that "state emblems and official signs (flags, arms, anthems, orders, monetary signs and other State symbols and official signs)" are not covered by the law. By monetary signs, they are talking about banknotes and coins. Check the Central Bank's website to see where this term (pul nişanları) is used. For example, here they are talking about monetary signs/currency in circulation. Or history of monetary signs. @Toghrul R and @Firuza might want to give an explanation or example too. Nemoralis (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "© AMB" text on the banknote refers to the reproduction of banknotes (Law on the reproduction). However, the term "pul nişanları" (monetary signs) covers all forms of currency. The translation might seem confusing, but this link helps clarify it. On the official Central Bank website, pul nişanları is consistently translated as currency. In the links, the "₼" sign is specifically called a "symbol", not "sign". Since Azerbaijani lacks a distinct word for "banknote", all such items are referred to as "pul (adj.-noun: monetary) nişanları (signs)", meaning "signs" (objects) that "signify" money. — Toghrul R (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case,

I formally withdraw my nomination since anti-counterfeiting laws are outside the scope of copyright. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijan 500 manat Karabakh reverse.jpg

It literally has a copyright notice on it. See obverse image. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan 500 manat Karabakh obverse.jpg. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nongshim logo.jpg

Non-photographs should not be in JPG. Redundant to File:Nongshim Logo.svg. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The logo image is obviously of poor quality and no project uses the file. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Who, John Pertwee (10842597324).jpg

Copyright for this image would have belonged to the BBC, as the creator of the Dr. Who series. The New Zealand archives would not have been able to release this under a free license. The date stamp is incorrect, as Pertwee had died in 1996 (almost twenty years before the date stamp). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also including File:Dr Who, John Pertwee (10842597324) (cropped).jpg as a derivative image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From here, says its from 10 February 1985 - elsewhere online you can find video of the television ads John Pertwee did for Telecom at that time, so that seems to check out, so its not copyright to the BBC but NZPost as it says. Now, did Archives New Zealand obtain the copyright to NZPost archives as claimed? Seems plausible but can't find anywhere that says so. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They apparently have a page in their domain that deals with licensing from NZPO, but the link on their flickr page is dead. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so based on this fanzine, the images were created by the New Zealand Post Office in 1985 as the company was preparing to privatize. It was done under license from the BBC. Consequently, it makes sense that they owned the rights to this image and divested it to New Zealand Archives. That being said, one wonders whether the set designs are sufficiently distinct so as to not affect the Beeb's copyright. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The set appears so distinct from any that appear in Doctor Who that I doubt it would have any impact on copyright (especially since it's difficult to even see it). In any case, that shouldn't impact the derivative image, which is cropped to Pertwee's face. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS control room, 1970s.

Keep The copyright belongs to the creator of the image, which Archives New Zealand claim was designated to New Zealand Post Limited (then-state-owned). There are no elements created/owned by the BBC; for comparison, we can even use other images of the set from the series, where it's obvious - black panels with red squares and telephone atop, are not copyright design breaches. Since the Archives are an official and reputable source, where this image has been selectively released with specific context from material intended to be public, the CC-BY 2.0 is likely valid/correct. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- A New Zealand Doctor Who Magazine archive even claims the BBC gave specific permission for the original ads, which are definitely more intrusive than this production still. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Informatieve titel.wav

Out of scope: unused, unidentified music. Omphalographer (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as:

Omphalographer (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use theese in my vpyt vids and i use them for powerpoint presentationq. Zozo7077 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is not storage for your personal files. Please store these files elsewhere. Omphalographer (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where can i store them? My files are full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozo7077 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Downtown Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (edited).jpg

Recent upload by blocked user Aliphotography sockpuppet of ArionStar.
No freedom of panorama in United Arab Emirates. Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty disappointed that ArionStar did the one thing I told him not to do: sock. Oh well then, I guess this image needs to go for the reasons layed out by the OP. Wolverine X-eye 06:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the justification under which this has been uploaded is that the buildings are de minimis because it is a general view of the skyline rather than a specific view of any building. This may be a plausible reason to keep, but I’d like to see a comment from someone with more experience in interpreting these cases. Cmao20 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

another note, this picture was not originally uploaded by Arion, he just did a perspective correction on it. The original file has been on Commons since 2016 and is here Cmao20 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cmao20, for the comment. As always, the sockpuppet has also created mess in the structured datas and perhaps elsewhere. There might be other issues that would require work from volunteers, as has already been demonstrated on previous occasions, thus I find safe just to delete this wrong version, and eventually let someone else do the right job later if essential.

Moreover, this photo has been clearly used to create disruption on our galleries, thanks Cmao20 for the dozen of reverts, 2, 3, etc. See also Yann's edits on the FPC page. For all these reasons, it seems wiser to me not to waste any more time with a completely unwelcome import from this vandal. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you. It is probably the right thing to do to delete this version, because it has caused us nothing but inconvenience, and to leave the original for now. It’s not even a particularly good perspective correction, when I look at it compared to the original. I am sorry to the uploader of the original whose innocent upload has been used for frivolous purposes. Cmao20 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem de minimis. What is it a perspective correction of? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The embedded color profile has also been altered from the previous version. It is now "Display P3" instead of "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" in the original. When opening the derivative on Photoshop, the colors appear indeed subdued. Grayish sky with less nuances in the surface, and tarnished sunset. In my opinion, it's really a bad idea to use this file instead of the other, or even to let others think that this version is improved. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! Could you link the previous version? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Same to you 🎊! The previous version you can download from the source or see the link given by Cmao20 above, that is a faithful version, in my view, both containing the standard color profile "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. I don't have any strong opinion about this edited version, based on just looking at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also per COM:SPAM: Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. (see diffs above) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amhi Ichalkaranjikar helping hospital.jpg

Claiming a news article as their "own work" GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speech of Peru ambassador in shahu school.jpg

Claiming a newspaper cutting as their "own work" GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vikas Kharage school speech news.jpg

Claiming a newspaper cutting as their "own work" GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ek Harit Chalval.jpg

Claiming a book cover as their "own work" GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panchaayti Raj VK.jpg

Claiming a book cover as their "own work" GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not own work but PD per COM:TOO India (I think the squiggle on the lower left is de minimis). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant’s Foodmart logo.jpg

This image was deleted because there’s an image that’s a higher quality. (From Author: KatilynMoore105) KaitlynMoore105 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:XML Notepad 2007 icon.png

Apparently COM:DW of Windows Notepad icon (Windows XP~10 era). So the MIT license of the software cannot apply here. Teetrition (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:It's Beautiful and Yet Dangerous in the Wide Open Spaces, Richard Fruth, 2010 (8d3190e4-1dd8-b71c-07e1-9c1adf5b1830).jpg

NPS photo, but it's a photo of artwork that is probably not public domain (artist Richard Fruth, date 2010). – BMacZero (🗩) 04:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cinesystem Ventura Shopping

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCI Shopping Palladium - 4.jpg

Out of scope: bad quality due to noise and blur. File:UCI Shopping Palladium - 3.jpg could very well serve similar purposes than this image. Grand-Duc (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Orient Cinemas Feira de Santana

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cine Show Beiramar Shopping

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

On three files, I'd like to get a second opinion. It's about Cine Show Beira Mar Shopping - 11.jpg, Cine Show Beira Mar Shopping - 12.jpg and Cine Show Beira Mar Shopping - 15.jpg. I'm not sure whether these memorabilia could eventually be seen as permanently exhibited.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Cinesystem Villa Romana

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent deletion requests, and Happy New Year! I think Cinesystem Villa Romana - 01.jpg is de minimis, though, because the name of the cinema in lights is so dominant and the Willy Wonka poster is so dark. It's very clearly subsidiary and not the point of the photo. So I'd Keep that one photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could augment the brightness of the JPEG with a few clicks in the most basic graphic onboard tools of any current OS, an action that would make the Wonka poster appear much more dominantly. There's also File:Cinesystem Villa Romana - 02.jpg with nearly the same viewing aspect - but the poster got cropped at its bottom, that's why I did not include this file. By comparison, a De minimis case is easier to argue for "02" than for "01". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that one is more de minimis, if that's a meaningful phrase. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two files in Category:Sala de Cinema Gilberto Gerlach

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Paradigma Cine Arte

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Additional rationale, only for Paradigma Cine Arte - 4.jpg: out of scope, useless due to blur.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arcoplex Del Paseo

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, excellent deletion requests. I think File:Arcoplex del Paseo - vista da escada.jpg is de minimis, though, because the ads are so blurred, so I'd

Keep that photo and

Delete the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arcoplex Pátio Dom Luís

The Smurf sculpture does not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence it becomes a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as it is not incidentally included, being a notabel point of anchor to one's vision while looking at the photographs.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All except File:Arcoplex Patio Dom Luis 04.jpg are arguably de minimis. I'll defer to the closing admin, of course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cine São Luiz (Fortaleza) - Portão e programação.jpg

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included. Grand-Duc (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably de minimis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two files in Category:Cinépolis RioMar

The DR is based upon two policies.

For Cinépolis RioMar - Entrada da Sala VIP e billheteria.jpg: The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

The visuals in Cinépolis RioMar - vista do foyer.jpg also fail at complying with FOP rules.

Cinépolis RioMar - Vista da bomboniere.jpg fails at being in scope, the blur makes it useless (-> COM:EDUSE).

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:UCI Shopping Parangaba

The advertisements do not fulfil the requirement of permanent exhibition in a public place that is needed for COM:FOP Brazil, hence they become a copyvio. COM:De Minimis is also not applicable on the nominated files as the protected works depicted on them are not incidentally included.

In UCI Parangaba - Bomboniere.jpg a case could be argued that the hotdogs and snack images are below the needed Brazilian TOO.

Grand-Duc (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Socrates Buenaventura Villegas.svg

Per request of author, duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_Archbishop_Socrates_Villegas.svg, will update this file instead. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author? You claim to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, the author of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Socrates_Buenaventura_Villegas.svg which is to be deleted, requested for the deletion of this said file, in favor of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_Archbishop_Socrates_Villegas.svg. GiovanniYosh12 (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in English, it's clearest to say "I, the author, request deletion..." Otherwise, it sounds like you're talking about someone else. And the problem is, it's COM:INUSE and you uploaded it almost a year ago. So I don't think it can be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's no longer in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pokpung-ho.jpg

dubious authorship DerpGunKV2 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flavour Network Canada Logo.png

Not used, no longer useful and better official version at File:Flavour Network logo.svg Flavour Network (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this logo was formerly used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HGTV Canada logo.svg

Not used, replaced by File:HGTV Canada logo.png because the logo is altered at bottom of the letter G Corus Entertainment Inc (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: still useful. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HGTV Canada logo.svg

Was kept by mistake, logo is altered at bottom of letter G and not used or no longer used Flavour Network (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is a formerly used logo. We don't delete old logos of notable companies and organizations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This logo was never formerly used, we clearly see that it's uploaded by mistake with the design cut at the bottom, especially the bottom of the letter G. The File:HGTV Canada logo.png is the right version still used.--Calmoriing (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it definitely was never used, I would support deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could find a same version with full botton of letter G by not missing part of this letter and overwrite a new version, keep it and replace in related articles the png version with this higher quality svg version, but if nobody can find it, delete this altered file.--Gingoball (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If found, the color must to be this same blue color, I noticed a first version uploaded had the wrong blue color and like the previous comment, delete it if a right version not altered is not found.--Peguissoo (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:こち (アイドル）.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 1.33.123.150 as no source (No source since) Krd 08:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Areál Ferrit.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mdaniels5757 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does have EXIF, and I can't find it elsewhere on the internet, but given that they uploaded the corporate logo as own work I think it's better they confirm to VRT that this is indeed own work. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also give the camera location. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:07060jfMary Help of Christians Parish Church J. P. Rizal Street, Maypajo, Caloocan Cityfvf 30.jpg

The altar table is fairly recent; per the marker, it was blessed and consecrated in 1999. Manufactured and "donated" by "Navarro family". A likely work of craftsmanship, but this is not Britain/Singapore/Australia/HK. This is the Philippines, where there is no Freedom of Panorama for any landmark that is still under their artists' copyrights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:54. Briey. Cité Radieuse (102).jpg

The building was completed in 1957 by Le Corbusier (1887–1965). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2036 A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le droit français n'est effectivement pas aussi tolérant à ce sujet. Néanmoins, au vu de la loi de 2016, s'agissant d'une photographie à usage non commercial, je ne vois pas bien où est le problème. Cela étant, je ne suis pas juriste, et si l'organisation Wikipedia France souhaite réellement se protéger façon ceinture-bretelles, alors il faut proposer à la suppression la quasi-totalité des photos d'architecture du XXe siècle, et la totalité de celles du XXIe siècle, sur Wikipedia.fr. Je vous laisse en faire la liste, elles se comptent par milliers ! ClaudeH (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand French, but I write better in English, so I will note for you that COM:Licensing requires permission for commercial use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcel Peters (DER MP16).jpg

Out of scope: Not relistically useful for educational purposes. Poor exposure. Many better examples in its nominated category "Men". Unused. Headlock0225 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was used for self-promotion (de:Special:DeletedContributions/DER MP16) --Schniggendiller (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Anima Encounter

The only contributions of Anima Encounter are 10 files uploaded in 2023. They are all obvious examples of nonsense. --Watchduck (quack) 11:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Fernandoocosta (talk · contribs)

Flickrwashing (uploaded the same day), see also Special:DeletedContributions/Fernandoocosta.

Achim55 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Центральне телебачення СРСР.png

Does not match any point under PD-Russia. Not part of TASS, ROSTA, or Karelfintag and created in 1982, far after the 1954 cutoff for anonymous works. Mupper-san (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for the 1982 creation date, though? There's a file on enwiki that says that a similar looking logo was the "final" logo from 1982 to 1991 (see en:File:TV USSR logo.svg) but it doesn't say that the previous logo was much different. If you go to the linked source page of en:File:TV USSR logo.svg and then check that page for "ЦТ СССР 1951" (transkription: CT SSSR 1951) you'll see a very similar logo with blue background dated to 1951, not 1982. And you can also find very similar Radio Moscow logos, for example dated 1970[2] and throughout the 1970s[3], or with an unspecified date[4], or even here on Commons since 2006 as PD due to being government work: File:Radio Moscow logo.png — a QSL card from 1969, according to German Wikipedia. Nakonana (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Abdulrahman2222 (talk · contribs)

صور ليست لها أهمية أو ترويجية

Mohammed Qays 🗣 12:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MICHEL CURY - FOTO 1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Yanguas as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.instagram.com/p/DECp4VqOouB/?img_index=1 Yann (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Instagram page doesn't exist. The uploader claims to be the subject. Yann (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Tauragės radijo" logotipas.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Logo May be PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeroflot cargo logo.png

tagged as fair use on enwp --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo is copyright protected, the scope of this deletion nomination goes beyond the nominated file and would also affect files in Category:Aeroflot logos. Nakonana (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Gono Odhikar Parishad.svg

The stars on this flag are not in the same direction as the stars on the original flag. Mahmudurr (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tausheef Hassan (talk) 3:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)According to the party's official website https://www.gop.org.bd/? on the top left corner you can see that the stars are clearly rotated, not vertical. the party's official website is the official version of the flag

File:Exl logo rgb orange pos.jpg

Non-photographs should not be in JPG. Redundant to File:EXL Service logo.svg. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:장성수회장.jpg

There is no evidence of this image is uploader's own work. there is a same image from 한겨레 news.(https://v.daum.net/v/20140519223007530) Sqncjs (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sorayagallardo (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Alantris (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by JulenTxikiYT (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by TJKK.SFC (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Aianskiy (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Neheovadni (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Hollie Turner (talk · contribs)

DW, also out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Education hub (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TRoP S02 E04.jpg

Screenshoot from original movie record Sumek101 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Yousef Hajivand (talk · contribs)

unlikely to be own work

Didym (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sophie clicetsite (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foto Rehman .jpg

out of project scope Didym (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete personal photo by non contributor not in scope. Also the images supposed to depict the uploader but is clearly taken by someone else, so it might not be an own work 999real (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Fellow Traveller jaune.png

Overwritten file: there are two different logos in the history. The old revision is unfree and should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stefan2! Would you be able to tell me (or to link me a guide about) how to remove the old revision? Or is this type of deletion only available to admins? --Alecto Chardon (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion can only be done by administrators. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that we move this discussion to Files uploaded by Alecto Chardon instead @Stefan2 and Alecto Chardon: --Trade (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alecto Chardon, the proposal is to delete all revisions of many files, whereas this one is only about deleting the old revision, so I suggest we don't merge the requests as it risks causing confusion. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete the copyvio in the history. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:38 SEGMENT DISPLAY.webm

The description only says "PEKSEG" is licensed under CCBY4.0, but this is probably referring to the segment display and not the video. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it would be a good idea if somebody with a Twitter account could ask the author to clarify that point. The video description links their account: https://x.com/pekerokotan/status/1820917873646411942 Di (they-them) (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Agavali (talk · contribs)

out of project scope

Didym (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Britsol IMGP9286 (2725957405).jpg

Motion blurred, amongst other technical problems. Unused photo from a bulk import from flickr. We have cleaner photos of this building (in Category:Wapping Wharf (Bristol)) and of reflected fireworks. Steinsky (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bristol waterfront (112121705).jpg

Blurry / motion blurred. Unused image, part of a bulk import from flickr. We have plenty of much cleaner images of this location in Category:Bristol Bridge, Category:Redcliffe, Bristol and Category:Bristol Harbour. Steinsky (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian Veske, portree.jpg

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bristol IMGP9167 (2726728206).jpg

Blurry / motion blurred, among other technical issues. Unused image from a bulk import from flickr. We have several cleaner images of this building in Category:Wapping Wharf (Bristol). Steinsky (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stenzel.jpg

Personal photo; not used anywhere (the user page was deleted). Radmir Far (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISTC Urban Sniper Course - FN SCAR-H PR with night vision.webp

low quality duplicate of File:030621-Z-JY390-010 - ISTC Urban Sniper Course (Image 1 of 20).jpg Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ominis Hope (talk · contribs)

Per COM:DW, photographs of copyrighted works

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden FAn1hpzXIAYIOwq.jpg

who took the photograph? Who is the photographer Carter (see "author")? Is it Jimmy carter with a selfie-stick or a tripod? I think it is a press photo which is copyrighted. 2A02:3100:B25F:8200:C4E1:657B:94A7:458F 14:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think". Cool story. It'd be bizarre for President Carter to sign and send to a senator a press photo when there's a White House photographer at these Oval Office meet-and-greets for the very purpose of capturing photos like this. Especially since this is clearly a glossy, and not a press clipping. That, and the fact that we can discern that it is for certain the work of a White House photographer (Karl Schumacher in this instance) since it appears on the first cell of this White House contact sheet. I say

Keep SecretName101 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for correcting the author. now keep 88.128.88.46 11:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beverly Hills Cop - official franchise logo.png

This file does not appear to meet the criteria for PD simple due to the paint splatter effect on COP. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discord logo.svg, File:Discord logo.svg was registered for copyright in the United States. "Clyde", the logo, was less complicated than the various breaks and splatters in the word "Cop" in this logo. Under the Precautionary principle, it is better to not assume that this is PD. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: below COM:TOO US as mere stylized text. Per the US Copyright Office's Review Board ruling on File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg: "Although some graphical works largely comprised of lettering may be copyrightable, those “very limited cases” are when such characters include original pictorial art that forms the entire shape of typeface characters, such as, where the work is “an add-on to the beginning and/or ending of the [typeface] characters.” Id. For example, this might include an oak tree for a “T” or an “O” with flourishes that make the letter appear as a wreath. See id. But the “mere use of text effects (including chalk, popup papercraft, neon, beer glass, spooky-fog, and weathered-and worn [effects]), while potentially separable, is de minimis and not sufficient to support a registration.” Id." [5]. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joker Folie à Deux Logo.png. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdaniels. I do note that en:File:Disney Junior.svg has specifically been identified as crossing the threshold of originality in the United States. Without being able to consult the ruling, I cannot see whether it was the inclusion of the otherwise non-original mouse ears or the 3D effect of the font. Although Cyberpunk may have been found to be below the TOO, without any firm ruling I still feel like the precautionary principle would uphold deletion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no formal ruling for that to consult because it wasn't appealed (i.e. Disney got the registration on their first attempt). There is, however, a related DR (and associated UDR). That DR concerned a PNG with some shadow effects, but I don't think those mattered -- even without those, I think the SVG you linked is above the threshold mostly due to the stylization of the "i" (with the mouse for a dot, the shaded top of the base, and two contrasting buttons). I think this image is more like Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Junior 2019 logo.png or File:Disney logo.svg. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mdaniels5757 and COM:TOO US. Note the following: 'the US Copyright Office does not consider text effects to be sufficiently unique to render a logo copyrightable, stating that "the mere use of text effects (including chalk, popup papercraft, neon, beer glass, spooky-fog, and weathered-and-worn), while potentially separable, is de minimis and not sufficient to support a registration' -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep text Dronebogus (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per consensus (and so that I can close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 3#File:Beverly Hills Cop - official franchise logo.png.) (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun-Flyer-Prototype-mountains.jpg

unlikely to be own work Didym (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ertuğrul Sağlam 2023 (cropped).jpg

There is no evidence that Flickr account https://www.flickr.com/people/199780831@N08/ is an official account of the football club. Curiously it only has photos of the players and coaches and nothing else. Anyone can register an account on flickr. There is no link to this flickr profile from https://kocaelispor.com.tr/ Xia (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AF 006 Miranda Krestovnikoff.jpg

possible copyvio © ADAM FRADGLEY - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Future Osborne Naval Shipyard.jpg

This is a copyright violation. Despite the claim on an IP, this is still a copyrighted image, see The Advertiser :https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/osborne-shipyard-to-triple-in-size-for-aukus-nuclear-submarines/news-story/b6b26728893a55116bec267a59633f56 It would have to be released from copyright by The Advertiser to be uploaded here. Opolito (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Группа Животная Лирика, фото состава 2023 года.png

Неактуальное изображение, которое не используется ни на одной странице Nozhikov (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicki Minaj Barbie Premiere 2023 (cropped).png

copyvio - uploaded to VOGUE Taiwan, other deletion requests with regards to photos from there ended in delete because the videos can also be found without CC license on the main vogue channel and it is unclear whether whoever uploads them to VOGUE Taiwan has permission to release under a different license. link to video see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Watson 2023 head and shoulders 1.jpg TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk · contribs)

Logos are above COM:TOO for Japan.

(Oinkers42) (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Tingle logos to censor the roses, if the banner at the top is a problem as well (the Japan rules are a little vague to me), I can try to crop it out, and may crop out the roses as opposed to censoring them while at it. If both of those options are null, feel free to remove (at least assuming the Freshly-Picked logo is counted as a Japanese creation and not European) RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]