Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/01/02

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive January 2^nd, 2021

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:Stamp of Afghanistan - 1964 - Colnect 354949 - Kabul International Airport.jpeg

Ghsifiso 2601:680:C301:1890:8455:635E:C8FF:8E42 00:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ---akko (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2021 (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 talk:An der schönen blauen Donau.ogg

Files must be in the public domain in the United States as well as their country of origin. Per the Cornell copyright chart, sound recordings published outside of the United States between 1923 and 1946 are protected for 100 years after publication; this file will therefore enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2037. In the meantime, it is not suitable for Commons. Mysterymanblue 03:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: accidental nomination of talk page (I meant to nominate the corresponding file for deletion). Mysterymanblue 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Withdrawn and closed by nominator before anyone else entered the discussion. Mysterymanblue 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterymanblue (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 January 2021 (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:Morikoro1.jpg

数年前の画像のため現状と異なるからモリコロパーク (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google translate from Japanese gives the above rationale as "Because it is an image of several years ago, it is different from the current situation". This is not a valid reason for deletion, and the file is in use in two articles in Japanese Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ---akko (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2021 (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:Saira Peter.jpg

copyright violation Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2021 (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:Saira Peter Singer.jpg

copyright violation Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 17:45, 2 January 2021 (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:Saira Peter Opera Singer.jpg

Deleted: per nomination. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 17:45, 2 January 2021 (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:Sibanye Logo.jpg

upload by mistake Nabucco Fisico (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2021 (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:خط کوفی.png

this is worthless Naghme zandian (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (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:Hatsune Miku NT.png

There is no info about free license on source page. It only has copyright info © Crypton Future Media, INC. Veikia (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 15:39, 2 Januar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 21:20, 2 January 2021 (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:樋口日奈.jpg

アップロードは間違いです Komatu46 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nominated by uploader shortly after upload. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Verbcatcher. T128-2 (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2021 (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:Fairy Tales for Worker's Children.djvu

Work by a Austrian author who died in 1951. Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleteMy fault, I thought that book published in the United States must be written by an American...廣九直通車 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2021 (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:Photo VrfwA3kkNm9vFJ7WBGoQkPDTkE4oVDPvtsjLeShRbEK.jpg

Publicity Pierre cb (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. --Minorax^talk 14:49, 3 January 2021 (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:Unlegendarynoob - Google Search.pdf

Out of scope,a PDF containing screenshots of a Google search for a YouTube channel (to promote it?), not educationally useful. Dylsss (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons:Screenshot. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2021 (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:Education.pdf

Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (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:Dr. R.A.Slaughter, author, Turning the Page.pdf

Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2021 (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:Carlos Martinez Rojas Periodismo en santander.pdf

Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2021 (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:Hande Erçel.jpg

Same source as this. — D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 17:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted: This file was also mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hande-Erçel.jpg but closing admin didn't notice it. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Cristianmeli04 (talk · contribs)

Uploader claims to be the person in the photo, so likely copyvio. And OoS - commons is not a photo album

Gbawden (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OTRS permission is likely needed for these photos to be accepted. --ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedying per F10: Personal photo by non-contributors; copyvio concern is, of course, also entirely valid. --Эlcobbola _talk 18:01, 6 January 2021 (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:Steaven desuyo.jpg

Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx ^Re: 01:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:35, 9 January 2021 (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:Urielel (skin).png

Unused user graphic, uploader has no other live global contributions. Out of project scope. Ə XPLICIT 01:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:35, 9 January 2021 (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:CrescentCityBanner.jpg

Unsutible JackReynoldsADogOwner (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probable copyright violation, published before upload to Commons.[1] Similar to a book cover.[2] Verbcatcher (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:36, 9 January 2021 (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:Aman Yadav.jpg

Out of scope personal image. E4024 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:36, 9 January 2021 (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:Nirob ahmed.jpg

Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. jdx ^Re: 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:42, 9 January 2021 (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:Shani soft drink.jpg

COM:PACKAGING. Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:42, 9 January 2021 (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:FaizalHussein(Bunohanfilm01).jpg

Copyright violation. Same thing also goes to File:FaizalHussein(Bunohanfilm01) (cropped).jpg.Fandi89 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete metadata gives author as ISKANDAR IBRAHIM, which does not match the claimed author. No free license at http://www.iskandaribrahim.com/ Verbcatcher (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:43, 9 January 2021 (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:Josiah Dallas Dort.png

mistaken title based on misidentified subject Nick Number (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nominated by uploader shortly after upload. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:44, 9 January 2021 (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:Signature of Josiah Dallas Dort.png

mistaken title based on misidentified subject Nick Number (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nominated by uploader shortly after upload. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:44, 9 January 2021 (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:GRABBA DAN FULLA GYAL.jpg

Unfree album cover -akko (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:44, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Grabba dan (talk · contribs)

Unfree software screenshot.

-akko (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:44, 9 January 2021 (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:Ethyl3.PNG

Replaced in lb:Ethynylatioun with TeX equivalent:

{\ce {{Na} {HC}\equiv {CH}->[THF]{NaC}\equiv {CH}->[R-Br]{R}-{C}\equiv {CH} {NaBr}}}

Now unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:46, 9 January 2021 (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:Italian Sliding Door Wardrobe.jpg

Unlikely to be own work, found elsewhere on the web: https://web.archive.org/web/20120511182814/http://www.gomodern.co.uk/store/crystal-mirror-sliding-door-wardrobe.html Hasley 19:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:50, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Eliseo tovar (talk · contribs)

Self-promotional content only. All unused.

GeorgHH • talk 20:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 01:49, 9 January 2021 (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:Kitsun1337.jpg

unused, doesn't seem to be in a scope. Pibwl (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2021 (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:I9A6291.jpg

Copyright holder:Tural Hetemli E4024 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2021 (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:Scanned chopstick wrapper sleeve-How use chopsticks instructions-scaled for fair use.png

I forgot that fair-use product cover images belong in Wikipedia, not in Commons Fred Hsu (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2021 (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:VHKd3qyJSkTmuCtnLTk8DNgBPf62AsEbPaiTRekcrTt.jpg

Screen capture of meaningless text on a cell Phone Pierre cb (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2021 (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:Hure and Mohammed V.jpg

low-res version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_sultan_du_Maroc_recevant_le_général_Hure.jpg vip (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INUSE so processed as a dup. --Gbawden (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2021 (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:9wEowcEjnmZfyrQACmp5UeQ5wozxtcCRYPEPeEdVx8z.jpg

Screen capture of meaningless texte on cell phone. Pierre cb (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2021 (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:Sunset in Ilocos.jpeg

Poor quality user page image no longer in use. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2021 (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:Photo uxH2KtB4AW9equRDTcK4x647hc8yvrBNtc2GBr7bbsw.jpg

Out of score of an encyclopedia : product promotion Pierre cb (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2021 (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:Photo etCRiTdaT7xRKxuWEGk7pQPYa2ppNW4AAZEfZCGVr2R.jpg

Out of focus photo of personal nature. Pierre cb (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; next time SD F10. --Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2021 (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:Photo VCWUHSVsJSpJeZM7vDxf23Gmhqx6ggiBypfmTkywwCf.jpg

Publicity Pierre cb (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Com:Packaging. --Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2021 (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:Dropped cone Cologne.jpg

There are WAY better alternatives than this. Why was this garbage transferred here? Please delete. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 23#File:Dropped cone Cologne.jpg. Courtesy pings for @P,TO 19104 & @JWilz12345 -FASTILY 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in use at w:Claes Oldenburg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE below COM:TOO US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2021 (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:Karaoke HiFi.jpg

A personal file with derivative work as the background. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2021 (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:Pumpkin glowing in dark.jpg

Photo out of focus. Not used. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2021 (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:District destinations.jpg

User page image no longer in use, not educational. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Tikwrong (talk · contribs)

Uploads by an SPA that have no EXIF data, low resolution. Roomstaal1 is also used in official album art

Vera ^(talk) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2021 (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:Сортавала-Пристань схема 2.jpg

Attributed here as a map from 2001 book by Erkki Mattila. Definetely not {{Own}} and very likely a copyright violation. Красный ^{wanna talk?} 14:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Lukasstalmans22 (talk · contribs)

Low-res pictures, no EXIF, unlikely to be own work.

Thibaut (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Lukasstlmns2020 (talk · contribs)

Low-res pictures, no EXIF, some of them look like screenshots from Google Street View, unlikely to be own work.

Thibaut (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2021 (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:Rick Owens Logo.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Móriczné N. Lenke

The author is Móricz Istvánné Nagy Lenke (1889–1970). Her short name is Móriczné N. Lenke. She died in 1970, see here.

Regasterios (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Cristinabarona (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used or used in vanity Wikidata item.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete files, and then the empty category. Quakewoody (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (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:EjemplosPáginaRelevante.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: unused WMP project page screenshot. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Podéis borrarlo. You may delete this file, no need for this request. --Virum Mundi (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (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:The-Mk1-PB-FHR-reactor-vessel.png

Uploaded in error, copyright not owned James D DE (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (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:FHR reactor schematic.png

Uploaded in error, copyright not owned James D DE (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (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:Cutaway SSR-W.jpg

Uploaded in error, copyright not owned James D DE (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2021 (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:R-12988478-1545984980-9972.jpeg.jpg

This is an album cover. Several people are credited for its design, none of which is the person who uploaded it. מור שמש (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhythmnation2004: this should be a discussion, not a vote. Please say why you oppose deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete record cover artwork is assumed to be non-free. The license must be validated through COM:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (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:Arvore genealógica Família Taveira Barros.pdf

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (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:Dev Griffin BBC Radio 1 Profile Image.jpg

Image is taken from the BBC website, with no evidence that the BBC has released it under the given licence. Trey Maturin (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no free license at the specified source. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (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:Natalia Carabetta.JPG

Owner doesn't want to made it public anymore Scarabetta (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Courtesy deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2021 (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:AnaYago-2020-wikipedia.jpg

COM:OTRS permission from photographer (not the uploader) needed Strakhov (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Olivolo (talk · contribs)

Artworks of hr:Frano Missia (died 2018). No permission.

Smooth O (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (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:Prajeshsen 2.jpg

Size, quality and transmission data suggest this has been in and out of instagram (square size) prior to being here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete published in a news report that is dated before the upload to Commons.[3] Verbcatcher (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2021 (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:The beatles.PNG

Probable copyright violation. Low-resolution crop of a larger image available elsewhere.[4][5] Possible record cover artwork.[6] A posed group portrait of a famous pop group is probably the work of a professional photographer. Several images from this uploader have been deleted as probable copyright violations. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Clear false info; most of user's other uploads already deleted as copyright violations with false claims. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (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:Nechama Leibowitz.jpg

The file is a derivative work without information of the original work. sB^talk 13:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Own work" seems very unlikely, looks like a scan from a book. --91.34.38.171 15:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This photo, taken in Israel, is over 50 years old, which as far as I am aware, puts it in the public domain. It was supplied by the author of a book on Nechama Leibowitz.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand labeling as "own work" was clearly incorrect, and unfortunately you are mistaken about public domain. See Commons:Copyright_rules#Copyright_rules_by_territory. Copyright is life 70 in general, ranging up to life 100 in about five countries. Almost nothing is Public Domain unless the author died prior to 1951 (unless explicitly released as public domain, or US-govt work which is declared public domain, or other rare exceptions). That copyright length is arguably excessive and absurd, but absurd law is still law. Alsee (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Delete from commons as copyrighted, unless we receive licensing from the copyright owner. However it is likely possible to local-upload to EnWiki and some other specific wikis that have a compatible EDP which allow fair use of copyrighted content under certain restrictions. Alsee (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, false license, false authorship claim, no indication of actual free license provided. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that this photo was deleted. The professor in question died many years ago and has no family. She was an important figure in Israel, whose work continues to resound until today. Someone who wrote a book about her provided me with the photo, which I cropped a bit. There is no one who can provide another photo and there is no question that whoever took this one, probably in the 1950s, is no longer living. So does a person who has no family deserve to be forgotten and have no one know what they looked like because of some absurd copyright law?Gilabrand (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Demonstrably free licensed status is a primary requirement here on Wikimedia Commons. Whether copyright laws might sometimes be "absurd" or not, we are bound to follow them to the best of our abilities here. I'll also note that you uploaded the photo with multiple false claims. As to importance regardless of license status, you may wish to check at en:Wikipedia if it could be used in an article under "non-free fair use" status. Otherwise, there are a great number of other places on the internet where photos can be uploaded. Thanks for your attention, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2023 (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:Riga Tv Tower and Island bridge as seen from a railway.jpg

This image was posted or published on pixabay on April 4, 2020 on an unfree license. Leoboudv (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uploaded to Pixabay after the 9 January 2019, as stated on the Commons license template ({{Pixabay}}). Bidgee (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (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:Helga-Raumer.jpg

This is an official press photo from a 1962 film. I'm afraid we don't have the necessary permission to use this photo from the rightsholder (DEFA), so we have to delete this file. Gnom (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Regasterios at 15:24, 10 Januar 2021 UTC: No permission since 2 January 2021 --Krdbot 21:12, 10 January 2021 (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:Alexander Wang.jpg

It violates Commons:Photographs of identifiable people as an attack on its subject. It uses the image of an identifiable person without permission and defames the subject. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, also a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (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:ATOMIUM-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (19).jpg

While this is part of the Atomium complex and Belgium has now adequate FOP for Commons since 2016, the work depicted here is a textual work. After the unsuccessful undeletion at COM:UNDEL for a related picture (Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12#File:CONGRESS COLUMN-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (11).jpg), it's becoming evident that literary or plaque texts are not covered by Belgian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

File:ATOMIUM-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (20).jpg (by the same uploader of the above-mentioned image) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:49, 17 January 2021 (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:ליאל חיון שחקן ישראלי.jpg

A formal PR picture of an Israeli actor doing his first steps. It cannot stay in the Commons without a proper OTRS release note. Ldorfman (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:53, 17 January 2021 (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:Vellam location.jpg

Lack of metadata and standard Facebook size and quality suggests this image was in and out of Facebook before arriving here. Requires url source and COM:OTRS of photographer to retain. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the title and the use in w:en:Vellam: The Essential Drink indicate that this is was taken during the filming of a movie. It is likely to be a publicity photo for the movie. It was uploaded by a new user whose other uploads have been deleted or nominated for deletion. We should require license validation through COM:OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:04, 17 January 2021 (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:鹿島愛彦.pdf

Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:07, 17 January 2021 (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:Descarga.jpeg.jpg

no source HaThanhPhuoc (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this appears to be the logo of an e-sports tournament held in Mexico City, which is likely to be protected by copyright. Some might argue that this is allowable under the threshold of originality, but COM:MEXICO does not have any guidance on this. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:08, 17 January 2021 (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:Prof.Dr. Ania Kalleshi.jpg

Uploader claims to be the person in the photo, only upload of this user, think we need OTRS. PCP Gbawden (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the CV in the description is out of scope as excluded educational content. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:13, 17 January 2021 (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:Jean-Marie Lemieux 1984 Quebec.jpg

Clearly a scan of a photo. 1984 photo uploaded in 2019 - we need OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:13, 17 January 2021 (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:LowlaDee.jpg

"Photo taken by photographer, Ore Sofola" We need Sofola's permission via OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:13, 17 January 2021 (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:Evapoporometry equation,.PNG

unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 17 January 2021 (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:ExactnSphereManifoldSequence.gif

Replaced in hy:Շոշափողակոյտ with TeX equivalent:

S^{n}{\overset {\ \ i\ \ }{\hookrightarrow }}\mathbb {R} ^{n 1}-\left\{0\right\}\xrightarrow {\ j\ } \mathbb {R}

Now unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 17 January 2021 (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:TangentificationOfExactnSphereSequenceManifold.gif

Replaced in hy:Շոշափողակոյտ with TeX equivalent:

TS^{n}{\overset {\ \ Ti\ \ }{\hookrightarrow }}(\mathbb {R} ^{n 1}-\left\{0\right\})\times \mathbb {R} ^{n 1}\xrightarrow {\ Tj\ } \mathbb {R} ^{2}

Now unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:23, 17 January 2021 (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:EXAMPLE167.png

Replaced in sr:Википедија:Вики гимназијалац/Dualna priroda mikroobjekata with TeX equivalent

{\begin{aligned}\lambda ={\frac {h}{p}}={\frac {h}{mv}}&={\frac {6.63\times 10^{-34}J\cdot s}{(9.1\times 10^{-31}kg)(6.0\times 10^{6}{\frac {m}{s}})}}\\&={\frac {6.63\times 10^{-34}{\frac {kg\cdot m^{2}}{s^{2}}}\cdot s}{(9.1\times 10^{-31}kg)(6.0\times 10^{6}{\frac {m}{s}})}}\\&={\frac {6.63\times 10^{-34}{\frac {kg\cdot m^{2}}{s}}}{5.46\times 10^{-24}{\frac {kg\cdot m}{s}}}}\\&=1.2\times 10^{-10}m\end{aligned}}

Now unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 17 January 2021 (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:Exp smoothing formula.png

unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 17 January 2021 (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:Felicidad = Integral del Estado anímico = 0.png

unused image that should not be an image W_I^KImaniac 12:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:24, 17 January 2021 (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:TEST 2 - SVG to PNG conversion.svg

This file was uploaded by me for test purpose only. Campgrounds (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 17 January 2021 (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:TEST - SVG to PNG conversion.svg

This file was uploaded by me for test purpose only. Campgrounds (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 17 January 2021 (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:Weltweiter Primärenergieverbrauch nach Energieträgern.svg

Logo and footer break when file is converted from SVG to PNG. Campgrounds (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:31, 17 January 2021 (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:Louvre-Lens-day.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 20:43, 19 January 2021 (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:Louvre-Lens-night.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (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:Musée du Louvre Lens.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Looks like the court of the museum. Every architectural element is de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (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:Duck - panoramio (9).jpg

This controversial artwork from the litigious artist Florentijn Hofman is located in Spain, where the Spanish freedom of panorama applies only to works that are permanent and in outdoors. While this passes the outdoor criteria, it fails permanence. It is not permanent so cannot benefit from Spanish FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:23, 20 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Ponte della Musica

Sorry, but this building of Kit Powell-Williams Architects is too recent (2011) and Italy has no FOP exemption.

Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome).

Raoli ✉ (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:38, 13 January 2013 (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.

Files in Category:Ponte della Musica

No freedom of panorama in Italy. The bridge was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, except File:Ponte della musica 06.jpg. This can not realistically be manipulated in any way that would infringe on the architect's copyright. Ə XPLICIT 07:25, 21 January 2021 (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:Rustavi Sioni.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The church was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:11, 21 January 2021 (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:Sioni of Rustavi.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The church was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:11, 21 January 2021 (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:რუსთავი 2.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The church was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:11, 21 January 2021 (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:რუსთავი 3.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The church was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:12, 21 January 2021 (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:რუსთავი 4.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Georgia. The church was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed. A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:12, 21 January 2021 (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:السفارة الأمريكية في اليمن.jpg

per COM:FOP Yemen -akko (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:04, 21 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Royal Opera House Muscat

No freedom of panorama in Oman. The building was completed in 2011 and permission from the architect is needed.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 11:47, 21 January 2021 (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:Badamdar.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 02:52, 22 January 2021 (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:Баку, телебашня и часы.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 02:54, 22 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Ueroku Cinema

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works.

Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 03:39, 22 January 2021 (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:AeonmallMakuharishintoshin-GrandSquare.jpeg

COM:DW of copyrighted artworks. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:49, 22 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Sarajevo City Center

The building was completed in 2014 by architect Sead Gološ (1969–2020). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus permission from him is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to write to him to ask for permission, but I realised he just died... is there any other way? --Dans (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dans: The copyright terms of BiH lasted for 70 years, that means the copyright of the building expires on 1 January 2091, and they can be restored afterwards. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gološ was the author of several more modern buildings in downtown Sarajevo. I would wait before deleting all their pictures, as it is most unlikely that the heirs would complain about their use (there's plenty of pics of his buildings everywhere). We can try contacting the heirs for an OTRS (though it won't be easy). --Dans (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate that. As for File:Sarajevo – City Center.jpg I'd however like to emphasize, that SCC is shown only in the background. --j.budissin^/- 09:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with nomination, like for all FoP cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Permission would be perfect, by i doubt that we can get it. --Smooth O (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 04:27, 23 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Sarajevo City Center

The building was completed in 2014 by Sead Gološ (1969–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2091.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 12:25, 17 September 2022 (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.

Files in Category:Tabiat Bridge

per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Iran - construction on this bridge started in 2010 and finished in 2014

INeverCry 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2016 (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.

Files in Category:Tabiat Bridge

The bridge was completed in 2014 by architect Leila Araghian (1983–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran, thus permission from her is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:13, 23 January 2021 (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:Wario.jpg

COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:27, 23 January 2021 (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:Luigi.jpg

No metadata, authors name has no connection to uploader's name, probable COM:COPYVIO esp. with notation "album privato" Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:12, 10 November 2014 (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:Luigi.jpg

COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:25, 23 January 2021 (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:Donkey Kong.jpg

COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:23, 23 January 2021 (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:Donkey Kong.jpg

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

Kept: this file has higher resolution; deleted and redirected the other one as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shama.png

Pretty sure this isn't the uploader's own work, so it's likely just copyvio. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 05:30, 23 January 2021 (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:ShukriYahaya.jpg

I assumed this image is not uploader's own work. This is a copyright violation. Fandi89 (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a smaller copy of w:ms:File:ShukriYahaya.jpg, which has a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. However that file page indicates that the source is the Malaysian TV channel TV3, so we should require verification of the license through COM:OTRS Verbcatcher (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 05:30, 23 January 2021 (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:Rena Matsui.jpg

Copyright violation - Stage48 is a wiki, and this image is owned by Nogizaka46's agency Lullabying (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 05:28, 23 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Bonner zoologische Beiträge - Herausgeber- Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn (1961)

This is not a work of US govenrment, 1961 publication by a German entity. The images cannot be treated as "free from restrictions".

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:40, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Bisai Cinerama Power signboard 2020-12 (2).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:29, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Theater Central Be-Kan 2020-01 (5).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:33, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Meien Cine Salon entrance 2019-07 (3).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:31, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Meien Cine Salon entrance 2019-07 (2).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:31, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Shinsekai Kokusai Gekijo 2020-05 (3).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:32, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Okayama Melpa lobby 2020-07 (2).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:32, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Shinsekai Kokusai Gekijo 2020-05 (2).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:32, 23 January 2021 (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:RZ Hiroshima Yokogawa Yurakuza 2020-07 (2).jpg

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 05:31, 23 January 2021 (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:Logo billieme.jpg

CopyVio du logotype de la commune de Billième. Poudou99 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 05:24, 23 January 2021 (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:Red Hand Commando Badge.jpg

No evidence of ownership or permission to release under free license. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 06:44, 27 January 2021 (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:Шукшин.jpg

Violation COM:FOP Russia. Maxinvestigator (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 23:49, 27 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tabiat Bridge at sunset

The bridge was completed in 2014 by architect Leila Araghian (1983–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran, thus permission from her is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:59, 28 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tabiat Bridge at night

The bridge was completed in 2014 by architect Leila Araghian (1983–). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Iran, thus permission from her is required.

A1Cafel (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:58, 28 January 2021 (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:Balvu iela - TV tornis (1).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:30, 28 January 2021 (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:Riga TV Tower (2020).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:31, 28 January 2021 (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:Skats no Mola uz Rīgas televīzijas torni - panoramio.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:32, 28 January 2021 (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:¶ - panoramio (11).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Latvia A1Cafel (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 06:32, 28 January 2021 (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:Shulgin in memoriam 9320.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Russia for sculptures and 3D plaques.

Ras67 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 02:58, 28 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Antiqlor (talk · contribs)

Peinture de Marcel Hocq qui n'est pas dans le domaine public, autorisation nécessaire

Shev123 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Antiqlor (talk · contribs)

Artist is still alive so the paintings need his permission and the photo of the artist is a likely copyvio. clearly an old photo, not taken in 2020 as the exif says

Gbawden (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Antiqlor (talk · contribs)

peintre mort en 2021. Il faut donc l'autorisation des ayants droits, voir Commons:OTRS/fr

Shev123 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2022 (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:Poster of People's Life Party & Taro Yamamoto and Friends (22826790321).jpg

COM:DW of a copyrighted poster. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 16:30, 8 February 2021 (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:Peta-Rute-Commuter-Line-KAI-Commuter page-0001.jpg

This is clearly not own work but a copy of the official map at http://www.krl.co.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Peta-Rute-Commuter-Line-KAI-Commuter_page-0001.jpg Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Wdwd at 14:30, 8 Februar 2021 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 20:49, 8 February 2021 (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:Photo of wikimedian SuperSucker SuperPark in 2013.jpg

Image of blocked user. E4024 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. Commons is not driven by policies from other projects. There are plenty of active users on this project that are blocked on others and we have no policy of damnatio memoriae which rewrites history as some sort of punishment. --Fæ (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy New Year, Fae; you know very well I have no Latin language feelings, especially as a user blocked in three WPs. You are acting as if you have not seen the vandalism following the user, including this file. I am real sad to be criticised by a Commoner who is known to be quite objective by the majority. --E4024 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any critique is for the lack of policy underpinning the nomination. I have done no research into user histories, if the image itself is not being used for harassment or disruption, it's hard to understand why it meets any criteria for deletion. If by 'Latin language feelings' you mean that damnatio memoriae doesn't mean much, follow the link. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User is globally locked. Not just on some projects (I am now banned too for being his friend basically). Also, he sent an email to the stewards yesterday requesting edits to his talk pages (at wikipedia and wikimedia, the only pages linking to his photo) to delete the part above the "Welcome" message, including his photo then. But they refused somehow (actually he is waiting for a second, clearer reply). He thinks you are all feminists, including the stewards, while he is an anti-feminist. You can picture how f*cked up this whole situation is. Happy New Year 2A02:C7F:982E:7900:7968:E1C4:702E:7E2B 13:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Delete, looks like captured from an Italic-styled house, if yes then I would say that Italy doesn't have FOP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I googled "Italic-styled house" and it returned zero results. Indeed I wonder how you can deduce it's got anything to do with Italy, since it only depicts the corner of an empty room.

User (SuperSucker_SuperPark) actually believes the feminist administration that banned him (and me as well, for being his friend basically) enjoys using the argument that he must be very italian after he disclosed he speaks Italian fluently, because of the myth of the italian macho man. In fact, he's nothing like an Italian person, rather a Spanish party guy (the picture, he says, was either taken in Spain or London by the way), than an Italian macho man. The reason why the administration likes to bring this up is that it devalues his rather anti-feminism contributions on male and female suicide. Because the concept of "macho man" brings up misinterpretations when it comes to gender equality issues (and italian men are often seen as crime-affiliated, thus violent and spooky too.. but in his case, as in violent towards women). And so it's "quite outrageous" he says. He believes he was forced to add to his page (a short while before being banned) that he only spoke italian fluently (which is true as he worked there on a 10-year contract since 2009) for this exact reason, so that readers and admins would relate to him on this personal level and make wrong assumptions about his contributions. Also the macho man myth brings up the argument of southern european tanned men being more masculine than northern, and since Europe is the most suicidal region in the world, it aids their feminist enjoyment. I know it's all "too weird to be true" but I know him in real life and such is the ill situation he faced for speaking out about male and female suicide in the wiki-world (a very feminist enviroment). Maybe, Liuxinyu970226, you are unknowingly part of the wiki-administration feminist little group that obstructed his contributions and then banned him. Don't let them fool you, he is a mixed-ethnicity British-born guy but a migrant since early age into Mediterranean countries (mostly Iberian countries). Nothing like an Italian man, rather a travelling gypsy. 2A02:C7F:982E:7900:A9B8:513F:E126:5580 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trump was just acquitted yesterday, but this user is not?.. Seriously, he cares not about this photo, but still he would like the intro to his talk pages blanked as it reports personal information that he

never wanted to publish in the first place
affected and still does affect his real life (see here his section opened in November, but also you can read his wikimedia talk page also since November 2020, for more on this)

I am a friend of his in real life (you can ask stewards for a confirmation on this as he's available to confirm our words via email from his registered email address anytime), and the situation is as follows...

Long story short: he's a victim of real life stalking by British and Italians, here in England since 2017 by Brexit negotiations and Trump's presidency, and so he was forced to write the intro for their political/economic interests parallel to EU feminism. Unbelievable but true. The cause was his contributions on male excess in suicide he'd began towards the end of 2017. A very hot topic unfortunately, to EU feminists.

More about it, as said at his talk page and here (specifically his IP edits and his friends' since November 2020.. he is banned). 2A02:C7F:982E:7900:2D6C:F5A4:2F92:364C 01:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Generally speaking I would've !voted keep if this was a hard-working and serious editor however unfortunately at EN they appeared fixated on changing WP policies and appeared to care more about drama than articles. Here they were slightly more serious however they've not done much here other than focus on one image.

There's going to be no loss from their image being deleted here. Apologies if this sounds nasty however their name wont ring any bells, they've never been remembered or even known for doing anything good here so yeah delete. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of fact, is his "wiki-carrier" has been more like a besiegement than anthing else. He was even forced here in our neighborhood to shoot photos naked in 2018, and then intimidated they would've been used against him. But would you believe him? Clearly not. He had to face constant real life harassment by EU feminists on one hand, but also feminist censorship on wikipedia. It's naturally unbelievable, but unbelievable things happen. Indeed, how would you explain Trump acquitted twice yet Clinton slammed for a quicky? And the pandemic in itself? Seriously.

We (himself and us his friends, we are all migrants by the way) are shocked by this whole situation in the first place, but also he does face issues for the intro because once every while, random people is intentionally invited to read it at his two personal pages, and to then harass him and mob him in real life based on the fact he is sort of publicly committed to defeat feminism. Of course he doesn't want to involve the police as he's quite an introverted being in reality, being a migrant nonetheless (however, he wants to leave the UK and me too, as soon as the national restrictions on travel are lifted).

Probably, it's clear he was not able to communicate the real life danger posed by the organized feminists stalking him here in England, because clearly nobody thinks of feminism posing any danger at all. It's feminism indeed, that is always viewed in favor of equal rights and even non-violence. He says people hardly catches this absurdity and that for this reason western gender roles stay spoiled the way they are (males acting like females should, and vice versa, basically).

He concentrated on the image of the ratios of male to female suicide rates since the beginning, here at wikimedia, but you won't believe this neither.. at first he did it only to give some weight to his written contributions at en.wikipedia. Only after recognising the feminist administration was not going to let him change the widespread perspective (being that male excess in suicide is a natural occurrence, basically), he became a map builder in the hope of writing down the long description here at wikimedia, kinda like to prove them wrong, in the end. Certainly he's thankful he was allowed to contribute at wikimedia while he was banned at wikipedia (however, wikimedia banned him too after a few months, and he couldn't really just make a new username because, admins are not that oblivious).

Thus yes, he appears like a casually spoiled teenager, but he was literally forced to (maybe it can be inferred by the way he changed during the first half of 2018, when he began experiencing the stalking the most in real life). He never intended to appear like an idiot himself, an "idiotic troll" he says.."I was basically made an idiotic troll exactly as when I was a teenager 20 years ago".. and he laughs and shouts (he is 39 actually). A funny random guy surely, but not an idiot. He was simply forced to, in order to remove credibility from his contributions unwelcome because against the widespread thinking. 109.249.184.169 15:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you explaining his edits and whatnot however unfortunately it doesn't change my opinion sorry, Just to clarify blocked or unblocked I still would've !voted Delete. Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion. However you could see how disturbing this has been to him for so long. He picked a username shouting "I'm a bitch". Okay, that was his failure of imagination.

In reality however, he is nothing but a steady EU migrant, a very composed troubleshooter. With the introduction of the euro currency in 2002, western europe became obsessed with money and the overpricing of space, and everybody was required to make more money than needed turning into rich entrepreneurs, in simple words. It made little sense to many, including himself, who instead looked for just cheap space, out of this money-making confusion. This is why he picked the cheapest area in England to migrate to (the north, we pay less than 500 dollars for a 2000 sq. feet furnished flat indeed). He also wanted to practice his english language skills (very important to EU migrants) after having worked and learned a new language in Italy since 2009.

So he was just up to reasonable space to relax as a middle-aged man while bettering his english, even though during the socially tumultuous Brexit. And yet he ended in this wild situation in which he is handled as the freakest idiot of all time by total strangers, hunted by hypocrite and bigot but in the end dangerous entrepreneur-wannabes hailing billionaire Trump and EU feminism at the same time (Trump was labelled a misogynist at times by public opinion, but they were so happy with him as in being motivational). He says he wants to live enough only to tell the story. Thus whatever happens to the image is not important as blanking the intro for good, possibly deleting it from the history as well, together with the couple of occurrences of his full name he ended up publishing (also forced by the stalkers, in order to be understood as an overly talkative and empathetic editor). 109.249.184.169 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Despite the long discussion, the image does not contain any useful metadata, has JPG artefacts and there's no indication of user's own work - not apparently a Selfie, and our Precautionary Principle. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Jose Panganiban Monument, Rizal Park

This bust is among the 20 bronze sculptures of heroes in Rizal Park unveiled in 1998 and sculpted by Ros Arcilla, who is apparently still alive (source). These sculptures are still copyrighted in the Philippines which has no Commons-compatible Freedom of Panorama provision.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Argument and Legal discussion with registration of a very strong Legal Objection to the Continuous Mass Deletions of herein Nominator who is not even Armed with IPO or DOJ Replies, Circulars and S.C. Jurisprudence or USA rulings on FOP; it is humbly submitted that the Mass Nominations are reckless and disturbing: here are my Legal reasons to Keep all the photos Nominated for Deletion by herein Nominator:

Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz On hold - Need to discuss results with other CUs. Started on 9 September 2020 "Reason: I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by User:MGA73 on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly block this account, its child account Mrcl_lxmna and IP range of 120.29.109.24 for reckless DRs. --exec8 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) User:Exec8 This is a data gathering exercise and checks will be run (or not run) based on actual evidence provided and our own assessment of its (de)merits. : Conclusion: On hold only but not dismissed;
Other editors or Administrators may re-nominate these subject photos in the future, once the IPO and DOJ Secretary issues Rulings on my 2 Letters;

I strongly disagree with opinions I had seen or heard that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz is ended; it is merely put only that is - pending submission of further evidence;

Local government property and National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Keep Because Only the copyright owner or assigns can question the FOP or file Deletion requests; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controversy ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices;

Keep Because the photos Historical National Treasures or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them;
I contradict argument that artists or sculptors and architects did not transfer their rights to the Administrator or owner of all these, like Rizal Park Administration; for how can the Government build build build any property without owning the accessories; this is a legal absurdity; accessory including all moral and absolute rights are ipso facto transferred to the Government or its agencies when it is the principal Owner in Fee simple or title holder;

In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;

Stop mass nominations Mrcl lxmna case

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week.

This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 Cybercrime vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.

My Legal Challenge to the herein Nominator of Mass Deletions Requests: why don't you email the IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright Head, as I did before (letters to IPO Director and Directress) or the DOJ Secretary and submit your questions - Deletion requests here in Commons with specifics for Ruling, Reply and Opinion pending or awaiting a S.C. Ruling on FOP Commons Uploading vis-à-vis Copyright Infringement or De Minimis; and the very Lis Mota or Cruz of the Matter: Whether or not any editor of commons, including you, may ask for deletion of FOP photos allegedly owned but not proven by the Artist sculptor or Architect - heirs? Judgefloro (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park. Ownership doesn't equate to copyright, most especially to buildings and sculpturrs "owned" by the state and public: refer to both COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works and COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works for info (these new sections are supported by relevant clauses at R.A. 8293). So unless there's a formal contract in which Arcilla transferred his copyright to the management, the copyright shall be considered as still under Arcilla's heirs. It is the "burden of the uploader and the defense" to present evidence, as per COM:EVIDENCE. BTW, Mr. Arcilla died in 2006 so PD in the Philippines in 2057. But COM:URAA = 1998 (installment/publication) 95 1=2094. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:16, 16 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park 1

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines.

Kelly (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2015 (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.

Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park 2

These busts are among the 20 bronze sculptures of heroes in Rizal Park unveiled in 1998 and sculpted by Ros Arcilla, who is apparently still alive (source). These sculptures are still copyrighted in the Philippines which has no Commons-compatible Freedom of Panorama provision.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Delete per nom. Missing permission from sculptor Ros Arcilla. Rizal Park management has no copyright holder-ship over this work. Permission must be sent by the sculptor (the uploaders will need to contact the sculptor) through COM:OTRS email correspondence. If the claim is "to wait until IPOPHL-Wikimedia discussion/dialogue happens" see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle and COM:CARES. See also my unsuccessful restoration attempts to a 1951–72 era Philippine building at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-10#Files in Category:Exterior of the Cathedral of the Holy Child (Aglipayan), Manila for in-depth explanation of precautionary principle in relation to the copyrights of architects and sculptors. If no OTRS permission coming from the sculptor is provided, undelete when FOP is introduced in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Inputs by Judgefloro

Argument and Legal discussion with registration of a very strong Legal Objection to the Continuous Mass Deletions of herein Nominator who is not even Armed with IPO or DOJ Replies, Circulars and S.C. Jurisprudence or USA rulings on FOP; it is humbly submitted that the Mass Nominations are reckless and disturbing: here are my Legal reasons to Keep all the photos Nominated for Deletion by herein Nominator:

Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz On hold - Need to discuss results with other CUs. Started on 9 September 2020 "Reason: I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by User:MGA73 on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly block this account, its child account Mrcl_lxmna and IP range of 120.29.109.24 for reckless DRs. --exec8 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) User:Exec8 This is a data gathering exercise and checks will be run (or not run) based on actual evidence provided and our own assessment of its (de)merits. : Conclusion: On hold only but not dismissed;
Other editors or Administrators may re-nominate these subject photos in the future, once the IPO and DOJ Secretary issues Rulings on my 2 Letters;

I strongly disagree with opinions I had seen or heard that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz is ended; it is merely put only that is - pending submission of further evidence;

Local government property and National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Keep Because Only the copyright owner or assigns can question the FOP or file Deletion requests; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controversy ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices;

Keep Because the photos Historical National Treasures or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them;
I contradict argument that artists or sculptors and architects did not transfer their rights to the Administrator or owner of all these, like Rizal Park Administration; for how can the Government build build build any property without owning the accessories; this is a legal absurdity; accessory including all moral and absolute rights are ipso facto transferred to the Government or its agencies when it is the principal Owner in Fee simple or title holder;

In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;

Stop mass nominations Mrcl lxmna case

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week.

This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 Cybercrime vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.

My Legal Challenge to the herein Nominator of Mass Deletions Requests: why don't you email the IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright Head, as I did before (letters to IPO Director and Directress) or the DOJ Secretary and submit your questions - Deletion requests here in Commons with specifics for Ruling, Reply and Opinion pending or awaiting a S.C. Ruling on FOP Commons Uploading vis-à-vis Copyright Infringement or De Minimis; and the very Lis Mota or Cruz of the Matter: Whether or not any editor of commons, including you, may ask for deletion of FOP photos allegedly owned but not proven by the Artist sculptor or Architect - heirs? Judgefloro (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to @Judgefloro: the sockpuppetry accusation against Howhontanozaz was weak and since having no hard evidences, that investigation ended up closed in a natural manner (archival). And take note, Howhontanozaz is one of a few Pinoy Wikipedians whom I contacted personally on Messenger (others include HueMan1, Exec8, IanLopez1117, Sky Harbor, and Higad Rail Fan), and this finally debunks any claim of Mrcl lxmna - Howhontanozaz connection. Any further accusations to be made by you may "boomerang" towards you (possibly instead of helping your defense, you may be faced at COM:ANU), so let us stop any more accusation (besides, that troll-like newbie nominator seems to have become tired, as I can no longer see their added nominations since late November). Like what many admins said before, let us stick the discussion to the nature of the FoP-reliant subject and not accusing the nominator themself.

For the work — the busts at Rizal Park by sculptor Ros Arcilla. While the government owns such artistic works (or even buildings like Malacañang Palace), their ownership doesn't automatically waive any subsisting copyright which is held by the creators. See also COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works (supported by Section 176.3 of the Republic Act No. 8293). For this case, there should be evidence that Arcilla did indeed transferred his copyright to the Rizal Park administration (via formal contract), otherwise the due ownership of copyright remains witg him. Payment of fees do not remove copyright ownership: Section 178.4 speaks of the commissioned works: "In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary." Per Commons:PCP, these files cannot be hosted here without concrete evidence that Arcilla (by contract) transferred his copyright.

Browsing through several images, none of them are de minimis: they are neither incidental nor accessory. So I'm afraid that all these should go. If possible, you must contact the management to ask "who is the copyright holder of the busts" (not "who owns the busts"). If they will respond that Arcilla indeed transferred his copyright via a contract (not a fee), such claim should be forwarded to COM:OTRS via email. Otherwise, these will remain deleted until FOP comes here in the Philippines. And it is not the nominator's or the Commons editors and admins to prove: Commons:Project scope/Evidence states that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained."

By the way, I searched about the sculptor. According to [7], Ros Arcilla (or full name Rosalio Beltran Arcilla, Jr. was born in 1939, and died in 2006. So these sculptures will fall PD by 2057 (50 1 years after his death). But, as an artwork eligible for copyright in the United States (COM:URAA), I'm afraid these won't be undeleted until 2094 (95 1 years after the date of publication of the work, for this case the erection of busts in 1998). Unless FOP is finally introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Wouldn't it just be 70 years pma since this was published in 1998, which is after the URAA date of 1996 thus was automatically granted copyright protection? According to COM:Hirtle Chart and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, "Works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for 70 years after the death of the creator". Howhontanozaz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Howhontanozaz: I'm not sure about this, but per comments by some admins here foreign works are protected for 95 years after the date of publication. Since this work was created in 1998, the time of URAA restoration (or establishment) of U.S. copyright for all Philippine works still in copyright, it passes URAA requirements. But URAA concept is too complicated (it doesn't apply to all non-U.S.buildings fortunately). I tend to apply the "date of publication 95 years". Pinging @Clindberg: for further clarification on URAA and when will Mr. Arcilla's busts at Rizal Park fall PD in the U.S.A.? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 07:02, 16 February 2021 (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:9685Philippine Independence Day, Rizal Park 09.jpg

This bust is among the 20 bronze sculptures of heroes in Rizal Park unveiled in 1998 and sculpted by Ros Arcilla, who is apparently still alive (source). These sculptures are still copyrighted in the Philippines which has no Commons-compatible Freedom of Panorama provision. Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park. Ownership doesn't equate to copyright, most especially to buildings and sculpturrs "owned" by the state and public: refer to both COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works and COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works for info (these new sections are supported by relevant clauses at R.A. 8293). So unless there's a formal contract in which Arcilla transferred his copyright to the management, the copyright shall be considered as still under Arcilla's heirs. It is the "burden of the uploader and the defense" to present evidence, as per COM:EVIDENCE. BTW, Mr. Arcilla died in 2006 so PD in the Philippines in 2057. But COM:URAA = 1998 (installment/publication) 95 1=2094. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 03:42, 17 February 2021 (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:Ekaterina Fedorova.jpg

copyvio, not free license in source, the person depicted in the photo shown as author Lesless (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: personal picture of non-user. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Marie-Pierre Morel (talk · contribs)

From newspaper / book cover, not own work.

GeorgHH • talk 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish ^💬 15:04, 22 February 2021 (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:Photo of Aman Yadav.jpg

" This is a photo clicked at home during summer holidays." The user is now using another username, therefore we cannot even accept this as a userpage image. The only use at a so-called sandbox is not important as he is not notable for any reason. E4024 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused personal image. Someone is using Commons as a personal web host. JIP (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ə XPLICIT 03:11, 23 February 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Marcelo H. del Pilar Bust in Rizal Park

This bust is among the 20 bronze sculptures of heroes in Rizal Park unveiled in 1998 and sculpted by Ros Arcilla, who is apparently still alive (source). These sculptures are still copyrighted in the Philippines which has no Commons-compatible Freedom of Panorama provision.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Argument and Legal discussion with registration of a very strong Legal Objection to the Continuous Mass Deletions of herein Nominator who is not even Armed with IPO or DOJ Replies, Circulars and S.C. Jurisprudence or USA rulings on FOP; it is humbly submitted that the Mass Nominations are reckless and disturbing: here are my Legal reasons to Keep all the photos Nominated for Deletion by herein Nominator:

Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz On hold - Need to discuss results with other CUs. Started on 9 September 2020 "Reason: I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by User:MGA73 on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly block this account, its child account Mrcl_lxmna and IP range of 120.29.109.24 for reckless DRs. --exec8 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) User:Exec8 This is a data gathering exercise and checks will be run (or not run) based on actual evidence provided and our own assessment of its (de)merits. : Conclusion: On hold only but not dismissed;
Other editors or Administrators may re-nominate these subject photos in the future, once the IPO and DOJ Secretary issues Rulings on my 2 Letters;

I strongly disagree with opinions I had seen or heard that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz is ended; it is merely put only that is - pending submission of further evidence;

Local government property and National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Keep Because Only the copyright owner or assigns can question the FOP or file Deletion requests; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controversy ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices;

Keep Because the photos Historical National Treasures or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them;
I contradict argument that artists or sculptors and architects did not transfer their rights to the Administrator or owner of all these, like Rizal Park Administration; for how can the Government build build build any property without owning the accessories; this is a legal absurdity; accessory including all moral and absolute rights are ipso facto transferred to the Government or its agencies when it is the principal Owner in Fee simple or title holder;

In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;

Stop mass nominations Mrcl lxmna case

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week.

This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 Cybercrime vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.

My Legal Challenge to the herein Nominator of Mass Deletions Requests: why don't you email the IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright Head, as I did before (letters to IPO Director and Directress) or the DOJ Secretary and submit your questions - Deletion requests here in Commons with specifics for Ruling, Reply and Opinion pending or awaiting a S.C. Ruling on FOP Commons Uploading vis-à-vis Copyright Infringement or De Minimis; and the very Lis Mota or Cruz of the Matter: Whether or not any editor of commons, including you, may ask for deletion of FOP photos allegedly owned but not proven by the Artist sculptor or Architect - heirs? Judgefloro (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park. Ownership doesn't equate to copyright, most especially to buildings and sculpturrs "owned" by the state and public: refer to both COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works and COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works for info (these new sections are supported by relevant clauses at R.A. 8293). So unless there's a formal contract in which Arcilla transferred his copyright to the management, the copyright shall be considered as still under Arcilla's heirs. @Judgefloro: , it is the "burden of the uploader and the defense" to present evidence, as per COM:EVIDENCE. BTW, Mr. Arcilla died in 2006 so PD in the Philippines in 2057. But COM:URAA = 1998 (installment/publication) 95 1=undelete in 2094 (if ever FOP isn't yet introduced here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 12:02, 8 March 2021 (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.

Apollo 11 Commemorative Coin Contest images

Despite the text of the Template:PD-USGov-money tag, this image is not in the public domain. Under the terms of the contest that brought about this coin, "Designs must be assigned to the United States Mint and will become its sole and exclusive property." Therefore, this image is the intellectual property of the Mint and it is not freely usable. As an aside, Template:PD-USGov-money needs to be radically reconsidered or discontinued because the statement "If this is an image of paper currency or a coin not listed here, it is solely a work of the United States Government, is ineligible for US copyright, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States." is simply not true. Mysterymanblue 10:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're correct; the Sacagawea dollar was an exception, and was cited as such. The Mint is fully capable of stating on its web pages that any design produced as the result of a competition is under its copyright and it has not done so, only mentioned the Sacagawea dollar which has always been understood to be covered by copyright. In any event, the reverses would be free of copyright as Phebe Hemphill, a federal employee acting within her duties, was the designer.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find some reference online to the fact that the government acquired in exchange for payment the copyright to the Sacagawea dollar, but that the rules were changed thereafter for the state quarter designs so that those competing in a coin selection competition released their rights. I don't see that the language you cite constitutes the government acquiring a copyright. Are there 21st century examples of the government asserting a copyright in this or a similar coin (not counting the Sacagawea)?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the contest page for the Apollo 11 design contest, "This means that the artist will not retain any rights in the design or drafts, and will not be able to use or allow others to use them (or designs substantially similar to them) without specific written permission from the United States Mint in its sole discretion." The Mint is asserting a right to prevent even the designer of the coin from using the design, which seems to indicate that it holds intellectual property rights over the designs and does not consider them to be freely usable. We should not assume that a mint design is public domain just because the Mint does not make the status of its IP more widely known. As for this website that is often used as a list of "exceptions to the rule" of public domain coinage, it is clearly stated that the Sacagawea $1 coin and the other things listed there are only "Examples of materials in which copyrights have been assigned to and are owned by the United States Mint". This use of the word "examples" indicates that this list does not extensively cover every case where the mint holds copyright over a design. Mysterymanblue 18:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wehwalt Randy Kryn (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has come to my attention that the contest only covered the obverse of the coin. Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination from all of the images which only show the reverse:

My nomination for the deletion of the images containing the obverse stands as it was designed by Gary Cooper, who was not an employee of the federal government carrying out his official duties when he made the design; he therefore had copyright over the design which was then transferred to the mint. Mysterymanblue 19:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to your points, Mysteryman, I find the use of Sacagawea significant, and not simply as an example. The Mint publishes copyright notices when reproducing the Sacagawea design, see for example the tweet reproduced in this article that Vox later withdrew, here. That coin's obverse is protected by copyright. I see no indication that the Mint has asserted copyright in a similar manner in the case of the Apollo 11 obverse. Where, for example, is any copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a copyright notice is irrelevant to the copyright status of the work. The active assertion of a copyright is likewise irrelevant to the copyright status of the work. You're right: Wikimedia Commons is unlikely to be sued by the US Mint for hosting images of this coinage because the mint doesn't seem to care like it does for Sacagawea design. However, the question is not "does the mint go out of its way to proclaim its copyright?" but "are these images public domain or otherwise freely usable?" Regrettably, the answer to the second question would appear to be "no", so these files do not belong here on Commons.

Interestingly, the US Mint has registered some of its copyrights with the Copyright Office (search here for "United States Mint" under "Name"). While not legally required to gain protection, perhaps this is the sort of assertion you are looking for. Included with the Sacagawea design are several other coin designs that are not explicitly listed on the Mint website, which further goes to show why the US Mint PD tag needs to be rethought. While the Apollo coins are NOT listed in the database, the Mint has registered copyright over the 2020 Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coin design (images of which are currently being hosted on Commons - oops! In a few days, when I have time, I will probably nominate these files for deletion). Also, the language governing the transfer of rights for the baketball design are very similar to the Apollo one.

So what's the point I'm getting at? If the US Mint were able to register copyright over the basketball coin, that means it held copyright over the basketball coin. Since the rights transfer language was the same with the Apollo coins, it is likely that the Mint also holds copyright over that design as well. Mysterymanblue 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is not a specific design use policy for the commemorative series, here the Mint clearly states that the images are "for a story on a United States Mint product". I believe Wikipedia falls under that category. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, that sort of restricted licensing term is not considered acceptable for hosting on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps fair use/these sorts of licensing terms are acceptable if you directly upload the images to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) for use on articles, but Commons generally does not allow files hosted for sole use on other Wikimedia projects. Mysterymanblue 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this image as I see compelling reasons. 1. Although the image is of the whole coin (one-side) it is a small publication and only a full image can be shown. Thus I argue it fulfills the public interest. 2. Given the number of coins minted, it is quite widely available (at least in its country of issue); hence copyright restrictions seem illogical. 3. It is an image of a significant American and global event, so again it's in the public interest. 4. The US Mint is a government agency, and hence is ultimately owned by every American (even ones living overseas); so "We the people" are the copyright holders, the Mint only manages it on our behalf. Just about every US Government publication I've ever seen explicitly states it is not copyright, so this should be in the public interest. I exclude those who replicate this image in cases of forgery, because that's illegal on other grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David AH Morton (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your concerns. In my ideal world, the mint, and other agencies of the US government (or really, any government anywhere) would not be allowed to hold copyright except in a very narrow set of circumstances. However, the reality of the situation is that the Mint does hold copyright over these works and Wikimedia Commons policy prohibits the hosting of non-freely usable works. The public interest, minimal usage, wide circulation, and other fair use rationales for hosting these images are neither acceptable under Wikimedia Commons policy. Additionally, the fact that the US government derives its power from the people does not imply that every piece of property it owns is usable by US citizens (see: w:en:Bundy standoff). As to your point about other government works being in the public domain: that generally only applies to cases where an employee of the US federal government made the work in the course of their official duties. In this case, an individual who was not an employee designed the coin, and their copyright was then transferred to the treasury department. In such a case, the copyright is owned by the mint and the intellectual property does not lie in the public domain. Indeed, the mint website explicitly lays out that there may be many cases where mint designs contain “copyrighted material created by third parties that has been assigned to and is now owned by the United States Mint”. Mysterymanblue 08:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For works of the US government, the default assumption is that it's public domain, and the "burden of proof" is to show it's actually under copyright. The cases where copyright is a concern - Sacajawea, some of NASA's stuff, etc. - generally have the fact they're still under copyright explicitly called out. The nominator has laid out a case for why these images might possibly not be PD, but I think something more is required - there's reams and reams of government work (including Mint work) that operates under the PD standard implicitly, without having to declare for each and every work that yes, this too is public domain. If we're to believe that this really is copyrighted and not PD, let's see something more explicit than a possible interpretation of old contest rules that doesn't sound like it's necessarily accurate, and if it was accurate, suggests that there should be more prominent disclaimers elsewhere as per the Sacajawea example. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: The law is what the law is and the law is clear:

A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties.17 U.S. Code § 101

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.17 U.S. Code § 105

A copyrighted work can only fall under the scope of Template:PD-USGov, or similar PD tags, when it is a work of the United States government as defined above. These tags absolutely cannot apply in any case where a work was not prepared by an employee of the United States Government. Prepared by a contractor? Not a work of the U.S. government. (Contractors are not employees.) Prepared in a contest? Not a work of the U.S. government. (Members of the public are not employees of the U.S. government, and contests can never be considered "official duties".) Rights transferred to the U.S. government? Not a work of the U.S. government. (The mint cannot transfer copyright to itself.) Not public domain.

It seems that the standard you would demand for a work owned by the U.S. government work to be removed from Commons would be for it to have a copyright notice. In my ideal world, the U.S. government would have to publicly, loudly, and unambiguously copyright over works that it owns to receive protection. However, the law is what the law is and the law says that copyright exists from the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium. A copyright notice is not needed for a work to be protected, even if the work is owned by the United States government.

I would love it if all work done by, for, or on behalf of the U.S. government lay in the "implicit public domain". Certainly, that would make our work on Commons much easier. However, the law is what the law is and the law says that to place a work into the public domain requires an "overt act evidencing that intent" (See page 6 here). To do nothing is not enough. There has long been talk of reforming the policy surrounding orphan works so that they can enter the public domain. But this is not the law; it is speculation. For a work owned by the U.S. government but not a "work of the U.S. government" as defined above to be in the public domain requires extraordinary circumstances.

The work in question was prepared by 1) a person who is not an employee of the U.S government 2) for a contest, with 3) a rights transfer agreement to the U.S. mint. Section 105 of Title 17 of the U.S. code categorically cannot apply under these circumstances. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we therefore must assume that the works are copyrighted. Mysterymanblue 23:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an image of an original prototype personally created by Gary Cooper, or of art Cooper made on his own, sure, I'd agree. However, the actual coins were made by Real Employees and by the Mint, so the usual public domain rules would apply. The reverse case is easy as you've already noted above, but I'm not sure the art being from a contest really affects the obverse either. If Cooper did not "sign away" his copyright to allow this, and the Mint produced these under some special arrangement rather than the usual government rules, then what I'm suggesting is that there should be some sort of copyright notice, similar to when the US government produces items where the copyright is held elsewhere.

Or, to put things another way and since you bring up contractors before, suppose the federal government hires a contractor to compile some background documents (and it's not just raw data / facts which aren't copyrightable). Now suppose that these documents are then used by federal government employees to create a new publication, and the new publication even directly cites the original contractor documents or includes long-form quotes from them. This is very common. Is this new publication in the public domain, including the parts that quote the original docs? I'd argue (and I believe most courts would agree) that yes, it is. The federal government "owned" some copyrighted docs it had commissioned, and then it used them in a new work, but that new work was a government work so it's public domain.

Anyway, rather than theorycraft here among ourselves, have you considered contacting the Mint and just asking them? Might be the best way to resolve this. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: You're right that the U.S. government would not receive copyright protection in any derivative work it created based off of Cooper's design. However, derivative works are protected both by the copyright of the derivative work and the copyright of the original work. This is why, for example, both the composition and the recording of a song must be freely usable for a song to be hosted on Commons. The Navy Band's performance of Dolly Parton's "9 to 5" would not be freely usable - even though it is a work of the U.S. government, and even though Dolly Parton gave them permission to make it - because the the composition of "9 to 5" is still protected by copyright.

So if the Mint made copyrightable modifications to the design that Cooper made, the resulting derivative work would lie in the public domain. But it would still be protected by the copyright of the original design that the Mint owns.

I also cannot stress enough that a copyright notice is not required under copyright law, even for works owned by the U.S. government. For example, the Basketball Hall of Fame commemorative coins were registered copyrights of the U.S. mint, but the mint never placed a copyright notice on the designs. The lack of a copyright notice gives no information on the public domain status of a work. To get more information, I reached out to the Mint to ask them about copyright issues surrounding some of their coins, but they gave no helpful response. I may file a Freedom of Information Act request for the rights transfer agreement for these coins in the future, but I am unsure if they would even release that sort of document or how long it would take.

That being said, I mostly reached out for this information to gain more persuasive power on Commons. I don't think the Mint can really provide much more. We know these designs were not created by an employee of the federal government in the course of their official duties, so we must give them the same presumption that we give all other works: that they are protected by copyright. Mysterymanblue 22:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the term "derivative work" because I'm not sure this actually is legally a derivative work as term of art, though, is what I'm saying. All of what you say is true in the abstract, but the issue is that it's not clear it's relevant to this particular case. Yes, works can have copyright without notice; yes, it's possible the Mint could have "owned" a copyright without releasing it. But lots of things are possible: works that we believe to be public domain because the author is 70 years dead could have it turn up that the author faked their death and actually died a decade later. You've made a case for why the resulting coin could possibly have a separate copyright bled in that is not PD, but per my original comment, I believe we need something more concrete here. The coin was a work of the federal government. Barring the rare cases where the federal government explicitly does disclaim PD-ness, the default assumption is that these resulting works are public domain fully and completely and of safe provenance. If that isn't true for this case, let's see a direct statement, not guesswork, because federal government works being PD is in fact the default rule. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I think on Commons we can sometimes get so wrapped up in our internal conversations that we forget the ultimate origins of copyright law. We see that almost everything the federal government puts out is in the public domain, so we start to create these assumptions (federal government owned work = public domain). The issue is that these assumptions are based off of our feelings of the law and not what the law actually is. That is why I make the distinction between a work owned by the U.S. federal government and a work of the U.S. federal government. Works of the federal government are defined in statute as "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." (17 U.S. Code § 101) The origin of the public domain status of the vast majority of works put out by the U.S. government is 17 U.S. Code § 105, which states that, in general, "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government". All U.S. government PD tags on Commons, including the one for the U.S. mint, ultimately rest on this law. It's the reason why Template:PD-USGov uses the specific language of the statute rather than just saying "all works published by or created for the United States are in the public domain". Indeed, the statute goes on to say that the "United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (17 U.S. Code § 105), which explicitly creates this exception whereby works transferred to the U.S. government are not in the public domain. So when you ask me for evidence that this work owned by the United States government is in the public domain, I show you that this work does not meet the statutory definition of a work of the U.S. government that would be required to make it public domain. The burden is now on you to find Wikimedia Commons a law, court ruling, or other piece of evidence that would suggest otherwise.

To use an analogy, it's like if Wikimedia Commons hosted a work published in 1931 by an artist who died the same year. It's been 100 years since death, so it's ok to use, right? Certainly, in Commons we are so surrounded by this idea that 70 years after death = public domain. But when you look at the actual copyright law, the "70 years after death" rule only applies to works created on or after January 1, 1978 (17 U.S. Code § 302). Not a single work has entered the public domain in the United States because its author died 70 years ago. In fact, a work published in 1931 that was properly noticed and renewed could still be under copyright protection today under 17 U.S. Code § 304. The key is that we always need to look back to the law, not what we think the law is. Mysterymanblue 23:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obverses per Mysterymanblue. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per the statement at https://www.usmint.gov/news/design-competitions/apollo-11/rules, which clearly indicates that the obverse design is not public domain. Images only depicting the reverse will be kept, however. --Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Apolinario Mabini Monument, Rizal Park

This bust is among the 20 bronze sculptures of heroes in Rizal Park unveiled in 1998 and sculpted by Ros Arcilla, who is apparently still alive (source). These sculptures are still copyrighted in the Philippines which has no Commons-compatible Freedom of Panorama provision.

Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A humble but fervent appeal to Commons editors and administrators to look into the following history: please Keep all the photos nominated by this User on Legal grounds a) probable cause for violation of Philippine Cyberstalking and Cybercrime of 2012 b) a reasonable ground to believe that the Mass Deletions by this Nominator will Erase so many files from the Ownership of Commons resulting to irreparable damage and injury not only to Wikimedia Commons foundation but to the Cultural heritage of the Philippines and Tourism, landmarks and interesting points that are created here for the Next Gen and Millennials

Argument and Legal discussion with registration of a very strong Legal Objection to the Continuous Mass Deletions of herein Nominator who is not even Armed with IPO or DOJ Replies, Circulars and S.C. Jurisprudence or USA rulings on FOP; it is humbly submitted that the Mass Nominations are reckless and disturbing: here are my Legal reasons to Keep all the photos Nominated for Deletion by herein Nominator:

Please stop conducting more deletion requests 02:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz On hold - Need to discuss results with other CUs. Started on 9 September 2020 "Reason: I have had suspicions on Mrcl lxmna being a sockpuppet, since being a relatively new account but having the experience to do mass DR (typically newbies have no idea what a DR is let alone filing multiple files into a single DR) on Philippines related photographs (mostly on the basis of no FoP) and have a VFC script (which newbies struggle to understand). It has been brought to my attention by User:MGA73 on COM:AN/U that Howhontanozaz has been filing mass DR as well under the very same reasons as Mrcl lxmna. While the spelling used by Mrcl lxmna is sloppy shorthand the reasoning given are similar (Example) to those given by Howhontanozaz (Example). Bidgee (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Kindly block this account, its child account Mrcl_lxmna and IP range of 120.29.109.24 for reckless DRs. --exec8 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) User:Exec8 This is a data gathering exercise and checks will be run (or not run) based on actual evidence provided and our own assessment of its (de)merits. : Conclusion: On hold only but not dismissed;
Other editors or Administrators may re-nominate these subject photos in the future, once the IPO and DOJ Secretary issues Rulings on my 2 Letters;

I strongly disagree with opinions I had seen or heard that Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howhontanozaz is ended; it is merely put only that is - pending submission of further evidence;

Local government property and National Government properties are outside the scope for Copyright Law for it is the Local Government Code of 1991 that applies vis-à-vis RA 3019 Graft Law: DE MINIMIS: a legal bars to the Deletion of these photos

Keep Because Only the copyright owner or assigns can question the FOP or file Deletion requests; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controversy ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices;

Keep Because the photos Historical National Treasures or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them;
I contradict argument that artists or sculptors and architects did not transfer their rights to the Administrator or owner of all these, like Rizal Park Administration; for how can the Government build build build any property without owning the accessories; this is a legal absurdity; accessory including all moral and absolute rights are ipso facto transferred to the Government or its agencies when it is the principal Owner in Fee simple or title holder;

In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

I already talked with the IPO lawyers and they told me that they agree with my Cited Sycip Salazar secondary authorities that all your Mass Deletions are covered by Trifles or De Minimis, meaning Copyright Law does not prohibit Uploading in Commons on FOP; your position has no leg to stand while my OBJECTIONS to your Mass Deletions are supported not only by a) USA Jurisprudence b) very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar, c) verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and d) tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter; an editor here cannot just say this or that is Copyright law; I cited Statutory Construction and Legal Maxim rules, while you just copy paste the Law; nobody can say this is the meaning of the Copyright law without laying the predicate; even if there is no square ruling from the Supreme Court on FOP uploading, still, the secondary authorities and Learned lawyer's writings I quoted suffice to say that all your Mass Deletions have no leg to stand: I await the IPO and its Bureau on a Specific Ruling backing the verbal replies they gave to me and or DOJ Secretary's Opinion which is over and above the IPO's would be rulings; In Time, all our deleted photos would be undeleted, since they are just in the files of Commons;

Stop mass nominations Mrcl lxmna case

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week Several users asked you to stop with the disruptive mass deletion nominations, you didn't, so now you're stopped by me for a week.

This user cannot stop, please see this edit just 8 minutes ago.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Q. What are the elements of the 2012 Cybercrime vis-à-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.

Q. Aside from dozens of warning and orders from the Commons Filipino community to wait until the New Discussions on FOP is finished the Mass Deleter Nominator admitted against her or his interest Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used see ESTABILLO v. NICOLAS ESTABILLO Rules of Civil Procedure and 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence An admission, oral or written, made by [the] party in the course of the ... testify against the interest of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was.

Keep Sec. 176. Works of the Government. - Chapter IV WORKS NOT PROTECTED 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.

My Legal Challenge to the herein Nominator of Mass Deletions Requests: why don't you email the IPO Director or Bureau of Copyright Head, as I did before (letters to IPO Director and Directress) or the DOJ Secretary and submit your questions - Deletion requests here in Commons with specifics for Ruling, Reply and Opinion pending or awaiting a S.C. Ruling on FOP Commons Uploading vis-à-vis Copyright Infringement or De Minimis; and the very Lis Mota or Cruz of the Matter: Whether or not any editor of commons, including you, may ask for deletion of FOP photos allegedly owned but not proven by the Artist sculptor or Architect - heirs? Judgefloro (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see my input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Busts in Rizal Park. Ownership doesn't equate to copyright, most especially to buildings and sculpturrs "owned" by the state and public: refer to both COM:CRT/Philippines#Government works and COM:CRT/Philippines#Commissioned works for info (these new sections are supported by relevant clauses at R.A. 8293). So unless there's a formal contract in which Arcilla transferred his copyright to the management, the copyright shall be considered as still under Arcilla's heirs. It is the "burden of the uploader and the defense" to present evidence, as per COM:EVIDENCE. BTW, Mr. Arcilla died in 2006 so PD in the Philippines in 2057. But COM:URAA = 1998 (installment/publication) 95 1=2094. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 02:06, 14 March 2021 (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:DuvanOpeningCer.jpg

COM:FOP Russia, COM:FOP Ukraine - images of modern statues can't be available under CC-BY-SA. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be another Panmumjeom case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2021 (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:YusofHaslam.jpg

This is also copyright violation too. Not the own work. Fandi89 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smaller copy of w:ms:File:YusofHaslam.jpg, which has a non-free media rational and is sourced to Malaysia Gazette. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above colleagues. --E4024 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Newworldmapping (talk · contribs)

out of scope - fantasy insignia

Cabayi (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 11:25, 17 March 2021 (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:Gettyimages-1042123692-2048x2048.jpg

We do not have the license to use this image from Getty Images. https://www.gettyimages.com/eula Destroyeraa (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't see the need for a deletion discussion when there's no license assigned and there's Getty Images watermark/metadata/file name. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Túrelio. --Minorax^talk 11:27, 17 March 2021 (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:Tokyo Human Trast Cinema Shibuya 2016b.JPG

COM:DW of copyrighted posters. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Ə XPLICIT 10:49, 27 March 2021 (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:Tania Palumbo.png

It's a screenshot from a copyright video located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoYtkvQSq0o Pontificalibus (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2021 (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:Mehrdad alighardashi.jpg

Advertisement in Wikipedia by creating articles about himself and using this picture in that article Luckie Luke (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small file without camera info, and not used anymore. E4024 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 15:48, 11 September 2020 (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:Mehrdad alighardashi.jpg

Is it the same deleted file? E4024 (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not the same as previous deleted files, no valid reason for deletion. --Lymantria (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2021 (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:Claude Heater Siegfried in Götterdämmerung.jpg

Unlikely to be own work of the uploader, for sure the photo was not taken in 2009. jdx ^Re: 02:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definetly not own work as I can find it on Claude Heater's website. This photo is from a performance of Siegfried as part of the Götterdämmerung by Richard Wagner. According to Heater's biography, he acted in the play sometime between 1964-1968 in Berlin per these two links. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany, this anonymous work would be copyrighted for 70 years after publication. Therefore, this work is still in copyrighted as of 2021. I believe its from the 1960s, but I'm not 100% sure. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (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:Bishopmacalsuo02a.jpg

Found here - http://ctcatholic.org/images/bishopmacalsuo01.jpg - no exif so own work claim is doubtful. Needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also available on a Catholic News Agency webpage, attributed to the Archdiocese of Hartford, with a wider crop and a higher resolution, all of which cast doubt on the 'own work' claim.[8] Verbcatcher (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2021 (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:TIFF 2019 hustlers (1 of 1) (48696841647) (2).jpg

Near 1:1 duplicate of File:TIFF 2019 hustlers (1 of 1) (48696841647) (cropped).jpg. Per COM:NOTUSED. BriefEdits (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We don't usually remove "near duplicates". No way to know whether someone outside the site might have a deep link to this. I actually think the one you want to delete is the better crop. I say leave it alone. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Jmbael. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2021 (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:City of Baku 2011.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 88.66.249.41 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/baku-azerbaijan.162708/page-11. Converting to DR due to age. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Photo on the website was published four months earlier and it was bigger than the one on Commons. It does have copyvio concern. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did that happen eight years ago? Do we have an expiry period for (not) opening old dossiers? Even assassination has such a period: 25 years passed and they cannot touch you. --E4024 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @E4024: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2020/08#Disallow copyvio speedy tagging for old images can provide more info for you. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the file at skyscrapercity.com is higher resolution and a wider crop, and it has a copyright notice for Alex Cheban at the bottom edge that has been cropped in our version. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per discussion. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2021 (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:Ruins-4433437 1920.jpg

Image was taken after January 9, 2019 in August 2019. Pixabay had already changed its license to make its photos unfree by then. Leoboudv (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gestumblindi (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2021 (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:Stamp of Albania - 2002 - Colnect 372165 - Bambi and rabbit.jpeg

The stamp is in public domain, but two Disney characters may still be copyrighted. I do not think that this is a generic enough drawing to be just a deer and just a rabbit. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2021 (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:М-8135 1.jpg

Unlikely own picture from 2019, but an old soviet foto with scan metadata and small resolution. User has several copyright violations. Druschba 4 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think, that i stole those pictures? I haven't right to scan it myself? If you insist - you can erase.Антон Серёгин (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:М-8135 3.jpg for discussion. --Druschba 4 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2021 (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:М-8135 2.jpg

Unlikely own picture from 2019, but an old soviet foto with scan metadata and small resolution. User has several copyright violations. Druschba 4 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think, that i stole those pictures? I haven't right to scan it myself? If you insist - you can erase.Антон Серёгин (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:М-8135 3.jpg for discussion. --Druschba 4 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2021 (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:М-8135 3.jpg

Unlikely own picture from 2019, but an old soviet foto with scan metadata and small resolution. User has several copyright violations. Druschba 4 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think, that i stole those pictures? I haven't right to scan it myself? If you insist - you can erase.Антон Серёгин (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Антон Серёгин, you are allowed to scan and upload pictures. But only if you own the copyright of the original picture or if it is free, for example according to Template:PD-Russia. I do not see that the second option applies, because the picture can not be that old. So there is only option one. So, there are some questions:

Where did the scanned photo come from?

Is the original photo (not just the scan) your own work?

Is the original photo actually from 2019?

Can you upload a larger version?

Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. original photo is't made by me. Scanned myself. Original made nearly 1990-s begin. Can't do large version, i give original back. There is no other photo to this trailer, and it's impossible to find it. So. i think, i can load this uniqe photos. If this inlegal - please, delete it. Антон Серёгин (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Brigham Young University science bulletin (1955)

The images are derived from a 1955 publication of US origin, and are not necessarily out of copyright unless the work concerned was not renewed. The PDF was marked as PD-US-Gov in error, due to the way the "harmonization" bot was written, and has been marked as "Wrong licence", and the uploader informed.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The work itself was not renewed; the articles do not appear to have been renewed as a rule. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Kept: per comments. --Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2021 (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:Coat of Arms of the President of Chile (Order of Merit Variant).svg

Delete El escudo es heráldicamente incorrecto y no tiene uso en Wikimedia. James2813 (discusión/talk/discussion) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2021 (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:Atul Raghav.jpeg.jpg

By size, quality and transmission data it appears this image came from Facebook, Instagram or another similar social media site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this work is of me and was personally posted by me on my facebook hamfle. And this is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atul Raghav (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. --✗plicit 14:37, 2 July 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Роберт Аріас (talk · contribs)

Suspicious exif information, seems no uploader's own work.

File:Науковець Авраменко Світлана Миколаївна.jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:!! 600 gpi.png {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:!! Іщенко Наталія Анатоліївна.jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Кузьміна Світлана Леонідівна.jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Будзар Марина Михайлівна.png {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Учасники першого балу історико-побутових танців у Лівадійському палаці (Ялта, 2006).jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Перший бал історико-побутових танців у Лівадійському палаці (Ялта-2006).jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Ігнатенко Марина Миколаївна.jpg {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Викладач Авраменко Світлана Миколаївна.png {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}
File:Викладач Авраменко Світлана Миколаївна. 01.06.2020.png {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}

-akko (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC) {{OTRS pending|year=2021|month=January|day=2}}[reply]

Good day, -akko!

These are all my photos! I noted that these are my author's works. Please remove your nomination to remove these photos. --Роберт Аріас (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Роберт Аріас: Please provide the original files of these photos and send them to COM:OTRS. -akko (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2021010210004423 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 06:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax^talk 12:23, 17 July 2021 (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:Xəritə.jpg

Qerbi Azerbaycani yoxdur. 2A00:1370:811D:FC39:55A1:5C27:4B5C:E5F 02:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable copyright violation. Has a copyright watermark with a name that is different from the claimed author. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2021 (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:Louvre-Lens-night 1.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2021 (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:Jardin Louvre-Lens.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2021 (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:Villa il Pozzo - vista aerea della tenuta.jpg

No exif, seems not uploader's own work. -akko (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2021 (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:YangonThuProfile.jpg

This appears to be a cropped and enlarged version of another photo shown here that was found online almost a year before this version was uploaded to Commons. It's possible that the uploader and copyright holder are the same as claimed, but it seems that this should be verified by COM:OTRS at the very least just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2021 (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:U Ye Min Oo.jpg

Same photo can be seen here and here posted on two different Facebook accounts a few months prior to its upload to Commons. Its possible that the uploader and the copyright holder are the same, but I think that this should be verified by COM:OTRS at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; needs OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2021 (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:Farahzeynep.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Kingbjelica as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation uploaded by new user.

Widely in use. (Do not forget that files within regular deletion period may always be deleted by admins, no need to open a "speedy" for a file in use.) E4024 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyrighted photo uploaded by the new user. Licensing of the photo is invalid, old versions are seen in Google searches. We don't know who is the real owner this photo.--Kingbjelica (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Viveka04 (talk · contribs)

copyright violation; artist died in 1976; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2021 (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:Thea Schleusner- "Beweinung Christi", Gouache, 1909.jpg

copyright violation; artist died in 1964; no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Den Nachlass der Künstlerin verwaltet User: Viveka04 Ich besitze die Unterlagen, den Lebenslauf, persönliche Beriefwechel, zahlreiche Kunstwerke, persönliche Aufzeichnungen und das abgebildete Werk, das von mir fotografiert wurde. User: Viveka04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viveka04 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Bist Du auch Rechteinhaber? --Martin Sg. (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2021 (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:Kriegsflüchtlinge in Winterlandschaft, 1955.jpg

copyright violation; artist died in 1964. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nachfahre des Künstlers gab mit dem Verkauf des Bildes auch das (c) an den Käufer. Dieser Käufer ist zugleich der Fotograf des Bildes und identisch mit User: Viveka04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viveka04 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: please provide that permission via COM:OTRS and we can undelete. --Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (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:Porträt des Bausoldaten Wichtig vor dem Spind, Prora 1987.jpg

copyright violation; artist born in 1959;. Martin Sg. (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Bild ist ein eigenes Werk und wurde demnach vom Künstler selbst hier veröffentlicht und zuvor von diesem fotografiert. User: Viveka04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viveka04 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Dann ist es ja ein leichtes, die Freigabe per OTRS zu erwirken. --Martin Sg. (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (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:Mehroon colour background Passport photo copy.jpg

As per COM:ADVERT. File continously used for self promotion on Hindi wikipedia. Ts12rAc (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2021 (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:Desert Foliage And Canyon In Arizona.jpg

I'm a professional photographer in Arizona. This photo does NOT show the correct location at Oak Flat, Arizona. The photo depicts a location within Tonto National Forest that is many miles from Oak Flat. I have a photo I would like to submit as a replacement which is from the correct location. 47.215.190.4 17:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to submit different photos. The fact that there may be better images, or much better descriptions, is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. Even if the photo in question had explicitly referred to Oak Flat ... but it doesn't! Retired electrician (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ---akko (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2021 (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:Desert Foliage And Canyon In Arizona.jpg

Hello! I see that the request to delete this photo was refused. I want to again request it be deleted. The photo appears on a page for "Oak Flat (Arizona)" but does NOT show the correct location. The photo is not appropriate for this page since it misleads the reader into thinking they are seeing Oak Flat. Recently, the news site www.TheGuardian.com ran this photo to accompany a story about Oak Flat. I alerted their news editor about the mistake, but he had assumed this photo depicted Oak Flat, Arizona because it appears on the Oak Flat page in Wikipedia.. Please reconsider deleting this photo. SinaguaWiki (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the photo is free and educationally useful, issues with the description or file name can be fixed, it is not the responsibility of Commons to delete files merely because they are supposedly being used incorrectly elsewhere. In fact, looking at the file and this deletion request, it seems your issue is to do with its use on Wikipedia and not on Commons, this issue is completely unrelated to Commons. There is no valid reason for why this should be deleted on Wikimedia Commons. Dylsss (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2021 (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:Mr Bala Wunti.jpg

Unused photo of an unnotable person – out of COM:SCOPE. Also probably uploaded withou permission. jdx ^Re: 17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 6 August 2021 (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:Digital Cinema Media Logo.webp

I simply don't believe that the uploader holds the copyright on this trademark. Trey Maturin (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be below TOO.Jonteemil (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom, fraudulent license. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2021 (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:Affiche d'un concert de l'Ensemble Baroque de Lausanne.pdf

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). File has a license, but the file is dated 1964, so the own work claim is suspect. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is text is a plain font and is not a literary work. COM:SWITZERLAND#Not protected says "To be eligible for copyright in the first place, works must be literary or artistic intellectual creations with an individual character, irrespective of their value or purpose." Should be tagged with {{PD-text}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,l'illustration correspond en effet à un simple texte, sans valeur artistique ou aspect créatif qui justifieraient des préoccupations de droit d'auteur ou de copyright. Faut-il préciser qu'il s'agit d'une affiche(tte) dont la seule vocation était de faire savoir l'organisation d'un concert ... et destinée à être diffusée au maximum dans le public ? Merci à "Verbcatcher" pour sa compréhension de la langue française et pour son bon sens. --Rimultase (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: COM:TOO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 20 August 2021 (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:Ester Noronha.jpg

Flickrwashing, account has 0 followers, 0 following and consists of photos of the uploader and this copyvio Gbawden (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 20 August 2021 (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:GregorySBrown.jpg

Probably taken from here - http://gbrown.faculty.unlv.edu/ - think we need OTRS - only upload of user Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 20 August 2021 (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:Sonny Wilson.jpg

Studio photograph uploaded by an SPA. Widely used across the internet, unlikely to be own work Vera ^(talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, the metadata indicates a Canon EOS 650D camera, but the 6,144×4,096 image size is larger then the maximum image size of that camera. TinEye finds no earlier examples, and all the examples found by Google Image search are smaller than this. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No evidence of earlier publication. There is not much more affirmative evidence we can demand for a 2014 photo at full res with EXIF. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 20 August 2021 (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:BEL 1993 MiNr2565 pm B002.jpg

I think that the intention to upload this is admirable, but currently it is still under copyright. Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Belgium ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the Belgium copyright license does not apply to this stamp. They are not "Official acts".Ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 20 August 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Internet Archive document californiarangeb33samp

1963 publication by Universitry of California. This is not a work of the US Federal Government, but as a pre 1963 work would have needed to be renewed, if it was ever registered. Has anyone checked for either?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This work was not registered. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
ShakespeareFan00: I have corrected the license, but have not removed the warning templates nor the license review category, pending the close of this discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: AGF on TE(æ)A,ea.'s check. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 20 August 2021 (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:PL Ksawery Pruszyński - Palestyna po raz trzeci.pdf

Not in PD in USA. Author died in 1950. Due to URAA it can be restored 95 years after publication. Matlin (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First edition in 1933; the book will be PD in USA in 2029. Ankry (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 August 2021 (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:PL Ksawery Pruszyński - Sarajewo 1914 Szanghaj 1932 Gdańsk 193.pdf

Not in PD in USA. Author died in 1950. Due to URAA it can be restored 95 years after publication. Matlin (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undelete in 2028 (1932 95 1). Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 20 August 2021 (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:Karte Suedosteuropa 03 01.png

Original Research. No source for justifying cultural Balkan area. For example, no source justifies the colouring within Turkey. (why is the culture in Bursa different than Ankara?) The map should stick to geographic definition. Geographic alternative [9] Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today when only muslim Turks live in Anatolia, culture in Izmir or Bursa is not different than Ankara or Konya, but before that, when orthodox christian also lived in "Minor Asia", there was a cultural osmosis between them and the Ottomans. But above all, Commons' policy, expressed in COM:NPOV, is that if a file is used by Wikipedia (46 times for this one), we won't delete it just for being inaccurate. The question of which version is correct should be addressed on Wikipedia, not here on Commons. See [10] --Claude Zygiel (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying Balkan = Orthodox Christian. You need a reference for that. If true, then other non-orthodox Christian areas should be coloured differently, such as Albania. It also sounds very subjective, which breaks COM:NPOV you cited. This is also not an historic image. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ein weiteres Argument: Rumänien ist ein Karpatenland, 50% davon sich allein dort befinden, was soll der gefärbte Unsinn? Another argument: Romania is a Carpathian Mountains land, 50% of them beeing there, so what the hell is that? Un autre argument: la Roumanie est une terre de Carpates, 50% de celle-ci seule. Qu'est-ce que le non-sens coloré? --2003:F2:8710:2C01:61D4:8010:3E5D:2299 07:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a small part of Romania (Dobruja) is considered to be Balkan. Romanians don’t identify themselves with the Balkans either —Bukarester (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Removed the cause of the dispute (the cultural influence areas - different from the strictly geographical definition). Correcting mistakes is better (in my opinion) than removing this document. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: See COM:NPOV. An in-use image cannot be deleted for being "wrong". --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 20 August 2021 (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:Venezuelans queuing at banks in Caracas.ogv

This is a procedural nomination, originally sent to MFD on English Wikipedia with this rationale:

“

This is a useless image, NOTHING can be seen in it. It says it is a queue of people, but it could just as easily be a mountain, an aircraft, or a mouse. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”

PorkchopGMX (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commons:Redundant does not apply since the file is used on the enwiki. Even though the graphics may not be great, what the person is saying in the video is useful. P,TO 19104 (pls ping!) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've uploaded File:Venezuelans queuing at banks in Caracas.webm which is a lot higher quality. Dylsss (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the upload. --cyrfaw (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Lower-quality duplicate of File:Venezuelans queuing at banks in Caracas.webm, redirected there. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 20 August 2021 (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:Chengdu-Feuertopfessen-06-2012-gje.jpg

Family snapshot, nobody of encyclopaedic relevance. 62.216.208.5 19:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typical scene in a chinese restaurant.Gerd Eichmann (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Can be used to illustrate people eating Sichuan cuisine. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 20 August 2021 (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:Гера Роман Ярославович.jpg

Wikimedia Commons is not a personal photo-album. Yuriz (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use on the user page of a somewhat active user, not excessive. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 20 August 2021 (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:Georgia USA logo.jpg

Not PD-simple. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 December 19#File:Georgia USA logo.jpg. Courtesy pings for @P,TO 19104 & @DemonDays64 -FASTILY 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-simple as the logo does not cross the TOO. See the enwiki FFD discussion above. P,TO 19104 (pls ping!) 00:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't exceed COM:TOO USA -M.nelson (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 20 August 2021 (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:A las barricadas (Coral).ogg

There is no evidence of the stated Creative Commons license at the source. Also not seeing where the audio is linked from the source URL. A shame because it's a good rendition. czar 22:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2021 (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:Clara Sosa on FarangDay.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Paul 012 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with bugaboo.tv GRuban (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I want to question that speedy deletion tag, so, per instructions, am reopening this as a deletion request; my opinion is Keep; I'm the uploader.) Now I'm looking at that DR, and it says

"Although videos by Bugaboo.TV are licensed under {{YouTube CC-BY}}, they are generally coupled with restrictions that contradict that license, like the scrolling text in this video that reads: "Do not re-upload to any site, This video clip is the copyright of Bugaboo.TV". These restrictions are also found in the video descriptions, like in this video that specifically state: "*** DO NOT Reupload ***"."

Well, this video doesn't have any of those restrictions, neither in the video itself nor in the video descriptions. In fact, the video description here specifically says: "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" - IN ADDITION to the YouTube Creative Commons Attribution license tag. Just because Bugaboo.TV doesn't want to release some of its videos is not a reason to delete the ones it undisputably does want to release, like this one. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that the original discussion covered all files from Boogaboo.tv's YouTube channel and not only ones that had contradicting info, since the contradiction put in doubt their use of CC licences. The part of the description that says
Category
Entertainment
Category
Entertainment
License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
looks like it was copied from the description of another video, and inadvertently included the automatically generated tags. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first, the original "discussion" wasn't much of a discussion: one person posted, and seven days later the administrator accepted, no intervening actual discussion. The evidence presented was that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtckTKC4E8c had scrolling text saying "Do not re-upload to any site" (which it does, at 0:10), and that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyZP67-9AUw has the description text " *** DO NOT Reupload ***", which I agree is contradictory, so confusing. So those particular videos we probably shouldn't upload per COM:PCP. But that doesn't mean we should never upload any other, completely non-contradictory videos or images from Bugaboo.TV. It is perfectly OK for a video creator to say "these videos are under a free license for others to reuse, and these others aren't." We do not require a content creator to license all their images or videos the same way. --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also not the case that all videos by Bugaboo.TV are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKZTW1OhLvM is not so licensed. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmm. I don't currently have an argument against your points, but it'd probably be fair to ping Explicit from the previous discussion and the closing admin Fitindia to see what they think. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Thanks for the link to the other DR. One of those films, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyZP67-9AUw, still mentions "DO NOT REUPLOAD". But for the film in this case the standard Youtube "sort of CC-BY-SA" licence is listed. Therefore this screen capture can be kept. I suppose Boogaboo TV will contact us if they are aware of something they would not want by hindsight. But based on the current situation this image can be kept. --Elly (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2021 (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:Only existing footage of Anne Frank (1941).ogg

Footage has already been uploaded by Hannolans (talk | contribs) on 1 February 2018. Crs3011 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crs3011: could you link to the file uploaded by Hannolans? -M.nelson (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Other film was not located (I searched as well). --Elly (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2021 (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:George Gershwin playing Rhapsody in Blue.ogg

This is a sound recording published in the United States; as sound recordings are protected differently from other works, it will enter the public domain ~100 years after publication (2025). Wikis that use this recording can be switched to use a more recent recording by the US Marine Band: Mysterymanblue 02:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Indeed, ‘’ Recordings that were published from 1923 through 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication.’’ Cited from Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. File may be undeleted 2025. Thanks for the alternative @Mysterymanblue: , I will try to replace the use of this clip on other wiki’s. . --Elly (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2021 (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:Predator del EdA (España).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Outisnn as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Fraudulent license (© Copyright 2020, Ejército del Aire). |source=https://ejercitodelaire.defensa.gob.es/EA/ejercitodelaire/es/aeronaves/avion/MQ-9-Predator-B/. https://ejercitodelaire.defensa.gob.es/EA/ejercitodelaire/es/NotaLegal/ contains a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but I'm not sure if it applies to the whole website. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"La presente publicación pertenece al Ministerio de Defensa y está bajo licencia: Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual CC-BY-SA" ("This release [Nota Legal (Legal Notice)] belongs to the Ministry of Defence and is under license..."). So it just applies for the Legal Notice. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see again the general statement "© Copyright 2020, Ejército del Aire". Furthermore: in the third point of the Legal Notice you can read "Igualmente están protegidos por los correspondientes derechos de propiedad intelectual e industrial las imágenes, etc. contenidos en el servidor del Ministerio de Defensa" ("Also are protected under the correspondent intellectual and industrial rights the images, etc. held in the server of the Ministry of Defence").--Outisnn (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only have basic Spanish, but Outisnn's translation looks wrong. Google Translate gives "This publication belongs to the Ministry of Defense and is under license". I think 'publication' means the website, not just to the text of the legal notice. There is no conflict between the copyright notice and the CC license (a Creative Commons license is a license granted by a copyright holder, not a denial of copyright). It is not unusual for governments to release images under free licenses, and the Spanish Air Force roundel in the image suggests that this is unlikely to be a manufacturer's photograph. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may only have basic Spanish, but I am a native Spanish speaker. It seems to be just a matter of interpretation, whether "presente publicación" refers to the Legal Notice or the whole website. I think it's the first, but I don't know if the administrators have dealt with any similar case previously and know it more for sure.--Outisnn (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The source website Legal Notice clearly states that it has intellectual property, but still there is a CC-BY-SA logo present. As Outisnn, being an native speaker, has doubts, the file must be deleted according COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (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:An der schönen blauen Donau.ogg

Files must be in the public domain in the United States as well as their country of origin. Per the Cornell copyright chart, sound recordings published outside of the United States between 1923 and 1946 are protected for 100 years after publication; this file will therefore enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2037. In the meantime, it is not suitable for Commons. Mysterymanblue 03:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An der schönen blauen Donau was first released back in 1867 in February how does this conflict with the US Copyright rights? https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_der_schönen_blauen_Donau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukas3434 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 February 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Lukas3434: Copyright exists separately for compositions and sound recordings. You are right: the composition of An der schönen blauen Donau is in the public domain. However, this specific recording remains protected by copyright, and therefore it is ineligible for hosting on Commons. Mysterymanblue 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Recording from 1936. “Recordings that were published from 1923 through 1946 are copyrighted for a period of 100 years after first publication.’’ Cited from Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. File may be undeleted 2037. . --Elly (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2021 (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:Erb Veseckých.png

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). File has a license, but {{Pd-self}} is not going to be correct. It is likely to be PD for another reason though. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. According to the description page this image was created in 1906. It is unclear when it was published, of it is anonymous. Can be deleted safely 120 years after creation, in 2027. --Elly (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2021 (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:Logo PCI.jpg

Following the links the uploader has given I find it impossible to determine what the actual logo is. On the home page it appears that this image does not represent the logo. It appears that the generic background is used with relevant text placed over it.

Whatever the reality this appears to be more than a simple geometric shape and is thus either a true copyright violation or is simply out of scope for Commons. I am proposing this for deletion for wiser heads than mine to examine Timtrent (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting the PCI organization itself, asking them to clarify. Natematic (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the background graphic on Martin Grandjean's website with a CC BY 3.0 CH license.[11] The overlaid text is too simple to create a new copyright (it is below the threshold of originality). The file page should be updated to clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We changed the file page according to the suggestion by Verbcatcher. We just let the Martin Gandjean license without creating a new one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tguille (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion and clarification on file page. --Elly (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Vilnius TV Tower

Vilnius TV Tower was built in 1980. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period (usually 70 years) of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is considered as a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so therefore we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Unfortunately, Lithuania has no Commons-acceptable FoP.

A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nichts Geschütztes erkennbar --Ralf Roletschek 13:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This attempt is ridiculous. I consider it trolling. — Daniel FR: Talk to me on Commons/in Germany! 11:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The TV Tower is above COM:TOO and being protected by copyright. Pinging @JWilz12345: to see if any further info is needed. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nein. Hier ist keine Schöpfungshöhe vorhanden, also auch kein Schutz. --Ralf Roletschek 17:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, I wonder why both users above voted vk? Has Lithuanian copyright law modified to allow FOP now? Of course no. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramafreiheit interessiert nicht, weil hier nichts geschütztes zu sehen ist. Der Betonturm ist kein Kunstwerk. --Ralf Roletschek 13:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: Bitte beachten Sie, dass Litauen auch keine Panoramafreiheit für architektonische Arbeiten hat, obwohl diese keine künstlerischen Teile haben. Gebäude in Litauen sind von ihren Gebäudearchitekten und Eigentümern urheberrechtlich geschützt, und die Reproduktion darf nur in nichtkommerziellen Fällen gestattet werden, wenn dies von ihnen genehmigt wurde. Siehe auch: WIPO Lex --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nur, wenn geschützte Elemente enthalten sind. Nur dann ist das Bauwerk ein Kunstwerk. Nicht solche schlichten betonklötzer. Und Eigentümer haben sowieso überhaupt nichts zu sagen, die haben kein Anteil am Urheberrecht, so denn eins existiert. -Ralf Roletschek 06:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: Und Eigentümer haben sowieso überhaupt nichts zu sagen ≈ „Der Rechteinhaber wird uns nie finden.“, COM:PCP§2 --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A TV Tower is enough to be copyrighted, as there's rarely cases where two or more towers are designed under same type of structures. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearas (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearas: Just a vote? Or you think that Lithuania however has Commercial-OK FOP that we don't know before? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Das ist ein Betonturm, kein Kunstwerk. --Ralf Roletschek 12:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many pictures consists of more objects than just Vilnius TV Tower. For example, in Lazdynai, Vilnius, Lithuania - panoramio (1).jpg sky, trees and grass takes much more space than the Vilnius TV Tower. I'm not sure about other pictures where the Vilnius TV Tower is clearly the main subject, however in 1980 (up to 11 March 1990) there was no such thing as the Lithuanian Law because it was part of the USSR, so I think that buildings completed before 11 March 1990 should be handled differently as such country doesn't exist anymore and none of its laws are still valid. -- Pofka (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: You mean, to re-adopt {{PD-Soviet}} (which is currently a kind of speedy deletion tag) here? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liuxinyu970226: The Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic wasn't part of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic as it was a illegally created communist country by the Lithuanian communists with help of the Red Army. So it cannot be interpreted that Russia inherited all the Soviet republics copyrights, however Lithuania does not legally accept the LSSR statehood and interprets that the 1990 state is a continuation of the 1918 state. -- Pofka (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Per discussion, deleted because there is no Freedom of Panorama in Lithuania, please note COM:FOP Lithuania. One image could be kept, because it did not show the architecture. However, in the current category some photos remain, which can be considered “De minimis”, COM:DM, in relation to the architecture of the tower. --Elly (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (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:2019 Disney Channel logo.svg

Copyright infringement as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney channel 2019.png. The swirl on the "i" of Disney has been considered that it exceeds COM:TOO US in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney-channel-new2015.png. —Marco Aurelio 11:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two points or circles on the i, ï, does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright. Everyone knows the owner is disney, but it's not copyviolo .--EEIM (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . File:2014 Disney Channel logo.svg, File:2019 Disney Channel logo.svg , File:Disney channel 2019.png , File:Disney Channel Germany Logo 2014.png , File:Disney Channel logo (2014).svg . Wikipedia does not need all logos (1) It's enough, this or this .--EEIM (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not match the threshold of originality needed to be a copyright violation. KamranMackey (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney channel 2019.png: "The only major difference between this image and File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png (which was kept 3 times at DR) is the addition of two opaque circles to the swirl on the "i" to make mouse ears. In COM:TOO US, we can see far more complex patterns like File:Nikon Logo.svg and File:San Francisco Shock (logo).svg, and even newly invented alphabets like File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.svg. Small variations in the styling of the text does not change its copyright status." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2021 (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:2019 Disney Channel logo.svg

file without CC license and taken from an internet page. According to the source of the file, it was taken from a website, which is not a reliable source, therefore it should be deleted JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The file was taken from this page https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Disney_Channel?so=search JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:unncessary logo. And delete this File:Disney channel 2019.png. We can use File:Disney Channel logo (2014).svg or File:Disney Channel text logo.svg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEIM (talk • contribs)

COM:INUSE in lots of articles, so absolutely cannot be deleted unless it's over COM:TOO US. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re-license as PD-textlogo as per the 2 linked SVGs. No reason to delete this and keep the PNG when they are the same files, just in different formats. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The file was taken from a website without a corresponding license, therefore it must be deleted

JosefinaDiLeo (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JosefinaDiLeo, if I took an SVG with the simple expression

1 1=2

from a website, would it be a copyright violation? If I saved this same SVG and uploaded it here on Commons, would you nominate it to deletion?

Keep, as per Minorax COM:INUSE (!). RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Already survived numerous deletion attempts and this one did not bring any new valid arguments. —holly {chat} 20:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Internet Archive document brimleyana19nort 12

1997 work by "North Carolina State Museum of Natural History", not a work by US Federal Government. As a 1997 publication I fail to see how any derived images would be "free from restrictions". The PDF was tagged as PD-US-Gov in error due to the way the harmonization bot was written.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1997 work by non-US Gov is presumably copyrighted. -M.nelson (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2021 (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:Linux Audio Output APIs.svg

This is an extremely low quality diagram, full of issues. It seems to have been created as an attempt to represent the Linux audio ecosystem as being as much of a mess as possible, but it is not actually useful nor technically accurate. I have commented on its talk page with a detailed breakdown of just some ways in which this diagram is bad, and removed its usage from public wikis.

Effectively, this is a (poorly made) "Linux audio is bad" meme image, not an actual informative diagram. There is no situation where this diagram, in its current form, would be useful to a Wikimedia project. It would have to be completely recreated from scratch using a completely different layout and approach to be useful. Marcan (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Not used. --Yann (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2021 (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:Site of Eday Tidal Energy Test Facility - geograph.org.uk - 232286.jpg

Duplicate to File:Eday EMEC site.jpg Tine (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not an exact duplicate. File:Site of Eday Tidal Energy Test Facility - geograph.org.uk - 232286.jpg is the original version from Geograph, File:Eday EMEC site.jpg is slightly cropped and lightened. --bjh21 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Bjh21. --Yann (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (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:The Pedigree of Richard Warren of the Mayflower.pdf

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This book was written by me, is entirely my own work, and the license reflected is accurate. I have released this work into the public domain. Because it is in the public domain, and contains information that is likely to be of interest to large numbers of historians and genealogists, I very strongly oppose its deletion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This deletion request is on the basis of project scope, the copyright status and license have not been questioned. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content says "Excluded educational content includes: [...] Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource." Verbcatcher (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how this book falls under the definition of "nothing educational other than raw text". The work is properly cited.Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has no pictures or diagrams, the only thing educational is the raw text. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is a book without pictures or diagrams considered to have no educational value?Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This work is not a text document, and should be kept. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (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:Special patrols of infantry and engineers in enemy lines.jpg

Duplicate of File:Artist Achille Beltrame Italian Front 1918 Special patrols of infantry and engineers in enemy lines.jpg Thats Just Great (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I kept the former which has metadata, and delete the later. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2021 (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:Chengdu-Feuertopfessen-08-2012-gje.jpg

Family snapshot 62.216.208.5 18:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typical scene in a chinese restaurant.Gerd Eichmann (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2021 (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:Fresh Hare title.JPG

Copyright violation. This is the title card within a film that is in copyright. The film's transcription as already been deleted at Wikisource as such a violation in 2012 (see here), and I assume that also means its original video file here was also deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (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:Imágenes reales del atentado contra la casa cuartel de Zaragoza.jpg

Collage of historical photos. At least this one has been published in the internet before. Unlikely own work. Strakhov (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that these photos are not likely the own work of the uploader. -M.nelson (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2021 (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:Agitu Gudeta.jpg

No public domain release on the source page that I can see. GRuban (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source has no public domain release; picture is labeled "(c) Kobalt Kontingent" in bottom right corner. -M.nelson (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (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:2015-03-13-0402 q1 (16803362801).jpg

Very controversial in terms of quality and practically meaningless in terms of use in project articles.¶ Отсутсвие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (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:2015-03-24-0019 (16293276623).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Непонятен смысл номинации на удаление. Файл иллюстрирует вид разорвавшегося снаряда Града. Однозначно файл надо оставить.--Zinnsoldat (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (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:2015-03-13-0410 q1(pp2) (16184542373).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2021 (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:2015-03-31-0112 (16364472154).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2021 (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:Nicholas O'Brien (face).jpeg

This image is so extremely small, it's literally unusable. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not have a better one, keep, what else can we do? --E4024 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not keep very small unclear images of non-notable people. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:343D:1573:E891:FCA6 02:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Internet Archive document effectoffireonme1992gobi

This is not a work of the US Federal Government, It seems to a work of a State level agency in Montana. Publication is dated 1992, and thus I fall to see how any derived images form the PDF can be "free from restrictions". The PDF was erroneously marked as PD-US-Gov due to the way the harmonization bot was written. Will tag that as wrong licence...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not US Gov, presumably copyrighted. -M.nelson (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and discussion, and COM:PRP. --Elly (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2021 (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:Pruszyński Ksawery.jpg

In file description and source page there is not any information about publication date, so it can't be based on PD-anon licence. Matlin (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this isn't an anoyomous work. Suzkaj w Archiwach says this photo is by Czesław Datka. The National Digital Archives also confirms it was taken sometime between 1940 to 1944 and states it was in London. I'm not sure if this would pass PD-UK as I haven't found a year of death for Datka (70 years PMA). Datka would have had to died sometime between 1945 to 1950 in order to be PD. This is because I think Datka was alive as of August 1945. While I'm not confident that this is a PD work or not, the current Commons license is indeed wrong. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It is unkown if this photo has been published and when. Therefore we should use the standard copyright rules from Poland, assuming the photo has been taken in Poland. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland the copyright of an image expires 70 years after the death of the author. The author is according to the source User:MrLinkinPark333 gave Czesław Datka. As we do not know the birth date or date of death of Datla, we can only assume with certainty that the photo will be in PD 120 years after the year it was taken. It was taken 1944 at the latest. So the photo will be in PD in 1944 120=2064. . Based on this photo has to be deleted. Please note, User:MrLinkinPark333 and User: Matlin there exists a category with photos of Matlin: Category:Photographs by Czesław Datka, perhaps these should also be deleted. --Elly (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:The National Cranberry Magazine (1968 onwards)

These images are variously derived from journal issues between 1968 and 1980, As renewal for US periodicals and serials in this period was automatic, these can only be "free from restrictions" if the original periodical in which these appeared contained no copyright notice, or was never registered in the first place. Has anyone checked for this?

File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1968) (20681371066).jpg^[1]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1968) (20681390396).jpg^[2]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1972) (20084639844).jpg^[3]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1972) (20519178610).jpg^[3]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1972) (20519667470).jpg^[4]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1972) (20680323426).jpg^[5]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1972) (20707028165).jpg^[6]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20085923923).jpg^[7]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20518810510).jpg^[8]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20519158070).jpg^[9]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20520619609).jpg^[10]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20698108642).jpg^[11]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20706966235).jpg^[12]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20707169485).jpg^[13]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20713557971).jpg^[8]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1974) (20714123601).jpg^[10]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1976) (20085262803).jpg^[14]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1976) (20085757533).jpg^[15]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1976) (20518892428).jpg^[16]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1976) (20520240659).jpg^[17]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1976) (20707191575).jpg^[18]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20519492328).jpg^[19]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20519715580).jpg^[20]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20520790079).jpg^[21]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20520913699).jpg^[20]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20697924522).jpg^[22]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20698323822).jpg^[23]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20707325505).jpg^[24]
File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1978) (20714286311).jpg^[25]
I have marked the above with what issue they originate, and the copyright status of those issues. Some issues were copyrighted, but not all. It seems that some volume and issue numbers were duplicated. A number of these images are advertisements, which would not be covered by the magazine’s generic copyright; those should be kept, absent appropriate notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ Volume 32, no. 9. “Copyright 1968 by Comor Publishers.”
↑ Volume 32, no. 10. “Copyright 1968 by Comor Publishers.”
↑ ^a ^b Volume 38, no. 4. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 38, no. 12. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 37, no. 6. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 38, no. 2. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 39, no. 10. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ ^a ^b Volume 39, no. 9. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 40, no. 2. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ ^a ^b Volume 40, no. 5. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 40, no. 6. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 39, no. 11. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 40, no. 3. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 42, no. 2. “Copyright 1976 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 4. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 7. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 9. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 44, no. 12. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 6. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ ^a ^b Volume 43, no. 9. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 7. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 1. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 8. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 2. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”
↑ Volume 43, no. 5. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

These images are variously derived from journal issues between 1980 and 1986, Post 1978 works don't necessarily require a notice to be protected by copyright, so I fail to see how these could be "free from restrictions".

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Very different cases, please renominate to separated DRs. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:The National Cranberry Magazine (1968 onwards)

See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1982) (20520589258).jpg and the previous nomination. Neither are any of the works in this categroy works of US Gov.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - The files kept are all no-notice ads with no editorial content. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (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.

Files uploaded by Jazzmoodi (talk · contribs)

One is by Xavier Forcioli per description so not own work. And we need OTRS for the artworks

Gbawden (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazzmoodi: please post here. If you have the full rights from the photographer (not the subject) please send it via [[:COM:OTRS}}]] Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because:

File:Naildo Marinho. Marbre.jpg. It is not clear what the location of this sculpture is. If it is in a public place in France, is should be deleted, because there is no FoP in France. It could be in a country with FOP, but this is not indicated. Therefore the image must be deleted per COM:PRP.
File:Jaildo Marinho by Xavier Forcioli.jpg. This file was deleted before, reason: no source given.
File:P1010172JaildoMarinho.jpg. This is a photo of a copyrighted sculputre of a living artist, somewhere inside. So this cannot be maintained.

Elly (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tallinn TV Tower

Tallinn TV Tower was built in 1980. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for a certain period (usually 70 years) of time after the death of the creator (be it the last-surviving architect, engineer, designer, sculptor, engraver, or painter). An image of a work that is still under copyright is considered as a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so therefore we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception Commons:Freedom of panorama (FoP). Unfortunately, Estonia has no Commons-acceptable FoP.

A1Cafel (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel: Due to COM:VPC#Estonia is a country where FOP is not OK but still have, I'm not sure if what's the actual situation of this country. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "work is not the main subject" seems analogous to COM:DM, like those of Icelandice and Burkinabe cases. The Estonian FOP is for noncommercial only, hence not OK (COM:FOP Estonia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz, I'm afraid that @Jklamo: disagree with you, they think that all TV towers are utilitarian buildings that should always allowed even in FOP Notok countries (at least, per Special:Diff/554535249). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleted most, per nomination, because there is no COM:FOP Estonia. The argument this tower is utiliatrian might be true, but imho this does not mean it is not a work of architecture. Photos of work architecture made in Estonia cannot be maintained on Commons. Therefore according to the law in Estionia, photos prominently showing the tower should be deleted. kept two images. One could be cropped, the rest of the image is maintained, the uncropped version is deleted. The other photo only shows a technical detail of the tower, which I consider not architecture. Elly (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Tallinn TV Tower

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia.

Ox1997cow (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2023 (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:2015-03-17-0451(pp1) (16219563924).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: may be used to illustrate Wikipedia article. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2021 (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:2015-03-30-0093 (16799357300).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of COM:PS. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (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:2015-03-27-0071 (16917856196).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: may be used to illustrate Wikipedia article. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (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:2015-03-26-0064 (16756118598).jpg

Отсутствие смысла для википедии Mixabest (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

На Викискладе могут быть материалы, которые не используются в Википедии --Butko (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of COM:PS. --Anatoliy (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (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:Edmund Bartłomiejczyk - Oracz 1938.jpg

Not in PD in USA. Author died in 1950. Due to URAA it can be restored 95 years after publication. Matlin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming it was published in 1938, it can be undeleted in 2034 (1938 95 1). Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Howhontanozaz. --Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 25 September 2021 (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:Edmund Bartłomiejczyk - Tratwy.jpg

Not in PD in USA. Author died in 1950. Due to URAA it can be restored 95 years after publication. Matlin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 25 September 2021 (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:Icchak Kacenelson.jpg

There is not any proof, that this photo was published before 1940. Matlin (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 25 September 2021 (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:Kacenelson family.jpg

There is not any proof, that this photo was published before 1940. Matlin (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 25 September 2021 (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:Kacenelson with son.jpg

There is not any proof, that this photo was published before 1940. Matlin (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:43, 25 September 2021 (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:Edmund Bartłomiejczyk - Kobziarz 1926.jpg

Not in PD in USA. Author died in 1950. Due to URAA it can be restored 95 years after publication. Matlin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2021 (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.

HMV album D 1867-1870

Files on Commons must be freely usable in the country of origin and in the United States. While the underlying compositions of these pieces have clearly entered the public domain worldwide, this is not so clear for the audio recordings themselves. According to the Cornell copyright table, audio recordings published both within and without the United States between 1923 and 1946 will enter the public domain 100 years after publication regardless of the registration/notice/renewal status of these works. Therefore, these recordings should enter the public domain on January 1, 2032. In the absence of evidence that these files are otherwise freely usable, they should be deleted as probable copyright violations. Mysterymanblue 05:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (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.

Files in Category:The sea; ideas and observations on progress in the study of the seas (1963)

This is 1963 work, seemingly published in the US and UK given the publisher information in the first few pages of the PDF. It's too recent to be out of copyright in the UK, and would only be out of copyright in the US if the copyright wasn't renewed. The front pages state "All rights reserved" but no outright (C) mark is present. The PDF was erroneously marked as PD-US-Gov due to the way the harmonization bot was written. The images cannot necessarily be treated as "free from restrictions" (Aside: The issue of a potentially erroneous deceleration of "free from restrictions" due to incomplete, inaccurate, or mis-indicated meta-data seems to be an issue with a number of IA Flikr stream related image DR's recently, and as such I would suggest a very much fuller review of all images using that source.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An “all rights reserved” notice is not, to my knowledge, acceptable as a determination of copyright in the U.S. This work was not registered; so, assuming that it was not copyrighted, it is in the public domain in the U.S. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2021 (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.

Files in Category:The National Cranberry Magazine (1960)

1963 volume Representing publication from 1960 to 1963 , The PDF was in error tagged as PD-US-gov due to the way the harmonization bot works, but this is not a work of the US Federal Government. As a 1963 US publication, images from it are only "free from restrictions" if the copyright was not renewed, Has anyone checked for this or indeed an original registration for the journal issues as a periodical?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cranberries; - the national cranberry magazine (1982) (20520589258).jpg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - no notice. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 8 November 2021 (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:1941-04 Architectural Forum p305.jpg

clear copyvio Filetime (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this might be public domain, see COM:HIRTLE. This was published in 1941 with a copyright notice (on the third page of the source), if we can establish that the copyright was not renewed then {{PD-US-not renewed}} would apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. No further info provided. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:48, 8 November 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Internet Archive document cetaceansofchan00leat

This is a publication prepared for NOAA, However it's not clear from the information in the document if the named authors were NOAA employees. DR to get a second opinion on this.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a work prepared for the U.S. government (or a department or agency thereof) is a work of the U.S. government; but I am not positive on this point, so a volume of copyright policy with a determination one way or the other would be helpful. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Federal government copyright only applies to employees of the federal government, per en:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. Page 4 of this publication states that it was funded by NOAA, but suggests that the authors are independent or affiliated with the Sea World Research Institute/Hubbs Marine Research Center. Page 4 also states that the photographs are copyrighted by their creators, who I assume then weren't employees of the federal government. -M.nelson (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ... that said, this being a 1987 publication, I don't see a copyright notice, aside from the comment about photograph copyrights at the bottom of Page 4. -M.nelson (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I haven't found a copyright notice or subsequent registration. --rubin16 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (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.

Files in Category:Internet Archive document chaptersinprehis551mart

This is not a work of US Government, A 1964 publication if registered would have would it's copyright renewed automatically. Was this ever registered?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not have a copyright notice, and does not appear to have been registered. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Kept: {{PD-US-no notice}}. --rubin16 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2021 (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.

Files in Category:New Zealand in evolution, industrial, economic and political (1909)

London Publication, One of the principal authors is "Scholefield, G. H. (Guy Hardy), 1877-1963" who appears to have been based in New Zealand. This is not out of copyright in the UK, even if it is potentially out of copyright had it been published in NZ prior to the London edition here.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This work is definitely in the public domain in the U.S.; the title indicates a simultaneous publication in the U.S. and the U.K. I don’t know Commons procedure, but if U.S. copyright law is considered in the first instance, then this work is considered to have been originally published in the U.S. and therefore is out of copyright there. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Kept: The basic copyright term in the United Kingdom is life of the author plus 70 years. So, in UK it expired in 2013, in the US it is free as published before 1926. --rubin16 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[32-9-1] Volume 32, no. 9. “Copyright 1968 by Comor Publishers.”

[32-10-2] Volume 32, no. 10. “Copyright 1968 by Comor Publishers.”

[38-4-3] Volume 38, no. 4. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[38-12-4] Volume 38, no. 12. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[37-6-5] Volume 37, no. 6. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[38-2-6] Volume 38, no. 2. “Copyright 1972 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[39-10-7] Volume 39, no. 10. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[39-9-8] Volume 39, no. 9. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[40-2-9] Volume 40, no. 2. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[40-5-10] Volume 40, no. 5. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[40-6-11] Volume 40, no. 6. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[39-11-12] Volume 39, no. 11. “Copyright 1974 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[40-3-13] Volume 40, no. 3. “Copyright 1975 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[42-2-14] Volume 42, no. 2. “Copyright 1976 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[43-4-15] Volume 43, no. 4. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[43-7-16] Volume 43, no. 7. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[43-9-17] Volume 43, no. 9. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[44-12-18] Volume 44, no. 12. “Copyright 1977 by Pilgrim Publishers.”

[43-6-19] Volume 43, no. 6. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-9-2-20] Volume 43, no. 9. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-7-2-21] Volume 43, no. 7. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-1-22] Volume 43, no. 1. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-8-23] Volume 43, no. 8. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-2-24] Volume 43, no. 2. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[43-5-25] Volume 43, no. 5. “Copyright 1979 by Taylor Publishing.”

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]