Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2021/07/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
The UN Web site cited in this template, http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm, says
- "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web. You can however create links to our site instead. No permission is required for the link."
That is a very explicit prohibition on exactly what we do here on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Question: Considering the wide use (more than 1000 files) and OTRS ticket, Is the ticket:2006090710013991 (tag located at the Talk page) actually valid? Should not be better to discuss this at the Talk Page instead? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The page linked from the template also says:
UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map… If you want to use the UN map (or maps) as a UN document, i.e. without modification in specific publication, book or article we can issue publication permission on behalf of the UN Publication Board. It is free of charge and is conducted via email. Please tell us a few words about your forthcoming publication along with a list of the UN maps you would like to use.
- --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Did you noticied my above comment mentioning an OTRS ticket? Jameslwoodward or other OTRS member should confirm that. If valid, the OTRS permission should be enough. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket referenced above was forwarded, not sent directly, in 2005. The message is from a cartographer at the UN who may or may not have the authority to release UN material and says in its entirety:
- " Thank you for your inquiri.
- The UN maps is an open source material. You can use them to make your own maps. You do not need our permission for that. Please be advised that the UN name and reference number should not appear on any modified map. The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified. You can said something like "Based on UN map no..."
- With kind regards," emphasis added
We also have the statement quoted in the box above:
- "If you want to use the UN map (or maps) as a UN document, i.e. without modification in specific publication, book or article we can issue publication permission on behalf of the UN Publication Board."
That is clearly limits the uses to which a UN map can be put -- you must get permission to use the map in an article that cites the UN map. It seems to me that both of these put unacceptable limits on our use of UN maps. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the specific OTRS verbiage. It looks like we need to remove the UN name and reference number from all the UN maps that still have that on it. I think that is all they care about from my reading of everything both on their web page, and in the OTRS message. It is easy to remove the UN name and reference number. See Help:Removing watermarks. I can help a little. I am very busy though, so we need to recruit others too.
- So please do not delete the maps. A lot of work by many people went into posting them on the Commons, and on the Wikipedia web pages. I don't think that the UN has a problem at all with Wikipedia using their maps. They, like many institutions, are probably a lot more concerned about the maps being used elsewhere with the UN name on it. They probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that line of reasoning fails. Commons is a source for everyone, everywhere, not just WP. So if, as you say, and the license says, "they probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website", then the images cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Your line of reasoning is failing. If there is no UN name on the map, then the images can be kept on the Commons. The removal of the UN name and reference number makes the map a modified map. An open source map in the public domain. Not even attribution is required. See the info again in the box higher up: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's a Catch-22. According to Commons rules, we can't keep one of these maps unless its file description tells us the source and the reason it is PD or freely licensed. But, according to the UN rules, we can't keep it unless any use of it (including on Commons) makes no mention of the UN. We have no way of keeping an image with a file description that says "This image is freely licensed but we're not allowed to tell you the source."
- I'd appreciate a comment here from Carl and Rybkovich. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're not paying attention. Your line of reasoning is failing. If there is no UN name on the map, then the images can be kept on the Commons. The removal of the UN name and reference number makes the map a modified map. An open source map in the public domain. Not even attribution is required. See the info again in the box higher up: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that line of reasoning fails. Commons is a source for everyone, everywhere, not just WP. So if, as you say, and the license says, "they probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website", then the images cannot be kept on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- So please do not delete the maps. A lot of work by many people went into posting them on the Commons, and on the Wikipedia web pages. I don't think that the UN has a problem at all with Wikipedia using their maps. They, like many institutions, are probably a lot more concerned about the maps being used elsewhere with the UN name on it. They probably don't want the UN name to be associated with just any website. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, their issue is more moral rights or trademark. If it is an out-of-date map, they request their authorship identification be removed. That is possible for *any* author to do -- moral rights let them force their name to be taken off any work; that does not render it non-free. Similarly, they do not want their name associated with a modified map, but the copyrightable content is free to use. I think we are fine... we could make a direct copy and just say "based off a UN map available at XXXX", like the tag says, and conform to their guidelines. At that point it is a "modified" map which we are free to use for our own purposes -- we just can't use the UN's name or reputation. I think it's certainly too much word-splicing for a tag we have used without apparent incident for over a decade, which would delete thousands of files. Realistically, the content appears to be free in a copyright sense, but they are protecting their trademark, and maps which have their logo and name might run afoul of that (especially if modified). I think it's a
Keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the above, the way I see it now, the rule is pretty straightforward -
- "UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map".
- The "you" can be interpreted as referring to us wikimedia, and used in our work - to our project of hosting images for public use. So it would be ok for us to keep the files if the UN references are removed. I don't see the last paragraph's phrase - "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article) because we revise the maps very often and want to ensure that only an updated map is posted on the Web" as an additional rule to what is stated above it. I see it as an explanation for the rule. So when it is stated that "we do not permit posting of our maps" 'our maps' only refers to maps that had not had their UN names or reference numbers removed. Rybkovich (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I think we should change the tag a little bit by adding a sentence to the very end. "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." Rybkovich (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, their issue is more moral rights or trademark. If it is an out-of-date map, they request their authorship identification be removed. That is possible for *any* author to do -- moral rights let them force their name to be taken off any work; that does not render it non-free. Similarly, they do not want their name associated with a modified map, but the copyrightable content is free to use. I think we are fine... we could make a direct copy and just say "based off a UN map available at XXXX", like the tag says, and conform to their guidelines. At that point it is a "modified" map which we are free to use for our own purposes -- we just can't use the UN's name or reputation. I think it's certainly too much word-splicing for a tag we have used without apparent incident for over a decade, which would delete thousands of files. Realistically, the content appears to be free in a copyright sense, but they are protecting their trademark, and maps which have their logo and name might run afoul of that (especially if modified). I think it's a
- Based on our discussion I would like to change the tag. My addition is in bold
- "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." This is primarily based on the points made by Carl and Jameslwoodward. Rybkovich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see: Commons:Watermarks. The UN has no problem with their "watermark" or UN name and reference number being removed from their maps. So that means we have none of the problems mentioned in Commons:Watermarks. So I suggest a simpler solution. All the relevant UN maps are OK on the Commons once the UN name and reference number has been removed from the map. Those maps are given a public domain license, and the description page for those maps must say "based on UN map" in order to prove their provenance, and that they truly are in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- The current description of the tag states that "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map." I want to add the sentence A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number to make it clear that a UN map can be uploaded as it is, if any references to the UN are removed. Does any one have another suggestions? Like not making any changes? Rybkovich (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see: Commons:Watermarks. The UN has no problem with their "watermark" or UN name and reference number being removed from their maps. So that means we have none of the problems mentioned in Commons:Watermarks. So I suggest a simpler solution. All the relevant UN maps are OK on the Commons once the UN name and reference number has been removed from the map. Those maps are given a public domain license, and the description page for those maps must say "based on UN map" in order to prove their provenance, and that they truly are in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- "UN maps are, in principle, open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. UN requests however that you delete the UN name, logo and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication, if you wish, something like: based on UN map… (map name, map number, revision number and date). A map can also be uploaded if the only modification is the removal of the UN name, logo and or reference number." This is primarily based on the points made by Carl and Jameslwoodward. Rybkovich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(unindent). I read the "about" page again. I think this is the key part: "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site." Emphasis added. Maps without their UN logo or number are no longer their maps. They are in the public domain.
The OTRS message says "The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified." Once the UN logo and number is removed it is no longer a UN map. It is an open-source public domain map.
Both sources say it is OK, but not required, to say "based on UN map." I suggest this message on the template:
| Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide. Some UN maps have special copyrights, as indicated on the map itself. All public domain UN maps uploaded to the Commons must have the UN name, logo, reference number, etc. removed from the map. See: UN Geospatial Information Section for more info. The UN source of a map must be linked to from the Commons in order to prove provenance, and thus meet the requirements of proving the public domain nature of the map. |
The OTRS ticket should also be linked from the template. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This template looks bad for several reasons:
- User:Jameslwoodward wrote that the OTRS message comes from
a cartographer at the UN who may or may not have the authority to release UN material
. If the cartographer doesn't have such authority, then the OTRS message is null and void, and if we don't know if the message is null and void or not, it's not a good idea to rely on the message. - This page appears to be contradicting itself. The page both says that the material can be used and that the material can't be used.
- It is unclear if you can use unmodified copies of the maps. We could always get around this problem by requiring users to modify the map before uploading it, I suppose.
- There seem to be restrictions on how the source may be attributed, at least if the map is modified. We accept licences which require attribution, but I'm not sure if we accept licences which prohibit attribution. As part of COM:EVID, the uploader is required to prove that the material is freely licensed or in the public domain, and if attribution is prohibited, then it may be impossible to prove that the material is freely licensed or in the public domain, and the material might then end up being deleted per {{No source since}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jameslwoodward wrote that the OTRS message comes from
- As I tried to explain above, this is a Catch-22. I think that someone besides Commons may use these maps as long as they don't attribute them to the UN. The problem is that it says explicitly that you can't keep them and mention the UN as the source -- our rules require us to name the source -- we can't say "This map is free for any use but we can't name the source." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some notes:
- A licence can only be used if sufficient evidence is available that the licence exists. If sufficient evidence is unavailable or confidential, then you can't use the licence since you won't be able to defend yourself in a court. Someone might sue and that person might use forged evidence, but without access to the evidence, you won't be able to win against the person. If evidence is unavailable, the material is effectively unlicensed (and thus unfree).
- Others might have access to evidence, but the licence is then only usable by those who have access to this evidence.
- A file is only 'free content' if it can be used by everyone. Since a file only can be used by those who have access to this evidence, a file can only be 'free content' if everyone has access to this evidence.
- A file is only 'free content' if a content reuser can include a modified copy of the file in a media repository which the content reuser is able to allow others to copy freely.
- Then applying the above to {{PD-UN-map}}:
- If a content reuser includes a modified copy of a UN map in the media repository Wikimedia Commons, then the content reuser seems to be disallowed to provide sufficient evidence that the map is free content.
- →Others can't make verbatim copies of the media repository Wikimedia Commons.
- →Modified copies of UN maps which are included in the media repository Wikimedia Commons are not free content.
- Specifically about unmodified copies of UN maps:
- A map is only free content if people can upload modified copies of the map to the media repository Wikimedia Commons without violating the media repository's inclusion policy.
- Per the above, modified copies of the map are not free content and thus do not satisfy the inclusion policy.
- →Unmodified copies of UN maps are also unfree content.
- Sounds like a copyright tag which should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some notes:
- As I tried to explain above, this is a Catch-22. I think that someone besides Commons may use these maps as long as they don't attribute them to the UN. The problem is that it says explicitly that you can't keep them and mention the UN as the source -- our rules require us to name the source -- we can't say "This map is free for any use but we can't name the source." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
(unindent). From COM:EVID
In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
|
The requirements demanded by COM:EVID have been met for modified UN maps. Modified by removing the UN name, etc.. This UN page satisfies those requirements:
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm - that page suggests: "You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map…". That satisfies attribution to prove public domain.
That page repeats what was in the OTRS message. So we really don't need the OTRS message, though I think it helps to link to it to show how far back this all goes.
The requirements have not been met for the unmodified UN maps. See my previous comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I can clearly visualize situations where a user mischievously prepares a modified map ceding half of Pakistan to India, or vice versa, and adds the tag "based on UN map no. XXX". Jim is correct there is no way these files can be kept on Commons if they implicate / indicate "UN map" anywhere or in any manner. The UN page is clear, an individual person (ie. "you") is free to prepare and publish his own map (based on a UN map) in a book / article etc. so long as that person assumes legal liability for that modified map. But these modified maps of dubious authenticity cannot be uploaded to a website like Commons for general distribution especially by pseudonymous uploaders. Finally, "Open source" is not the same as "public domain". Unfitlouie (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- See: Commons:Map resources#Other map resources online. There are many sources for maps on the Commons. Such as the CIA, Library of Congress, etc.. Mischievous people can modify maps from any of those sources, and are required to point out the original map on the Commons or elsewhere that they are modifying. Or they can lie, and say they created the map from scratch. Either way there are many inaccurate maps on the Commons. They don't usually get used in Wikipedia articles if they have major errors. Because there are usually a few people editing articles that can eventually spot a bogus map with obvious errors such as ceding the West Bank to Israel or vice versa. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Has anyone tried re-contacting the UN about the catch-22? I would think they would want to know, considering if we're one of the largest public distributors of their assets. czar 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete all these unmodified maps speedily per COM:PRP. There is clear consensus that these are all massive copyvios. Templates can be created / discussed as and when any user uploads a modified map along with an appropriate licence for Commons. It is significant that there is a new UN copyright policy 2016 [1] None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher. This seems to prohibit modified maps !!! Unfitlouie (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. "except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites". And the terms and conditions concerning maps are found in the page we have been discussing:
- http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm
- The unmodified maps should have the UN name, logo, and reference number speedily removed. Versus the maps being speedily deleted, and disrupting many articles on Wikipedia. But I see from your user contributions lately, that deletionism is currently the main tool in your bag. Hey, to each his own. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
CIA maps are similar: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/refmaps.html
- Copyright page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html
| "The Factbook is in the public domain. Accordingly, it may be copied freely without permission of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The official seal of the CIA, however, may NOT be copied without permission as required by the CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. section 403m). Misuse of the official seal of the CIA could result in civil and criminal penalties." |
So I assume the CIA seal must be removed if it is found on a CIA map. Yet we still must state on the description page here that the map came from the CIA in order to prove that the map is in the public domain. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- {comment}} The UN have asserted their copyrights globally. The page you link to does not relinquish/waive their copyright (in fact it reinforces it by requiring permission to publish). What it does do is to not stand in the way of individuals using UN maps as basis for creating modified maps so long as that other person assumes responsibility for those maps - ie. the OPEN SOURCE approach which is not the same as placing their maps in public domain. The proposition is simple A) UN maps are copyright asserted and not in public domain and so cannot be uploaded /retained in Commons, and B) Modified UN maps if uploaded to Commons cannot be referenced to the UN map or its UN reference number . Such modified maps may be used on projects like EN:wikipedia with different inclusion /retention standards. The CIA case is distinguishable because the CIA have explicitly stated their factbook is in the public domain. NB: I am not a deletionist, look closely. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- See: Commons:Copyright tags#Various free licenses
- See: Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags
- If the UN still retains copyright, then one of the tags from the above-linked page sections will work. This one for example:
- Template:Copyrighted free use. "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification."
- But I think they have given up copyright on the modified maps. Because they do not insist that they be given attribution. They allow people to say that their modified map is based on a UN map. But they do not insist on it. Doesn't sound like they want to retain copyright, nor insist on attribution for modified maps. That is the definition of public domain. The maps become public domain once they are modified, and once the UN name, logo, and reference number is removed. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Timeshifter: You are grasping at straws. The UN has not given up copyright nor placed their maps in "public domain" (like the CIA has). Copyrighted works enter public domain either when their copyright expires/lapses or when the holder explicitly surrenders all rights in his work. The UN has done neither of these, instead they have effectively licenced their maps as "open source" (while retaining their copyrights). Such an open source licence is incompatible with Commons because it disallows the attribution which Commons requires. Unmodified maps continue to be copyrighted because UN insists on permissions for using them as-is. Unfitlouie (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- We do not disagree on the unmodified maps being copyrighted, and not free to use as is. So let us not continue arguing about that.
- @Timeshifter: You are grasping at straws. The UN has not given up copyright nor placed their maps in "public domain" (like the CIA has). Copyrighted works enter public domain either when their copyright expires/lapses or when the holder explicitly surrenders all rights in his work. The UN has done neither of these, instead they have effectively licenced their maps as "open source" (while retaining their copyrights). Such an open source licence is incompatible with Commons because it disallows the attribution which Commons requires. Unmodified maps continue to be copyrighted because UN insists on permissions for using them as-is. Unfitlouie (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think they have given up all rights to the modified maps. That is my reading. Looking at it this way they have not "licensed" their modified maps. Attribution is that it came from an unmodified UN map originally. That is very clear. I think it is you that is grasping at straws. I am repeating myself, and you seem to be ignoring some of what I am saying. If others have another reading of the facts, and don't believe public domain applies to the modified maps, then Template:Copyrighted free use still applies to them, looking at them as being copyrighted. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Gawd, what a long, convoluted story this has become! I claim no particular expertise in UN copyright policy, map licensing, or the definitions of "relinquished rights" or "public domain", but I am an OTRS volunteer and have been parsing some of these issues for a few years now in my head. Oh, and I am a deletionist. I admit that here and now. That shouldn't mean you think I propose material for deletion erratically or carelessly, but rather that I propose it for deletion often because let's face it: a lot of it simply doesn't meet policy requirements. In this instance, what concerns me initially is that the UN has apparently not released their maps explicitly into the public domain. That is a red flag. The CIA says, "Here it is, go use it any way you like," while the UN says, in not very good English, "You can use it, just don't tell anyone you heard it from us." I share Jim Woodward's concern that this conflicts with attribution and sourcing requirements. I am not convinced, however, that they mean they should not be attributed in a way such as the Commons file description, but rather that the UN logo and any map number, if visible, must be removed from the visual representation of the UN map, altering it and turning it into a derivative work entitled to its own copyright. It does not appear that the UN wishes to limit derivative works, and if ever there was a body which would define the concept/ principle of "public domain", that body might be the UN. That a lot of people have worked on creating these maps does not sway me— if they are copyright violations, then they should go, no matter how many there are. But I do not believe the UN has any desire to limit the distribution of its work— it wishes its work to be represented accurately and in its most current state, which is why it wishes to restrict the use of its logo on maps which it might deem no longer accurate. That's fine: we remove the logo by cropping or otherwise modifying the image, and the restriction goes away— not the attribution, the logo. That may seem like an overprecise reading of their terms of use, but I do not think it necessarily limits the re-use of such images in derivative form. Of course, all of this presumes that a map as a collection of information is prima fascie copyrightable to begin with: one cannot copyright information, only the presentation of information, and when those are one and the same thing, the copyright seems like it should fall out: if I want to use a UN map depicting the Tigris-Euphrates river basin mashlands, that map and its lines are the information I am depicting, and if I had gone and collected the data myself I would produce the same map with the same lines on it with variations only in scale and color. Data are not protected by copyright, and though maps have a long history of copyright protection, I believe most of it is fallacious. But this is perhaps not the place for me to make that argument. What I am saying is that I believe the UN does not wish to limit the dissemination of its maps, it only wants people to see its logo on current maps, which is a restriction we cannot abide, so the UN asks that we (or anyone) drop its logo for reuse, which is usually very simple to do. The resulting tag should reflect this, and we should not retain any maps that have the logo on them. Whether or not that is simple to do is not our concern: we cannot prevent people from uploading restricted material, we can only propose it be deleted when we encounter it. I think this approach avoids any legal complications from the UN (did anybody ever contact them back about this?) and satisfies Commons policy requirements as well (and sorry for the all the words, but I wanted to be careful in laying out my reasoning). KDS4444 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think there has enough doubt arisen to Delete per COM:PCP. Besides that I'm not sure if all images using this template should be bulk deleted; I'd prefer to have some individual review to keep on or another if possible, although I have no idea how this can be managed. --Krd 09:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks KDS4444 for your precision. And if some method is found to notify me of UN maps containing the UN logo, name, or reference number, then I will remove the UN info. It is easy for me to do. This way we do not disrupt any Wikipedia articles. Maybe ping me from the map page or the map talk page. {{ping|Timeshifter}} becomes @Timeshifter: . See Template:Ping for more info. Give me a week after pinging me before deleting the map. I don't check my Commons watchlist every day. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per COM:PCP. Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:PCP does not apply.
From COM:PCP:
| The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.
Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
|
- There is no "doubt" about unmodified UN maps. It seems that we are in agreement that the UN logo, name, reference number, etc. must be removed in order to keep the maps. It seems that many deletionists barely bother to read with understanding the pages for the acronyms (COM:PCP) they throw around. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The only agreement/consensus is that the present UN maps cannot be hosted at Commons since they are copyvios. There is no consensus on modified maps without logos and any references to the UN, should these be uploaded in future. It is undeniable that there is significant doubt expressed here by several editors and admins about the licensing permissions / freedom of such modified files being compatible with Commons free sourcing policy, which is preventing this long overdue for closure DR from being closed only due to your tendentious and incompetent comments. Hence PCP applies. Sigmabaroda (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are being argumentative, but without content. For example; just saying "delete" without any reasoning. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- And all your contributions since May 6, 2016 have been in deletion discussions. Special:Contributions/Sigmabaroda. You only had one edit before May 6, 2016. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete COM:TLDR. These are all copyrighted files which must be immediately deleted from Commons. Derivatives without logos and attribution engender a Catch-22 licensing situation inconsistent with COMMONS' free policies negating any possible template. Sheesh, is that so difficult to understand ? ADMINS: Please close this. McGrath Clan Kirk (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- COM:TLDR is a red link. And TL;DR, short for "too long; didn't read", is irrelevant. And I am not the one making up commons policies out of thin air. Your Commons edits started May 12, 2016 and consist of nothing but comments in deletion discussions so far. Special:Contributions/McGrath_Clan_Kirk. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I try to summarize: The maps free but only if unmodified. So they are not really PD, but can only be used being unmodified. We don't accept -ND- works here, so we cannot accept these map here. Correct? --Krd 08:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- ...heu...no, they allow the creation of a new map but do not want the new map is quoted as UN map. "(...)you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name..."
This is not "ND", but this is clearly not PD as this is a restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)- if the template is kept, it must be written so that it says the same thing as their statement requirements. In summary they allow only derivative work "Content of your map will be your responsibility". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Possible template wording: "Unless stated otherwise, derivative UN maps (no UN name, logo, UN info, or UN reference number) are to be considered in the public domain. For more info see this UN page. To have the UN info removed from an already uploaded Commons map, please ping Timeshifter from the map page, or do it yourself. {{ping|Timeshifter}}." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this is necessary on the template: "Some UN maps have special copyrights, as indicated on the map itself." Those maps are not covered by the PD image license of this template. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Possible template wording: "Unless stated otherwise, derivative UN maps (no UN name, logo, UN info, or UN reference number) are to be considered in the public domain. For more info see this UN page. To have the UN info removed from an already uploaded Commons map, please ping Timeshifter from the map page, or do it yourself. {{ping|Timeshifter}}." --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- if the template is kept, it must be written so that it says the same thing as their statement requirements. In summary they allow only derivative work "Content of your map will be your responsibility". Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly in my understanding a PD template is not appropriate, as there are restrictions. I suggest to rename the template to simply "UN-map" and to edit the content in this kind of sense, all complemented by a free license to the user's choice:
| This work, or a part of this work is derivated from a UN map. United Nations allow reuse or modification of their map provided that the UN name and reference number are deleted, for the sake of updating and accuracy. The content here now is under full responsibility of the mentioned author. |  |
otherwise
Delete for me, as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what restrictions you are seeing. But your idea for the template works for me since if the UN is giving up all rights to the modified map, then whatever free image license is used by the modifier is fine as long as it is an image license acceptable to the Commons.
- Concerning public domain images already on the Commons. Can they be modified, and then any free image license used for the modified image? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current template say "Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain.", this is simply false because they clearly write "We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site". We do not permit is a restriction, and We request however that you delete the UN name... is a condition. This is far to be the definition of Public Domain.
They allow to create a new map, without their name and this new map is not a UN map. Its content and it's licensing, is the responsibility of the author of the new map. In my understanding you have the right to publish here a UN map but as soon as it is published here it becomes something other than a UN map therefor it can't be licensed as a UN map. You can put it in the PD if you want but not because this is a UN map, it will be your (our) choice.
For existing files using this template, the best is to keep it and and to incorporate one of our license tag.
Example
| ||
|---|---|---|
   This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
|
Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course this Category:UN maps is not properly named as the files in this category are not UN maps "(...)We request however that you delete the UN name..." but derivatives of UN maps. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- So I guess we have been putting maps derived from UN maps under a kind of "conditional" public domain license. That of course, is not a true, complete form of public domain license. Thus the need for the modified UN map template.
- As for licenses for modified public domain maps (not UN maps) they can be put under any copyright license the author chooses. See:
- Public Domain Trouble Spots - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center. See section called "Public Domain Works That Are Modified".
- So since the UN is giving up all rights to modified UN maps we need to mention in the template that any image license may be chosen by the author, but that only a few are accepted for use on the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest adding this to the template: "Please do not speedy-delete unmodified UN maps. Instead, link to the map at Category talk:UN maps. There are editors there that can remove the UN info from the maps in a few days." I propose changing the category name to "Maps derived from UN maps". --Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- This proposal won't fly. For a derivative work, and these are clearly derivative works, to be licensed under CC-BY-SA all the underlying works must be simultaneously linked under the same terms. This is the "Catch-22" situation. The UN's policy does not extend to or envisage file sharing sites like Commons which will create CC licenses out of the UN's copyright work; the UN were clearly only envisaging individual users who were statically publishing derivative maps for use in print or news articles under their own imprint - which is not the case here. Retaining such modified maps will create a huge PR and IPR mess in the future as it apparently legitimises fictitious, anonymous and fraudulent user accounts to pirate copyrighted work and palm it off as their own works under CC licenses merely by removing the owner's marks. Sigmabaroda (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Christian Ferrer is an admin, and so his proposal has merit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what, the requester User:Jameslwoodward is a bureaucrat ? Please directly address the following questions and don't side step them.
1) Are the original (unmodified maps) UN maps unquestionably in Public Domain? <Yes / No>
2) Are the original (unmodified maps) UN maps out of UN copyright? <Yes / No>
3) Is the UN's limited waiver to use derivatives after removing UN's logo and references) absent of restrictions prohibiting citing the UN's references or linking to their website / publications etc. thereafter? <Yes / No>
If your answer is "Yes" to any of these questions, please provide the evidence to prove your answer. If the answers are "No" then these files (modified or not) must be deleted as contravening COM:L and COM:EVID etc. Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- User:Sigmabaroda: Your argument that this is only meant for copyright holders who don't release their rights is ridiculous. If Joe Bloggs puts his personal Copyright All Rights Reserved on a book or a news article that has a UN map stripped of the required logos, he is not in violation and you admit it! So how the hell does he not have the right one fine day to log into Wikimedia Commons and upload that book to the world as his gracious gift, under whatever free license he wants? This kind of thinking that Commons is somehow inferior to private copyright holders is dangerous and destructive and totally unjustifiable. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what, the requester User:Jameslwoodward is a bureaucrat ? Please directly address the following questions and don't side step them.
- Christian Ferrer is an admin, and so his proposal has merit. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems clear that a resolution that everyone agrees with is not possible. Someone with Wikipedia authority should write to someone with UN authority to request a precise clarification, giving examples of the maps we have and noting that the 10-year-old OTRS leaves us unclear of our legal rights. Meanwhile, we shouldn't be pre-emptively conducting a massacre of our map collection. Zero0000 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment That decade old map collection was amassed after a foolish misreading of the UN's policy. Now that it is clear that these maps were never in PD nor could be "considered" to be in PD, keeping them at Commons is a legal minefield. Under what licence can the modified maps User:Timeshifter is creating be permitted ? CC-BY-SA is ruled out because of the attribution requirements for Adaptations of Original works which the UN disallows (the "Catch-22"). Public Domain licensing for modified maps is also ruled out because a) the original works are not in Public Domain and b) the UN has not relinquished their copyright to their maps. The sooner all these images are deleted the better. Hence, per COM:EVID I say that if User:Timeshifter cannot obtain verifiable and authentic OTRS permission within 7 days all these "UN maps" must (regrettably) go. Sigmabaroda (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Destroying a decade of work in 7 days is wholly inappropriate. Now the question has arisen, so long as we deal with it cafefully and professionally we will pass the "hindsight test" of having acted appropriately. We do not need to irreversibly damage the encyclopaedia by panicking. And we shouldn't put all the burden on one editor such as Timeshifter to fix this. We should agree a plan to work together, possibly also with the WMF, to contact various entities within the UN in order to encourage a clear and thought through decision from them. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have raised the question on Jimbo's wikipedia talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Destroying a decade of work in 7 days is wholly inappropriate. Now the question has arisen, so long as we deal with it cafefully and professionally we will pass the "hindsight test" of having acted appropriately. We do not need to irreversibly damage the encyclopaedia by panicking. And we shouldn't put all the burden on one editor such as Timeshifter to fix this. We should agree a plan to work together, possibly also with the WMF, to contact various entities within the UN in order to encourage a clear and thought through decision from them. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and update OTRS permission: There is every reason to believe the UN would provide the permission we need to clarify this. These maps, many of which are very important to our project, should not be deleted without trying our very best to get the permission we need from the appropriate department at the UN. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- COMMENT This discussion has been inconclusive for almost 3 months. It has been regularly suggested that someone from WMF will contact the UN and get OTRS permission. So far it has not emerged and there is no reason to believe that the UN will permit massive and systematic piracy of their maps. These maps are now a major piracy embarrassment for Commons, symbolizing everything that is wrong with it, and posting to Jimbo's talk page is the surest way to inform the outside world about yet another Commons muck up. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, minus logos. Commons is not an appropriate place for posting files that cannot be modified. However, once the logos are stripped, the file is your map and free to use and modify. I do not believe the UN is asserting any extra objection to distributing a modified map with the UN logo as opposed to distributing a falsified map with the UN logo, i.e. one which is entirely your own creation but is deceptively attributed to them. The statement that you can make "your map" would be meaningless if there were not an actual right to use it. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The your map argument is fallacious and taken out of context. Please read the past discussions carefully. The UN had only indicated a limited waiver (similar to fair use) for people who want to use their maps by removing the UN logo and map references at their risk and cost. These modified maps cannot contain the UN logo as you wrongly claim, and neither can they link to or reference the original UN map. Because of these UN imposed restrictions, the adapted maps cannot be classed as PUBLIC DOMAIN or assigned CC free licenses and so cannot be hosted at Commons. As previous commentors have discovered the UN now has a new copyright policy and is strongly asserting their copyrights over all content on their websites. So either there is a very specific OTRS permission obtained rapidly from the UN or these maps must be excised. 7 days seems much too generous to obtain these, I would have specified the 5 days usual for DMCA requests. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that they are under any ongoing restriction. The communication and website say take the logo and crap off and it's your map. If it's your map, that means you can make a copyrighted derivative and sell it, or issue a CC-license, or declare it public domain, etc. There's no specific requirement against putting the logo and crap back on right where it was; however, an argument could readily be made that this is intentionally recreating a copyrighted work. I mean, AFAIK if Google uses a USGS public domain map you can isolate the USGS part and distribute it, but if you take a bunch and put a Google logo and frame around them and try to mimic Google Maps, they'll probably have words with you. Doesn't mean USGS isn't public domain! Bottom line - take the logo and crap off, and you have your file, you CC-license and PD the thing, and it's up to the person reusing not to precisely duplicate a UN-official format header. I do not believe that citation of the source is prohibited in any way either. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't say your map - it says your own map - a big difference in law !!! The UN copyright policy also says None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Cartographic webpage (which is not Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, also says We do not permit posting of our maps into your web site (if the map is not part of a specific publication, book or article). This "our maps" / "your maps" confusion is a strawman argument based on the 2005 OTRS. The UN copyright policy linked makes it highly unlikely the UN will release their copyright for the mass scale piracy some Commons volunteers intend to perpetrate on these maps. Don't bring in crap like Google crap. This is not Google, as yet. Finally, and this is important, the cartographic page being cited deals with publication permissions. AFAIK Commons is not a publisher. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that they are under any ongoing restriction. The communication and website say take the logo and crap off and it's your map. If it's your map, that means you can make a copyrighted derivative and sell it, or issue a CC-license, or declare it public domain, etc. There's no specific requirement against putting the logo and crap back on right where it was; however, an argument could readily be made that this is intentionally recreating a copyrighted work. I mean, AFAIK if Google uses a USGS public domain map you can isolate the USGS part and distribute it, but if you take a bunch and put a Google logo and frame around them and try to mimic Google Maps, they'll probably have words with you. Doesn't mean USGS isn't public domain! Bottom line - take the logo and crap off, and you have your file, you CC-license and PD the thing, and it's up to the person reusing not to precisely duplicate a UN-official format header. I do not believe that citation of the source is prohibited in any way either. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per Carl Lindberg. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Other measures
edit1. Maps that cannot be freely modified don't belong on Commons, among other issues. All the maps I've looked at lack the UN logo or numbers I keep seeing referenced. Do we have maps with the restricted components that haven't been fixed? Because it is obvious we should take those off, providing text annotation of the removed source details of course.
2. Given that the maps are all modifiable, without the logos, we should change this template dramatically. It should explain that maps from the UN can be freely used provided those changes have been made, without giving the impression that the unmodified maps have the same permission.
3. Template should be renamed PD-UN-map-derivative, retaining the current name as a redirect/shortcut, just to be extra clear. Category should also be renamed. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. Your entire construct is false and based on the "our maps" / "your maps" fallacy. All maps, even after removing logos and reference bits, continue to be copyrighted by/to the UN, and which status cannot be altered by the uploaders. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Highlighting outrageous misquotes implying that UN maps can be further copyrighted/copylefted by anybody other than the UN. Read my lips, unless the maps are modified in very substantial ways (not trivial things like removing logos and minor text, ie. routine piracy) the UN continues to be the copyright holders in the adaptations also and Joe Bloggs (whoever the fxx he is) only owns a copy which does not permit dilution of the UN's inherent copyright bestowed by virtue of their authorship. Oompahloompah2016 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We are talking about moral rights and not copyright. Commons tends to ignore most of moral rights. Therefor I tend to follow the line of reasoning of Carl Lindberg and Rybkovich. Besides, there are always moral rights in play, even if someone licensed their works under a cc license and we are allowed to mention that the map is based on a UN-map so the no source problem seems to be resolved. I do consider the OTRS-ticket null and void btw, crappy ticket with no real relevant info.
If we would want to discuss further options like modifying the template I suggest we do it at a place not ran over by IAC and their sock/meatpuppets inserting disinformation. --Natuur12 (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mr.Larkowis_-_İmza.png
Yanlışlıkla yükledim zaten daha öncen farklı versiyonunu yüklemiştim.
Delete Page. Mr.Larkowis (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, per G7. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Bogus PD/GFDL self claim - Notwithstanding that the source is pintrest, 1927 is the date of creation. {{PD-Cambodia}} uses date of author death. No author information is provided or at source. If the author is not known, the Commons uses 120 years from creation (see {{PD-old-assumed}}), and 1927 + 120 + 1 = 2048. Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Nevermind: LTA Phnom Penh Skyline--Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1). --Эlcobbola talk 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This page is about me Carter and I wish to have it deleted for tthe reason being none of the imformation on this page is correct and only serves to slander me 185.191.204.131 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Full of slander and no real info 173.64.115.237 04:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not approved by copywright holder yet Richarddent (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 09:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as speedy deletion tagger. I think this request is meant to challenge the speedy deletion as it is being done by the file uploader, but the rationale is not clear. This is a book cover directly taken from a major publisher's website. It looks like as cut-and-dry an example of copyright violation as you'll see. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: SD, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not approved by copywright holder yet. Richarddent (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: SD, copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Copyright protected statue in the United States per COM:FOP US. TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn: Image is of cosplay, not a statue.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Likely not own work: this has been cropped from somewhere else, missing essential info and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I added some comment on the file. It is based on a OpenStreetMap based capture, that i modified and adapted with own drawning to fit with articles, book or data older published before 1926. I wil do the same modification for the other image in case. Tell me if it's correct now. I do not use map from that do not allow redistribution. Regards--GF38storic (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Missing essential source info. Which wikimap, or do you mean wikimapia? Wikimapia is not free. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Modified the statements to included the credit to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ . Is it ok now? or have i to do something else? Regards--GF38storic (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
PR issue Reiro (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; spam -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This redirect is being used by editors to add the file to a biography at the English Wikipedia, even though the subject is not depicted in the file (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_O%27Brien_(footballer)&curid=58347609&action=history). Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:CSD#G2: Clearly incorrect redirect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; speedied as F10. --Gbawden (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Non free-use image derived from Attack on titan anime poster. Dantiras (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 02:29, 1 August 2021 UTC: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Anime/manga/comics --Krdbot 08:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by 1fluidphysics (talk · contribs)
editUnused personal and/or hoax images with no educational value--related to deleted nonsense w:Draft:Royalist Party (California) and indef en.wiki block.
- File:Mafia Monthly.jpg
- File:Elevyn Crown.jpg
- File:Royal Governor Sean Patrick Patterson.jpg
- File:Statement Of Intention.jpg
- File:Administrative Assistant.jpg
- File:Relative Security narrative.jpg
- File:Elevyn Administration Q&A.jpg
- File:California Constitutional.jpg
- File:Elevyn flag.png
- File:Voter Registration Card Statement of Distribution plans.jpg
- File:California 501 form.jpg
- File:Mafia Monthly SBA filing.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 19:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
All uploads either fictional or non-fictional; because of potential book and movie deals relating to the FEC committee filing, Federal Court filings by (Mafia Monthly), Better business Bureau filing, are relevant to the Royalist Party in sponsorship or marketing opportunities; --1fluidphysics (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Flag of Kumyks.svg Vexillology Hub (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep the deletion nominator is an LTA. SHB2000 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate, repaced by .svg file. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Flag of Kumyks.svg Vexillology Hub (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
File:Estelada blava, symmetric.svg Vexillology Hub (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep nominator is an LTA themself. SHB2000 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
COM:OOS unidentified woman, no evident educational use Buidhe (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Per COMMONS:NOTHOST - We don't host tourist photos. This photo remains on Flickr where folks can enjoy it. Missvain (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/(Albi) Mademoiselle Lucie Bellanger 1896 - Toulouse-Lautrec MTL.194
editerror typo Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Resume. You really don't want to post that here. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
probably not own work 181.88.222.64 14:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Test upload by noncontributor, some sort of screenshot. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement GeorgHH • talk 11:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Spam / advertising-only account Lotje (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Spam / advertising-only account Lotje (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason: Spam / advertising-only account Lotje (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Netora (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mjrajitgupta1 (talk · contribs)
editself promo on enwp
- File:Raj12g.jpg
- File:Gmjrajit4.jpg
- File:Gmjrajit3.jpg
- File:Gmjrajit1.jpg
- File:Gmjrajit.jpg
- File:Gmjrajitgupta.jpg
Minoraxtalk 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Brownberry Trousers (talk · contribs)
editCross-wiki promotion; logos of non-notable company, so out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Brownberry TrouserS.jpg
- File:Brownberry Trousers.png
- File:Brownberry.png
- File:Brownberry logo.jpg
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in vanity draft. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kmlkarablt (talk · contribs)
editOut of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
induvidual person that used for violations (spam) Euro know (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Promotion-only account: xwiki spamming Lotje (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal files, out of scope.
- File:Carpas canal olimpico castelldefels en pleno 1994.jpg
- File:Carpas canal olimpico castelldefels.jpg
- File:Evento en reus.jpg
- File:Zona A cambio de a cd.jpg
- File:Nave musical K.O. cornella de llobregat.jpg
- File:Hospitalet de llobregat zona a.jpg
- File:Technics.jpg
- File:Macrofiesta.jpg
- File:Enjoy concierto kjarkas.jpg
- File:Carpas malats.jpg
- File:Hospitalet de llobregat.jpg
- File:Enjoy 2.jpg
- File:Evento.jpg
- File:Privat barcelona.jpg
- File:Zona A.jpg
- File:Nave musical K.O.jpg
- File:Malalts de festa.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 16:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Afriqan ug (talk · contribs)
editSelf-promotion, out of project scope. No contributions to any wm project.
Achim (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal sketch, not historical or scholarly, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused personal doodles, no educational value, out of scope.
- File:Irish sheep.png
- File:Canadian Beaver.png
- File:Ugandan bird.png
- File:Lao Elephant.png
- File:Kazakh Bird.png
- File:Bhutanese dragon.png
- File:Russian bear.png
- File:Dominica bird.png
- File:Kenyan Lion.png
- File:Albanian bird.png
- File:Australian Koala.png
- File:French Rooster.png
P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Unused photo too blurred to be of use. Malcolma (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Replaceable by File:Multifideen.png, which is larger and has transparent background. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The two are entirely equivalent except for the size and transparency advantage of the latter; therefore, no use for the former. Marbletan (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Replaceable by File:Propynyllithium structuur.png, which is larger and has transparent background. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Harshv7777 (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:St. Joseph’s College, Main Building.jpg
- File:Akhilesh Yadav in 2020.jpg
- File:Sharad Kumar Yadav.jpg
- File:Sharad Kumar Yadav 2.jpg
- File:DGP Jagmohan Yadav in Varanasi.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akifabuassi (talk · contribs)
editOut of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Black Elephant Ed. (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Reyes co-hosting at the Ryan Garcia vs Luke Campbell fight, January 2nd 2021.jpg
- File:Reyes co-hosting at Canelo vs Yildirim fight, February 2021.jpg
- File:Anna Woolhouse June 2019 MSG Joshua vs. Ruiz Jnr.jpg
- File:Akin 'Ak' Reyes, July 2017. Dazn usa launch. Joshua vs. Povetkin press conference.jpg
- File:Taj Marley Reyes in 2020 Nike NYFW runway show tribute.jpg
- File:Akin 'Ak' Reyes - DAZN - September 2018.jpg
- File:Ade Oladipo-January 2020.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. Duplicate. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
calidad pésima de imagen y posible copia de una fotografía original — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.Leonard83 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request, own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Dubious CC claim. Screencap from a hacked rom of a game that's almost certainly still under copyright. As a derivative work it can't be properly released as CC. Premeditated Chaos (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom czar 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Speedy delete blatant copyvio, COM:SCREENSHOT of a copyrighted video gameplay. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Screenshot, the program might be freely licensed but the softpedia.com web page shown is not. MKFI (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
COPY https://www.campograndenews.com.br/cidades/capital/dono-da-ciclo-ribeiro-tratou-covid-em-casa-nao-queria-ficar-no-hospital Lentoster (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by JuTa at 01:40, 9 August 2021 UTC: No permission since 27 July 2021 --Krdbot 08:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Thiz image is unlikely to have been created by the uploader, who would have no need to mark the image as "Authorized for public release", which is also likely not a copyright free release. BilCat (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by JuTa at 01:47, 9 August 2021 UTC: No source specified since 28 July 2021 --Krdbot 08:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The bar code at the bottom is clearly post 1989, so the no-notice tag on it is not valid. The art work is certainly complex enough to be above the COM:TOO US. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The license is correct. Also, what barcode? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Illegitimate Barrister: You may have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MN with no.com flat plate from my own collection.png, especially Jim's comment on why your comments are invalid. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The PD-no_notice is valid as this is a 1988 design. Anybody can use it at any time, inclyding State of Minnesota and no reuse of the PD design makes it copyrighted. Moreover I see no barcode, maybe you mean the label: it is also PD as PD-text. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Background (i.e. the trees on the right of "Minnesota" above)? That's also a key reason why this image beyonds COM:TOO US. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept, the license applies: the design was published before 1989 without copyright notice. I removed TOO-related category, because the request has nothing to do with threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
book covers. Unlike that own work
- File:Vene impeeriumi hukk.jpg
- File:Õiguse ja omariikluse eest. Otto Tief.jpg
- File:Eestlaste küüditamine. Mineviku varjud tänases päevas.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: 05:15, 20 August 2021, by Racconish. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
book covers. Permission from the illustrator is needed
- File:Võõrsil vastu tahtmist.jpg
- File:Vene impeeriumi hukk.jpg
- File:Õiguse ja omariikluse eest. Otto Tief.jpg
- File:Masendus ja lootus.jpg
- File:1949. aasta märtsiküüditamine Tartu linnas ja maakonnas.jpg
- File:Maria Siberimaal.jpg
- File:Eestlaste küüditamine. Mineviku varjud tänases päevas.jpg
- File:Toimik Priboi.jpg
- File:Saaks veel Eestissegi.jpg
- File:Uuemaid aspekte märtsiküüditamise uurimisest.jpg
- File:Leitnant Reinhold Sabolotnõi.jpg
- File:Leintant Reinhold Sabolotnõi.jpg
- File:Ma pääsesin siiski.jpg
- File:Lurich (2017).jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Kept one as PD-text. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
book covers are not public domain. Permission from the illustrator is needed
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: the first, per nom. The second has nothing copyrightable. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Facebook image per Metadata, permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what this is, but it's not educational and of value to our project. I think we can release this image into the ether. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, it is widely available on various social media Evaders99 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I believe this is a cropped screenshot of this YouTube video. Alexanderlee (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Looks like it matches 0:40. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Papua New Guinea permitting commercial uses of images of public works still under copyright. The Papua New Guinean law does not also grant public domain status to any tangible government works (only official texts). This copyrighted public building was opened on August 8, 1984, and designed by Cecil Hogan, then Department of Public Works Director. If the law will still remain as it is (no indication of permission for commercial exploitations of visual representations of protected public works), COM:VRT authorization from the architect is required if he agrees to have users' images of his architectural work licensed commercially.
- File:Port Moresby parliament building front, by Steve Shattuck.jpg - note that the image shows the front façade that contains a mural made by Archie Brennan JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)
- File:Port Moresby parliament building side, by Steve Shattuck.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Buildings in Port Moresby
editThere is no freedom of panorama in Papua New Guinea. The Pacific Place building was completed in 1992 according to Emporis. Architect's license authorization via COM:VRT is required.
- File:Pacific Place Port Moresby November 2013.jpg
- File:Port Moresby Town.JPG
- File:The long-closed Burns Philp department store.jpg - this one can be cropped to focus on the old building of Burns Philp store at the bottom and remove large chunk of the copyrighted building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in PNG, which means images of public works under architects' or artists' copyright cannot be used freely and commercially. COM:VRT permission from the architect is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This logo is not official, Yahoo no longer has a seperate logo for their search operations. 78Game (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept, this is not a reason to delete the file, because it is used (and even in multiple projects). Commons hosts old and outdated logos to show history. Taivo (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems {{PD-textlogo}} to me. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Low resolution and stolen Pockypan (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Below COM:TOO US. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No proof of copyright and a duplicate of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/58/20180917225411%21Atari_Official_2012_Logo.svg Pockypan (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- The file is {{PD-textlogo}} just like File:Atari Official 2012 Logo.svg. It is probably close enough to delete as a duplicate though. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violation: building is not yet in public domain as Le Corbusier is not yet dead for more than 70 years. Undelete in 2036. French FOP is noncommercial, but noncommercial license from Le Corbusier's heirs is not acceptable here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Le Corbusier building. Not yet in public domain as the architect is not yet dead for 70+1 years (will fall PD on January 1, 2036). There is no commercial FOP in France. Commons only accepts licenses that allow commercial reuses of images of copyrighted public works. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The source page says this photo is CC BY-NC 4.0 which is not compatible with Commons Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Artwork not in public domain until author's life plus 70 years, but the author died in 1976 so not yet Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- ........ It's a picture of inside an airport..... so how do you come to the conclusion it's a "Nondesript holiday snap"?, Also nobodies rights are infringed .... it's a public building .... not inside someones house nor is it a close up of people..... –Davey2010Talk 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Davey2010. Good pic of an airport arrivals area. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per Davey2010 SHB2000 (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Question @Davey2010, Rodhullandemu, and SHB2000: are there any derivative works issues here (and possible architecture inclusion, considering the country is a no commercial FOP country)? Or are these DW's de minimis? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Tricky. I don't think the architecture is "the main work" since it is peripheral to the floor space of the arrivals area. As for the the copyrighted material, I'd say mostly de minimis since it's also incidental. The one thing that bothers me is the large sign at top right, which could be cropped so as to be less intrusive. I'd also crop the guy on the left since he doesn't add anything. Those crops would at least focus more on the "arrivals" concept and less on possibly infringing content. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- My thoughts are the exact same as Rods - The banner would be deminimis, COM:FOP:Georgie appears to say this image is fine,
Also Rodhullandemu, SHB2000 and JWilz12345 - We currently have File:Arrivals, Tbilisi International Airport, TBS (40747280981).jpg which is the same image but the banner isn't so much in your face and the guy isn't there (and everyone in the nominated photo's also in the linked one) so should this actually be deleted in favour of the other linked one ?,- Also cropping the file leaves the guys arm in it and we crop his arm out that's less image we have,
Anyway we also have this image which is sort of a better crop,–Davey2010Talk 14:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Even though the advertisement is large, it is an unwanted intrusion into the image and thus COM:DM. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement Kollymoore1992 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear whether uploader is the author. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Vxceprex (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Author request to delete unused, blurry image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
http://casadadublagem10.blogspot.com/?m=1 COPY Lentoster (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't see a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 license on https://coveroffuture.com/vi/. Now it's a pretty complex page, so maybe I'm just missing it somewhere? If someone can find it, great. Until then, though, I think these images are copyrighted.
GRuban (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Tahiya Islam
edit- File:20210114182027 IMG 7490.jpg
- File:Rashed Rahman .jpg
- File:Ahnaf Abdullah.jpg
- File:Ahnaf Abdullah .jpg
Files look to have been used on non-notable pages on bn.wikipedia. Out of project scope. Unlikely to be own work, as files have different camera metadata and some have watermarks. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Andel as no permission (No permission since) Geregen2 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is Soccer.ru permission on this now (not sure how to link the template without it being expanded). Did you tag it in like 10 seconds it took me to edit it? Geez. Geregen2 (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, yes, I was (too) fast... All ok now IMHO. --Andel (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I just was surprised how quickly it got nominated, good job on that. Geregen2 (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Stolen logo and not the current logo Pockypan (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Below COM:TOO US and COM:INUSE. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: same as before: below TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted and I did not have permission to post it at the time Lyanbox782 (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Files of User:Rosana Martinelli
editUploader suggests they are the person in the photos, need information about the photographers and permission to license their photos. --Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Personal photo without educational use Drakosh (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tarai tallinn (talk · contribs)
editOTRS-permission is needed here
- File:Tarai esineb kontserdil Tallinnas, Kopli pargis (23.072021).jpg
- File:Tarai kontserdil Tallinnas (23.07.2021).jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Scan of a book, assume copyrighted unless there is evidence otherwise. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sven-Orli Orgmets (talk · contribs)
editHistorical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Matus Kviberg kalmistu.jpg
- File:Göteborg, pansionaat september 1975.jpg
- File:06.juuni1954.a.Göteborg.jpg
- File:Göteborg 1960.a..jpg
- File:Perepilt 1932.a..jpg
- File:Hugo-Johannes Möldre.jpg
Estopedist1 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the old logo of "Faith Factor Media" new is released now BibleVerses.in (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This person died in 1979. The source of the image might be this website: https://www.papalartifacts.com/december-9-1979-the-death-of-archbishop-fulton-j-sheen/ . That shows a different image, however without the halo. That website is copyrighted. I think the uploader took it from there, so this image is copyrigthed and should be deleted. Elly (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nomination; in addition insufficient source information provided by the uploader. --Mosbatho (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. The only (remaining) uploading by this user.
Estopedist1 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: general view of airport. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. Possible personal rights infringement. 62.216.207.145 09:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the circumstance of this file will depend on the fate of the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arrivals, Tbilisi International Airport, TBS (40747280981).jpg, which shows the same arrivals area but has derivative work problem. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: general view of airport. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Nondesript holiday snap. 62.216.207.145 09:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, redundant to File:Arrivals, Tbilisi International Airport, TBS (26876225668).jpg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
This picture is downloaded from news website and did not appropriate with Creative Commons license in its website. Urang Kamang (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
File EXIF shows "Author Ken Schmidt Copyright holder Oread Studios". OTRS permission from Ken Schmidt / Oread studios needed. MKFI (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Source: homepege, Author: takehisa. No permission from author. Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Source: 春日病院ホームページより (en:from Kasuga Hospital website), Author: 春日病院 (en:Kasuga Hospital). No permission from author. Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from poster. Should be blanked to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and non-notable event. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Gemeinsame Teilnahme an den Olympischen Sommerspiele 1988 in Seoul mit Alexander Alexandrowitsch Karelin.jpg
editHistorical photo, found the one before adjustment at Reddit in 2018 A1Cafel (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing essential info. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
copyright infringement per TinEye search. Only (remaining) uploading by this user.
Estopedist1 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for taking random picture and adding this to article, it was one of my first edits and therefore I agree the deletion of this picture. Estopedist1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollu15 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
By User:Ollu15 20.08.2021
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
image from smaglov.com. OTRS-permission is needed
Estopedist1 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ksenofont Majorov (talk · contribs)
editAuthor: Parikas (= en:Brothers Parikas), not public domain yet
Estopedist1 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Because it is Logo Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Wrong license as the image was not created by VOA. Wcam (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not taken by VOA. They republish photographs from other photographs all the time, so much so that Template:PD-VOA warns about it. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cité radieuse, Rezé
editLe Corbusier, the architect, died in 1965. No FOP in France. The files may be moved to the French Wikipedia under the following condition : « L'importation sur la Wikipédia francophone de photographies libres de bâtiments récents est tolérée. Cependant, l'importation est interdite dans les cas où les ayants droit ont explicitement exprimé leur opposition. »
- File:La cite radieuse reze.jpg
- File:La Cité radieuse de Rezé.jpg
File:Rezé centre 1.jpgFile:Rezé centre.jpg
— Racconish ☎ 21:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Racconish, pour File:Rezé centre.jpg (utilisée dans une vingtaine de wiki pour illustrer l'article sur Rezé) ça veut dire qu'il est impossible de présenter une photo du centre-ville de Rezé ? (sur cette photo, centrée sur l'église, on ne voit qu'une partie du bâtiment de Le Corbusier (tellement mssif qu'on ne peut éviter d'en voir une partie sous cet angle...), et un morceau de l'hôtel de ville).--Rehtse (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn these 2 per de minimis. — Racconish ☎ 06:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cité radieuse, Rezé
editMore derivative work copyvios. The building won't be free until January 1, 2036 (the 70th anniversary of the architect Le Corbusier's death). Noncommercial French FOP is not OK with COM:Licensing. Noncommercial license from the architect's heirs is not OK either.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pymouss Let’s talk - 15:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sadopaul as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: copyvio. The file has been 9 years in Commons and it is heavily used, so I allow discussion for a week. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @钉钉: — sadopaul (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- This file obviously violates the license policy. (1) The painting was created in 1975 by Haksoo, Kim who was dead just 12 years ago. (2) There is no FoP in South Korea. Unless government or author-related person state the license of this file as uploadable, it must be deleted.— sadopaul (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Please provide resources to support your claim that "The painting was created in 1975 by Haksoo, Kim". 钉钉 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- @钉钉: Every source can be found coherently states the fact. The most direct one is [2] offered by Gyeongbokgung Palace Management Office. Multiple reliable sources also dictate the fact: [3], [4]. I sincerely thank to your contributions.— sadopaul (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ✗plicit 07:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 07:50, 12 October 2021 UTC: CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) --Krdbot 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
derivative work of drawing here https://brojames.blogspot.com/p/the-brothers-of-christian-instruction.html Elly (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Didym at 19:19, 12 October 2021 UTC: No permission since 30 September 2021 --Krdbot 01:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Foto that was made near 1987 can't be in public domain, like foto that was made more that 70 years ago. Wrong license. Kursant504 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. (A public domain photo made in 1987 is not an impossibility; but it is impossible for a photo taken in 1987 to have been made by someone dead for more than 70 years, as the tag claimed. - even in Halloween season we cannot assume photos were taken by ghosts.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Bad quality file J.M.Domingo (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually this is just the picture's grain User:Andreaumaq And let me remember you that it is in 4032 x 2024... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaumaq (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have read the reason I have given for deletion (Bad quality file) and certainly I have not expressed accurately why I believe the archive should be erased. I think that the original drawing scanned in that file cannot be considered as a portrait with the minimum quality level to be used in this project. I do not think that there is any problem with the scanning/photo or the resolution of the picture. J.M.Domingo (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- The fact the quality of the image may or not be ok is not an issue (due to COM:INUSE), but the fact that it is a derivative work of an artwork might require OTRS permission (but sinc eit seems to be own work from the comments above, I'm not sure). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:INUSE. And the draw seem own work for me. SCP-2000 05:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --ƏXPLICIT 05:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mbaro01 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: <author unknown; F5>
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion, as deletion has once been rejected. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept Authorship is stated on the file page, no reason has been offered to doubt it. (Simple sketch, not as good a portrait as we might wish, but seems the only free licensed one we have at present, and is in use in multiple projects.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Timtrent (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted unused personal photo by user with no other contributions; OOS. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessary, blurry, irredentist near-duplicate of File:Idioma azerí.png. GPinkerton (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable user-generated fantasy artwork: out of COM:SCOPE, violates COM:NOTHOST/COM:SELFIE, no possible educational use (COM:EV) GPinkerton (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Commons does not require maps to be "correct" or backed by reliable sources to be hosted here. In cases where there is a dispute about a map, we host all the different versions of the map as separate files and let the various Wikipedias decide which one to use. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Kaldari Being "correct" or "backed by reliable sources" does not form any part of this deletion nomination. The file should be deleted for the reasons outlined - because it violates policy. No-one has mentioned Wikipedia, and the file is not in use, since it is not possible for the file to have any educational purpose. This criterion alone is enough to necessitate its deletion. GPinkerton (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per GPinkerton. One of the three fantasy and nationalistic maps uploaded by Mahammad tt [5] [6]. This is honestly hurting Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable user-generated fantasy artwork: out of COM:SCOPE, violates COM:NOTHOST/COM:SELFIE, no possible educational use (COM:EV) GPinkerton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Clearly not uploaders own work as claimed - needs an actual source for the drawing and when and where it was first published and by who. Nigel Ish (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- it is my own work. I made a photo yesterday. Decided to change the license type to the Public domain. Igors Cernovs (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The photo that you made is a derivative work of a drawing with its own copyright - so it cannot be released into the public domain - if the original drawing was by Kārlis Irbītis who died in 1997 then Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia applies - so the drawing is in copyright until 2067. If it's not by Irbītis but by an unknown author then copyright lasts until 70 years after first made available to the public - if as you claim here that this is the first time the drawing has been published then copyright remains in place until 70 years from now - i.e. 2091!Nigel Ish (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Real date of the drawing is 1939. I saw some copies from the archive and made a photo yesterday. That’s why I claimed it as my own work. Be advised that I made photo from the copy. I don’t know where is an original and who is an author of the copy. For information, Irbitis many years ago left Latvia and was living in Canada. Where he died 23 years ago, as stated in Wikipedia. I don’t think why you use copyright rules by territory/Latvia and where do you see on the picture that it is copyrighted? Original drawing disappeared and most probably destroyed during second world war. So, we are speaking about the owner of the copy. Which is unknown. Why I can’t release the image into the public domain in that case? Igors Cernovs (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The copy in the archive will be a derivative work of the original drawing (which is dated 1939 - i.e. when Irbītis was still working for VEF in Latvia) and thus be subject to the same copyright as the drawing - as will the photo you took of the copy in the archive.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Real date of the drawing is 1939. I saw some copies from the archive and made a photo yesterday. That’s why I claimed it as my own work. Be advised that I made photo from the copy. I don’t know where is an original and who is an author of the copy. For information, Irbitis many years ago left Latvia and was living in Canada. Where he died 23 years ago, as stated in Wikipedia. I don’t think why you use copyright rules by territory/Latvia and where do you see on the picture that it is copyrighted? Original drawing disappeared and most probably destroyed during second world war. So, we are speaking about the owner of the copy. Which is unknown. Why I can’t release the image into the public domain in that case? Igors Cernovs (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- The photo that you made is a derivative work of a drawing with its own copyright - so it cannot be released into the public domain - if the original drawing was by Kārlis Irbītis who died in 1997 then Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Latvia applies - so the drawing is in copyright until 2067. If it's not by Irbītis but by an unknown author then copyright lasts until 70 years after first made available to the public - if as you claim here that this is the first time the drawing has been published then copyright remains in place until 70 years from now - i.e. 2091!Nigel Ish (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The original 1939 airplane blueprint cannot be your own work. Kursant504 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why there are two deletion requests for the same file?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- And two files with the same file name?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I will upload again. I want to change name of the file. HaythamKenwai (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by CptViraj at 08:43, 29 November 2021 UTC: Bot: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page --Krdbot 13:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
صاحبة الملف ترغب بحذفه Rawad2014 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion of personal photo - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays!. --Missvain (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
صاحبة الملف ترغب بحذفه. يحتوي معلومات غير دقيقة Rawad2014 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: see above. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
صاحبة الملف ترغب بحذفه. يحتوي معلومات غير دقيقة Rawad2014 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
(تعليل طلب الحذف) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.133.216.102 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: see above. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Ukraine. This photograph is a derivative work of the sculptor's copyright en:Alexey Dushkin and must be deleted. 178.93.1.241 19:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
As an author of the photo I request to delete it because it violates Ukrainian law. This is photo of Crimean railway station. There is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Ukraine. Andrey Legayev (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrey Legayev: This file is also mentioned on a mega DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Simferopol Railway Station, merge this DR to that one? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no changes since last DR. Pretty utilitarian with possible copyrighted elements covered by DM. --rubin16 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Ukraine. This photograph is a derivative work of the sculptor's copyright en:Alexey Dushkin and must be deleted. 178.93.1.241 19:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Ukraine. This photograph is a derivative work of the sculptor's copyright and must be deleted. 195.110.6.202 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No law changes since previous nomination, no new arguments. No reason for deletion.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- what is DM?--Rumlin (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- See COM:DM - Jcb (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As an author of the photo I request to delete it because it violates Ukrainian law. This is photo of Crimean railway station. There is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Ukraine. Andrey Legayev (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Also mentioned at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Simferopol Railway Station, merge DRs? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no changes since last DR. Pretty utilitarian with possible copyrighted elements covered by DM. --rubin16 (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
No FOP in Ukraine TentingZones1 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question Did you read any of the previous discussion about this photo at File talk:Simferopol - train station - Feb 2011.jpg? Why should it be deleted now when it wasn't then? Please address the keep rationale by User:rubin16: "no changes since last DR. Pretty utilitarian with possible copyrighted elements covered by DM." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- and this argument would have been better declared by a non-Russian user, but COM:FOP Crimea applies here, too rubin16 (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @TentingZones1: Irrespective of originality status, the present consensus at WikiCommons is that Crimea is now using Russian laws. This means, Russian copyright law and the more liberal (yes, more liberal) Russian freedom of panorama that grants commercial uses to architecture only, unlike the Ukrainian copyright law that does not grant freedom of panorama for anything other than free use of public works and art by mainstream media only (reporting purposes). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination TentingZones1 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The Quezon Hall behind is PD, but the photo evidently highlights the copyrighted statue made by w:Guillermo Tolentino who died in 1976. See also COM:CRT/Philippines#Freedom of panorama. COM:VRT permission from Tolentino's heirs is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Copyright infringement, no realistic source is mentioned DZwarrior1 (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Below c:COM:TOO France. (non-admin closure) Jonteemil (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Non free-use image, i.e. Attack on titan anime poster. No Wit Studio permission for any free-use license. Dantiras (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys at 20:43, 10 February 2022 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 01:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Missing essential source info. Which wikimap, or do you mean wikimapia? Wikimapia is not free. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unnecessary near-duplicate of the original file File:Iran ethnoreligious distribution 2004.jpg, a 2004 document by the CIA that needs no further revisions GPinkerton (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --4nn1l2 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
replaced by a newer edition MarijnBosma (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, superseded by File:LAW010 NL minimap 2021 up03.svg. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
probably copyrighted from somewhere (+ we're talking on living person); probably connected to this Euro know (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Triibuliine (talk · contribs)
editOTRS-permission is needed
Estopedist1 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
OTRS-permission is needed
Estopedist1 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
OTRS-permission is needed. Only (remaining) uploading by this user.
Estopedist1 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anne.alliku (talk · contribs)
editfile from Internet. OTRS-permission is needed, once the source and author is identified
Estopedist1 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
obsolete ChrisDrange (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
no ownership 87.167.75.192 18:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you are User:ChrisDrange login please. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Not required or in any other way useful (proposed article was deleted and considered irrelevant several years ago). Thus, this map has no reason to exist. Nin-TD (Diskussion) 18:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Nin-TD (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
very blurry at least 4 better files File:'Moses' by Michelangelo JBU050.JPG, File:'Moses' by Michelangelo JBU040.JPG, File:San Pietro in Vincoli - Giulio II di Michelangelo 2.jpg, File:San Pietro in Vincoli - Giulio II di Michelangelo 4.jpg Oursana (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. You can delete this file. JoJan (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and redirected for the incoming links. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This file has no sources and is extremely flawed in the isoglosses. -- MicBy67 (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Given the map scale and raster resolution it serves its purpose as a generalised map of the three major germanic dialect groups after Wenker in D, pity Lower Franconian NL was cut off in the past. Source e,g. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache page 138. Hans Erren (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The map is ok, I don't see any major inaccuracies, its a general map of the three dialects, and is not meant to show every small detail. --E-960 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- The main problem with this map is, the isoglosses of "Benrather Linie" and "Speyerer Linie" are completely wrong!
- The "Benrather line" in the western area is a combination with the "Uedinger line". Therefore, the title "Benrater Linie" is bogus here.
- The other Isogloss of the "Speyerer line" is also wrong in this map.
- The only Fact is, this map shows the main dialect areas of the German language, that's right. -- MicBy67 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, no further objections to deleting this bad map? --MicBy67 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Colleagues, is something else going on in this matter? This file is simply wrong in execution and must be deleted! --MicBy67 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, no further objections to deleting this bad map? --MicBy67 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The map is ok, I don't see any major inaccuracies, its a general map of the three dialects, and is not meant to show every small detail. --E-960 (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
To the admins here: You can wait until 2099 to delete this file. But doing so will not make this faulty file correct! -- MicBy67 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Everyone is invited to improve this file instead of deleting it. Keep an improve (upload improved versions). -- PhJ (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Use {{Factual accuracy}} instead. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
low quality photo without EXIF. It is not own work. Bestalex (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Tineye finds the same photo on the internet since 2016, before being uploaded here. -M.nelson (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
no description, made in 2016 by questionable user with data until 2021 (but made in 2016??) Neanderen (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio - this picture has been stolen from Maneskin's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CQWqvyMFNwi/?hl=en Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Northrop YA-9 prototype.jpg with incorrect license and source - not user created BilCat (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The original 1939 airplane blueprint cannot be your own work. Kursant504 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: no good source. --rubin16 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- File:COPA BR 3.png
- File:Taça FPF (1977).png
- File:Supertaça de Portugal (1979-2012).png
- File:COPA BR 4.png
- File:COPA 1 BR.png
- File:COPA 2 AMR.png
- File:COPA 3 AMR.png
- File:COPA 1 AMR.png
- File:COPA 2 INT.png
- File:COPA 2 BR.png
- File:Liga Portuguesa (1996-2008).png
per Commons:UA, again. Illustrative representation of artwork by unknown author. Precedents: 1, 2 and 3 Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I call @Thuresson, Elcobbola, and Nat: . Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep Just geometric forms, doesn't hurt any copyright. Raphael Figueira (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete per my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RicardoSilvaRDM. While it's possible for some of the original trophies to be out of copyright, there is insufficient information to make that determination, and the claim of mere geometric shapes is, respectfully, nonsensical. 69.174.144.79 15:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cité Frugès de Pessac
editDerivative work copyvios. These images all show a copyrighted architectural work made by Le Corbusier. French FOP does not allow commercial exploitations of visual appearances of protected public works like this, hence cannot be accepted here as per COM:Licensing. Undelete or restore only on January 1, 2036, the 70th anniversary of the architect's death.
If possible a few of these images may be imported to other wikis with local exemption doctrines, like enwiki's w:Template:FoP-USonly (educational fair use only) doctrine and frwiki's w:fr:Wikipédia:Exceptions au droit d'auteur#Exceptions (for educational/illustration only) doctrine.
A previous deletion request can be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quartiers Modernes Frugès (Pessac).
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 01.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 03.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 04.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 06.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 07.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 08.jpg
- File:Cité Frugès, Pessac 09.jpg
- File:Pessac Quartiers Modernes Frugès 004.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Reasoning is clear and also covered at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quartiers Modernes Frugès (Pessac).--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Elettro009 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Questa foto è di mia proprietà ed è stata caricata senza il mio consenso
We need at least a proof that it is a copyvio. @Elettro009: Dove è stata pubblicata questa foto in precedenza? Ruthven (msg) 09:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Sul mio profilo facebook. Anche le altre foto di cui ho chiesto la rimozioneElettro009 (msg) 15:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I haven't found this image on Google or TinEye. And usually images taken from Facebook have specific EXIF tag but it is not present here. So, without a proof of earlier publication elsewhere, it is not deleted. --rubin16 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
On this photo are two buildings which depiction in photographs, drawings or descriptions is prohibited under Swedish Law (Skyddslag (2010:305)). I have edited user Joshua06's original photo so that it can comply, however as the original image still is uploaded to the article it is still a "problem". LindahlTheViking (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have no objections, more than the mention picture are from 2008 and should fall under earlier Swedish Law? However, when the picture was taken there were no prohibited signs or similar that forbidden photographs, drawings or descriptions of the area. //Joshua (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The older law (1990:217) that was replaced by the current law (2010:305) also forbid depiction in the same way they are forbidden today. The signs that inform you that you cannot photo them are on the façade/fencing of the buildings in question. You can barely see them on one of the structures in the photo and on the other one they are blocked from view. If one were to visit the site today or went for a closer inspection I can assure you one would recognize the signage. LindahlTheViking (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. However, the picture is over 10 years old, and the sign you refer to, can also at that time show just "no enter without permission"? //Joshua (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The sign has always said "no entering without permission" and "no photographing, depicting, describing or measuring the protected structure without explicit permission" ever since the buildings were classed as protected in 1990. LindahlTheViking (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As I mention in my first comment, I have no objections for the requested deletion. //Joshua (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- The sign has always said "no entering without permission" and "no photographing, depicting, describing or measuring the protected structure without explicit permission" ever since the buildings were classed as protected in 1990. LindahlTheViking (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. However, the picture is over 10 years old, and the sign you refer to, can also at that time show just "no enter without permission"? //Joshua (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- The older law (1990:217) that was replaced by the current law (2010:305) also forbid depiction in the same way they are forbidden today. The signs that inform you that you cannot photo them are on the façade/fencing of the buildings in question. You can barely see them on one of the structures in the photo and on the other one they are blocked from view. If one were to visit the site today or went for a closer inspection I can assure you one would recognize the signage. LindahlTheViking (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I think this is more of COM:NCR that should be taken into account by re-users but such images are allowable on Commons in general. --rubin16 (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This foto had been published at vk.com before Jul 26 2021. Lack of metadata (EXIF) is also questionable. — Redboston 11:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sergei Monikov has written to me that this is photo taken by Peschansky (Песчанский Вячеслав). Please remove from deletion.— Redboston 12:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --rubin16 (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Source website does not show a CC license, or mention Zofia E. Ruprecht as the photographer. OTRS permission needed. MKFI (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
1994 painting, needs OTRS from the painter Gbawden (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The underlying image is copyrighted by its living painter Andrew S. Conklin. Though it's a portrait of a federal judge, the painter probably was not a US government employee for {{PD-USGov}}. -M.nelson (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason for deletion. Not found elsewhere using TinEye and Google Images. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Falscher Ausschnitt. Ersetzt durch File:Antoine Cardon d’après Charles Le Clercq Charles-Joseph prince de Ligne 2.jpg Petergenner (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyviol Ciaurlec (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, although they will sell you a PSD version in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Andy Dingley, uploader and external website appear to be the same person. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
silinmeli 31.206.205.142 21:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused photo of non-notable person, no educational value, out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Erik Satie Musique sifflee (Le siffleur-Clodine Tardy) 29e Festival des vendanges (arts de la rue) Suresnes 2012.ogv
editCopyright on performance. While the composition may have run out of copyright there may be a copyright on the performance which could belong to Clodine Tardy. I am unfamiliar with Frensh copyright law though Fnielsen (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is another one here: File:Mozart musique classique sifflee (Le siffleur-Clodine Tardy) 29e Festival des vendanges (arts de la rue) Suresnes 2012.ogv — Fnielsen (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination both deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Previous deletion request, resulted to keep
|
|---|
Files in Category:Simferopol Railway StationeditThe same reasoning as in this RfD. The station is in Crimea - the territory claimed by both Ukraine and Russia. While in Russia there is Freedom of Panorama for buildings, in Ukraine there is not. Per precautionary principle we need to apply the most strict law - that'd be Ukrainian in the case. Some or perhaps even all files here were already deleted in the past but were batch undeleted when Russian Federation's law allowed FoP for buildings.--BaseSat (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
BaseSat (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
+ Мои фотографии - Вокзал.Симферополь 03.JPG и Вокзал.Симферополь 04.JPG - были загружены в сентябре 2012 года в рамках украинской части конкурса "Вики любит памятники" с использованием соотстветствующего загрузочного шаблона. Информацию о загрузке именно в рамках конкурса можно увидеть на страницах этих фотографий. Украинская сторона в лице жюри конкурса не предъявила никаких претензий к фотографиям. Я искренне не понимаю, почему претензии могли возникнуть сейчас. Мне кажется, логично для начала обратиться с претензиями к тем людям, которые отвечали за формирование конкурсных (загрузочных) списков, а не к юзерам, которые руководствовались этими списками, отправляя фотографии на конкурс. Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Kept: Crimea is currently using Russian law. In addition, there is not much to copyright on many of these pictures. Yann (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: And what about last paragraph of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia? It states as per precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons.--Anatoliy (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Simferopol Railway Station
editAll files show exterior and interior architecture of this Crimean railway station. There is no freedom of panorama of any sort in Ukraine. While the region is under de facto administration of Russian Federation, according to COM:FOP Russia: Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings in Crimea. And unfortunately, architect w:Alexey Dushkin is not yet dead for more than 70 years.
- File:1.Сімферополь Залізничний вокзал,.JPG
- File:2013.11.01.1229.18.S2410002.JPG
- File:2016.06.23.1834.22 Сімферополь залізничний вокзал.jpg
- File:2016.06.23.1835.28 Сімферополь залізничний вокзал.jpg
- File:2017.03.08.1641.04.S5110012.jpg
- File:2017.03.08.1645.04. Сімферополь Залізничний вокзал Локомотивне депо.jpg
- File:2017.03.08.1645.56.S5110025.jpg
- File:2017.03.08.1646.10.S5110027.jpg
- File:2017.03.08.1646.18.S5110029.jpg
- File:2017.05.01.1750.52. Сімферополь залізничний вокзал.jpg
- File:21.Сімферополь (Залізничний вокзал).jpg
- File:KZD Simferopol Passenger 2021-05 station interiors 2.jpg
- File:KZD Simferopol Passenger 2021-05 station interiors 3.jpg
- File:KZD Simferopol Passenger 2021-05 station interiors 4.jpg
- File:KZD Simferopol Passenger 2021-05 station interiors 5.jpg
- File:KZD Simferopol Passenger 2021-05 station interiors 6.jpg
- File:Simf rail ital.jpg
- File:Simferopol - train station - Feb 2011 (2).jpg
- File:Simferopol - train station - Feb 2011.jpg
- File:Simferopol 04-14 img27 train station square.jpg
- File:SIMFEROPOL RAILWAY STATION CRIMEA UKRAINE SEP 2013 (10051537015).jpg
- File:SIMFEROPOL RAILWAY STATION UKRAINE SEP 2013 (10084732194).jpg
- File:Simferopol Railway station.jpg
- File:Simferopol Railway Station.JPG
- File:Simferopol rws-01.jpg
- File:Simferopol rws-02.jpg
- File:Simferopol rws-04.jpg
- File:Simferopol rws-05.jpg
- File:Simferopol rws-08.jpg
- File:Simferopol RWS.jpg
- File:Simferopol vokzal 1.jpg
- File:Simferopol vokzal 2.jpg
- File:Simferopol Vokzal DSC 4831 01-101-0128.jpg
- File:SimfiropolTrainStation-3.jpg
- File:SimfiropolTrainStation-4.jpg
- File:SimfiropolTrainStation-7.jpg
- File:SimfiropolTrainStation.jpeg
- File:Train terminal with clock tower - Simferopol, Russia - panoramio.jpg
- File:Арка2.JPG
- File:Аркада ж.д. вокзала. Симферополь. Крым. Август 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Башня ж.д. вокзала. Симферополь. Крым. Август 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Башня с часами - panoramio (2).jpg
- File:Внутренний дворик вокзала - panoramio.jpg
- File:Вокзал - panoramio (22).jpg
- File:Вокзал - panoramio (23).jpg
- File:Вокзал - panoramio (24).jpg
- File:Вокзал в симферополе,часовая башня.JPG
- File:Вокзал.Симферополь 01.JPG
- File:Вокзал.Симферополь 02.JPG
- File:Вокзал1.jpg
- File:Вокзальная башня и арка города Симферополя.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал в Симферополе.JPG
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 007.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 008.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 009.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 01.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 011.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 016.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя 02.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя, 2017.jpg
- File:Железнодорожный вокзал Симферополя.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал 1.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал 2.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал м.Сімферополь.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал Сімферополь 2012 2.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал Сімферополь 2012.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал Симферополь.JPG
- File:Залізничний вокзал у Сімферополі.jpg
- File:Залізничний вокзал!.JPG
- File:Залізничний вокзал.Сімферополь (43).jpg
- File:Раритетный кадр, такого флага там уже не будет. Портик на главном здании. Ж.д. вокзал. Симферополь. Крым. Август 2010 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Сімферополь .Залізничний вокзал.jpg
- File:Сімферополь. Залізничний вокзал з боку міста.jpg
- File:Сімферопольський залізничний вокзал 01.JPG
- File:Симферополь, Варламов, 24-25 ноябрь 2015, 17.jpg
- File:Симферополь, Варламов, 24-25 ноябрь 2015, 18.jpg
- File:Симферополь. Вокзал. - panoramio - Дмитрий Ванькевич (1).jpg
- File:Симферополь. Вокзал. - panoramio - Дмитрий Ванькевич.jpg
- File:Симферополь. Вокзал. - panoramio.jpg
- File:Симферополь. Железнодорожный вокзал.1.jpg
- File:Симферопольский вокзал00.JPG
- File:Симферопольский ж-д вокзал -2.JPG
- File:Симферопольский ж-д вокзал -3.JPG
- File:УЖЕкрым.симферополь.12.20 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Часы на башне. Ж.д. вокзал. Симферополь. Крым. Август 2010 - panoramio.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The Simferopol Railway Station building was erected in 1951, when Crimea was administrated by RSFSR. —Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Well-Informed Optimist If so, then in theory they join Ukrainian public domain at 1 Jan 2022, aren't they? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, now it's 2022, we can Keep. Lesless (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I said below. The building is now PD even in Ukraine. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Well-Informed Optimist why do we calculate from the date of erection but not the period of life of the architect en:Alexey Dushkin? rubin16 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am calculating nothing. The building was erected before 1954, when Crimea was still part of Russia, where there is freedom of panorama. —Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes, it wasn’t you. rubin16 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am calculating nothing. The building was erected before 1954, when Crimea was still part of Russia, where there is freedom of panorama. —Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Well-Informed Optimist why do we calculate from the date of erection but not the period of life of the architect en:Alexey Dushkin? rubin16 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, I said below. The building is now PD even in Ukraine. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, now it's 2022, we can
- @Well-Informed Optimist If so, then in theory they join Ukrainian public domain at 1 Jan 2022, aren't they? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WIO. --A.Savin 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per previous nomination.--Anatoliy (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Well-Informed Optimist, A.Savin, and Ahonc: however, that is not the case as indicated on Russian FOP guideline at COM:FOP Russia. Again to highlight: Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings in Crimea. Also what is only OK are photos made before February 19, 1954 (not buildings). "Neverless photowork created in Crimea before February 19, 1954 is the subject of the Russian law." Note that the wording used is "photowork" and not "architectural work". If the entire paragraph needs to be modified or removed, then it must be discussed elsewhere (COM:VPC for instance). There are also cases of deleted building images at Category:Crimean FOP cases/deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment As 1951+71(I always +1 for these "copyright terms" because I don't know which country don't rule it as "until the end of the year")=2022, I agree to temporary delete them for 5 months, and automatically restore on 1 Jan 2022, but then I wonder if we can avoid such "temporary deletions" or not, based on "utilitarian objects" as mentioned in COM:FOP Ukraine section? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: the building is not purely utilitarian. It has distinct architectural characteristics (not to mention that an architect designed it, not an engineering firm of some sort). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep File:УЖЕкрым.симферополь.12.20 - panoramio.jpg — I think the Simferopol Railway Station is not the main object of the photo. Maybe the red-white zebra is. =) Russian name of the file also don't contain any word referred to raiway station — "YET Crimea.Simferopol.12.20". So it can be de minimis. --Brateevsky {talk} 13:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per IAR - simply not worth the mechanical effort to delete all of these and restore them a few months later (along with readding them to articles), when our DR backlog is 9 months long and wasting admin time here means not resolving more pressing copyright violations in a timely manner. Just run out the clock and close as "keep" in 2022. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: In this case, URAA might be another matter against a valid kept decision? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: buildings are not bound for URAA, as U.S. has freedom of panorama for buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- So, I think there will have even no de minimis problems after 6 days, nothing to not legally keep them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: buildings are not bound for URAA, as U.S. has freedom of panorama for buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: In this case, URAA might be another matter against a valid kept decision? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Категорически Keep, нужно руководствоваться существующим делам по Крыму, в частности, по его нахождению в составе России, где ограничений свободы панорамы нету, кроме памятников и мемориальных табличек. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per previous decision of User:Yann, Crimea is currently using Russian law.. --Ellywa (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from modern art. Should be blanked/cropped to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or crop per nomination - no permission on the artwork. -M.nelson (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Cropped the image to maintain the uncopyrighted part, small part of painting remaining is considered de minimis. Deleted the copyrighted version. --Ellywa (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is just a booklet made by someone (American tobacco company?) and such design of the Lithuanian coat of arms (horse rider) was never officially adopted by Lithuania, thus license {{PD-LT-exempt}} does not cover this booklet. Only these designs of the horse rider were used officially by Lithuania as a state symbol:
-
%2C_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania%2C_designed_by_Antanas_Žmuidzinavičius.jpg/93px-Vytis_(Waykimas)%2C_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania%2C_designed_by_Antanas_Žmuidzinavičius.jpg)
Coat of arms of Lithuania, created by Antanas Žmuidzinavičius -
Coat of arms of Lithuania, created by Juozas Zikaras
,_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania,_designed_by_Antanas_Žmuidzinavičius.jpg)
Uploader simply took a random file from the internet and uploaded it without caring about licensing, which is very important in Commons. Moreover, it is nowhere written on the booklet or the source that it is from 1936. -- Pofka (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The figure clearly indicates that this is the flag and coat of arms of Lithuania. The design of the coat of arms is probably taken from here. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source states the section: «1936-National Flags and Arms». Additional Information: picclick.com. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Totally random source. -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Is there such a random source rule? The source shows the actual image of the flag and coat of arms, published in 1936. If such an image existed, then it has the right to be on Wikimedia Commons. Whether it is right or wrong is not up to us to decide (see No original research). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Totally random source. -- Pofka (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
See Stamp Lithuanian Vytis on Flags 1929. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a similar image from Vytautas the Great War Museum. (limis.lt) --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://img1.daumcdn.net/thumb/R720x0.q80/?scode=mtistory2&fname=https%3A%2F%2Ft1.daumcdn.net%2Ftistoryfile%2Ffs8%2F18_34_6_34_blog205389_attach_8_805.jpg%3Foriginal){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:South_Azerbaijan_Map.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bicar_bölgəsi1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
See Banknote 1000 litas. 1924. Nearby modern drawing. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- See also photo (the website of the Lithuanian Parliament). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This coat of arms was depicted on the Bank of Lithuania in 1927. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a 1929 Lithuanian postcard with this coat of arms. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
_and_Vytis_on_the_pediment_of_the_Bank_of_Lithuania,_Kaunas,_Lithuania,_1927.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Advertisement, i think this image falls in PD now. As it is a form of advertisement without copyright notice. --Ellywa (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Projects of coat of arms and other state symbols are not automatically covered by {{PD-LT-exempt|type=flags}} license. This project was never officially adopted as the state symbol of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep An officially approved standard for the image of the flag and coat of arms did not exist until 1940. Formally, all images of flags and emblems are not official. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Source website shows this image of a flag is copyrighted. --Ellywa (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for any copyrighted public art in the United States. The artwork was made by Charles Ray in 2008. (source). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Non-notable user-generated fantasy artwork: out of COM:SCOPE, violates COM:NOTHOST/COM:SELFIE, no possible educational use (COM:EV) GPinkerton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Are you responsible for determining if the maps are fancy or not? If this is a fantasy map, Many of these fantasy maps exist in Wikimedia Commons but have not been removed. I think there is no convincing reason to remove this map.89.32.100.214 14:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: Excuse me can I ask you what's wrong with it?--Bitim (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bitim: the map is File:Kurdish languages map.svg. This manipulated copy is a user's own fantasy, has no educational purpose, and should be deleted. GPinkerton (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I find it convincing this map has no educational value. it is not used on the projects and therefore out of COM:SCOPE. --Ellywa (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nomination and per COM:PRP . Uploader did not comment to explain the authorship and copyright of this image. --Ellywa (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}