Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/19

It is unknown if the author "Baselle" is an officer or employee of the government of the Philippines. Bluemask (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 05:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 05:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a copyrighted logotype. Kigsz (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a copyrighted logotype. Kigsz (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a copyrighted logotype. Kigsz (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a copyrighted logotype. Kigsz (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is already a picture of the latest version (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peta_Persebaran_Makam_-_Makam_di_Kabupaten_Banjar,_Kalimantan_Selatan.jpg) Ilham Mufti Laksono (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is already a picture of the latest version (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peta_Persebaran_Makam_-_Makam_di_Kabupaten_Banjar,_Kalimantan_Selatan.jpg) Ilham Mufti Laksono (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus PD claim (70 pma for an unknown author), actually works of multiple authors, no evidence of PD. 188.123.231.76 08:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather complex case, so let me explain why I think this front page of Je Suis Partout is in fact PD.

First the authors:

• cartoons:

- Philippe Larquier, who signed Phil, died May 20th 1940

- Emmanuel Poiré, who signed Caran d’Ache or Caporal Poiré, died February 26th 1909

• text:

- Robert Brasillach, died February 6th 1945

- Lucien Rebatet, died August 24th 1972

- Pierre-Antoine Cousteau, died December 17th 1958

The magazine Je suis Partout stopped publishing with its last issue August 16th 1944.

Looking only at those dates, this Je Suis Partout front page could look not PD since two of its authors died after 1953.

However,

- Brasillach, Rebatet and Cousteau were tried and sentenced to death. In the case of Rebatet and Cousteau, the sentence is for their collaboration with Je Suis Partout. They were also sentenced to be in state of National indignity ("état d’indignité nationale") and all their property were confiscated. Brasillach was executed in 1945 for treason ("intelligence avec l’ennemi"). It’s highly probable that all his property were also confiscated.

- The company that owned Je Suis Partout was sentenced November 24th 1946 to be dissolved and all its property to be confiscated. In addition, the court forbid any future publication, under any form, of the magazine.

It means to me that the copyright owners of these articles as presented in this Je Suis Partout front page are not the authors heirs or legatees. It is either the French state or public domain. Considering that this widely shown Je Suis Partout front page is freely accessible in some public librairies such as the BNF ("Bibliothèque Nationale de France") who does not claim any copyright on the content but just on the picture of it, being PD is by far the most probable.

Just a last remark, this reasoning, specific to Je Suis Partout, should not apply to Rebatet or Cousteau other works such as their books. However, in November 1999, Rebatet legatee (Pierre Darrigrand at the time) and Cousteau legatee (Jean-Pierre Cousteau) lost in a French court when they tried to stop the publication of a dialogue between the two written when they were waiting for their trial.

MelAntipam (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork A1Cafel (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo clearly visible, not de minimis because of high resolution = copyvio. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP Singapore is doubtful: considered been 2D work. TentingZones1 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  ��Keep. Each bird is at a different level of depth, making this a 3D work allowable under COM:FOP Singapore. Even if considered 2D, it would clearly be an allowable work of artistic craftsmanship. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is not in fact CC-BY licensed. It is downloaded from PID website and it is proprietary by default Miro Hrončok (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the website itself has the license infroamtion in the footer and it is indeed CCY BY 4.0. Mea culpa. Miro Hrončok (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep per license statement by PID. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 10:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uploader not photographer (Gerald von Foris), no permission visible Alabasterstein (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Reverse search shows that the vast majority of these images were already in use elsewhere years before the upload date or date claimed by the EXIF data.[reply]

I've no idea whether the alteration of EXIF data or the renaming with consistent (e.g.) "IMG 7053" suffixes- making it look more like someone had renamed some photos they'd taken with their camera- were a deliberate attempt to deceive.

User has already had a number of uploads deleted due to copyright violation.

With the exception of the "BBC Scotland" text (not copyrightable) and File:Morrisons Daily Aberdeen IMG 6745.jpg (*), I believe all uploads from this user should be deleted.

(*) Which I can quite believe was taken by the uploader due to the difference in quality (which makes even more likely that the others weren't).

All images have clear evidence of prior usage (via TinEye or Google Images) except where stated:-

• File:Bella Centre Dundee 2 IMG 7058.png
• File:Bella Centre Dundee IMG 7057.jpg
• File:HM YOI Polmont IMG 7053.jpg
• File:HMYOI Polmont IMG 7054.jpg - Particularly low resolution
• File:HMP & YOI Grampian IMG 7050.jpg
• File:HMP Grampian New IMG 7052.jpg
• File:HMP Grampian IMG 7049.jpg
• File:HM Prison Grampian IMG 7048.jpg
• File:HMP Cornton Vale IMG 7047.jpg
• File:Edinburgh Prison view IMG 7046.jpg
• File:HM Prison Edinburgh IMG 7041.jpg
• File:HMP Edinburgh entrance IMG 7043.jpg
• File:HMP Edinburgh aboveIMG 7042.jpg
• File:HMP Perth IMG 7040.jpg - This one still has the DC Thomson copyright EXIF information on it...! (Perhaps the uploader forgot to remove it here)
• File:Dundee City IMG 6712.jpg - Didn't find an exact match, but that's most likely because the search was drowned out with false positives for countless similar images. Regardless, it has the usual copyvio warning flag of low resolution and given that it's surrounded by more blatant copyvios, I'd apply the precautionary principle and delete this one anyway.
• File:Dundee City Council HQ IMG 6711.jpg
• File:Sainsbury’s Local img.jpg

Ubcule (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fehllizenzierung - als Urheber wird Hellstern medical genannt, Urheber kann aber nur eien natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no permission from given author - "Source Dieses Foto wurde mir von Ad Vanderveen geschickt. Author Han Ernest" Hoyanova (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received a mail from Ad Vanderveen where he states: "The photo ... is definitely approved, courtesy of Han Ernest." So permission from given author is granted.

If you take a look at AVs electronic press kit under https://advanderveen.bandzoogle.com/press-kit, you will discover the same foto. And yes, this is not a hard argument, but it fits my plausible reasoning. Ten CatCars (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fehllizenzierung - als Urheber wird SoMe-Stiftung2019 genannt, Urheber kann aber nur eien natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep No reason for deletion (Ein Username wie unzählige andere hier, die auch keine Rückschlüsse auf die natürliche Person dahinter zulassen. Und eine juristische Person kann natürlich alle Rechte an einem Werk besitzen, einschließlich dem Recht, eine Lizenz zu erteilen.) Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nur der Urheber kann Bilder unter eien freie Lizenz stellen, die juristische Person mag die Nutzungsrechte haben, die Urheberrechte kann sie per rechtlicher Definition nicht haben. Lutheraner (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wer alle Rechte an einem Werk übertragen bekommt, darf das natürlich auch. Ist dir bewusst, dass wir hier eine gewaltige Zahl an Bildern haben, die von juristischen Personen zur Verfügung gestellt und unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden? So ziemlich alles, was von Museen, Archiven und Bibliotheken kommt! Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

useless, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

useless, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Decent enough image.

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unused, incorrectly attributed Mewhen123 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to your user page, the uploader 80s Sam (talk · contribs) is an old account of your own "but I dislike that user name so I'm changing some of the attribution on own work".

If you want the attribution on your "incorrectly attributed" image (i.e. uploaded under your old name) changed, there are other ways of doing that.

If you simply want the image deleted, we wouldn't normally do that so long after upload- whether it's in use or not- without a good reason. Ubcule (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't explain correctly. I didn't take this photo and it isn't needed on commons as it is not useful Mewhen123 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect version, correct version is file 2022 Zegel La Compagnie Durable.jpg of Dec 6, 14:30 Cnemo99 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect version, correct version is file 2022 Zegel La Compagnie Durable.jpg of 14:30 Cnemo99 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect version, correct version is file 2022 Zegel La Compagnie Durable.jpg of Dec 6, 14:30 Cnemo99 (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

way too much whitespace, File:Portret M.C. de Crane (1843) door Johann Heinrich Richter.jpg of May 3, 13:35 is better Cnemo99 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep You already cropped and overwrote the old image. --RAN (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely round, File:Zegel L'Amitie sans Fin 1 cutout.jpg of April 8, 19:55 is better Cnemo99 (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are photos of a product and product packaging that includes image of George HW Bush and a USAF airplane. If these images are copyrighted, then these photos include copyrighted material. It is possible that the photos are US government works and are public domain. In this case, the there is the question whether the presence and arrangement of the other elements of the trading card, and product packaging are sufficient to be copyrightable.

• File:Pro Set Desert Storm Box.jpg
• File:George H. W. Bush Pro Set Trading Card.jpg

Whpq (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:GritoLeda.jpg
• File:AznarValladaresPaezCerati.jpg

Photo published in the Argentine newspaper Clarín in 1989. The exact date is not specified, but it is likely at the beginning of 1989 as it is about the album "Grito en el cielo" published in 1988. If it was published after March 1, 1989 it still protected in the US due to Berne Convention. If it was published before then, it had its US copyright restored in 1996. In both cases, the photo still copyrighted in the US. Günther Frager (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo was shot and published by the organization "Pride Winnipeg", IMO VRT permission is required A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted video game on the screen Trade (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly someone could cover that with a Gaussian blur. But do we even know that the visual is copyrighted, not created by a U.S. government employee? (Feel free to ping me to do a Gaussian blur if that is determined to be what is needed). - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need more information about this game. According to the description, it was specially developed for the US army, which could mean that it is developed by the US army, which would make it PD. PaterMcFly (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete. I think the software is misnamed here in the caption. This looks very much like Virtual Battlespace (VBS) from Bohemia Interactive Simulations, which seems to be copyrighted. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any valid PD justification. Masur (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see any valid PD justification. Masur (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the exif states it is copyrighted "all rights reserved". Username does match with name in exif so clarification may be required? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no FOP in Senegal Christian Pirkl (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INRI...? 181.203.16.172 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image créée pour ma page d'utilisateur Wikipedia. Aujourd'hui remplacée, je souhaite sa suppression, m'étant plus d'aucune utilité et n'ayant que peu d'intérêts encyclopédique. Merci. GommeMagique (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation. It looks like a scan from a printed source. Ђидо (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ђидо, prijatelju, ovu fotografiju sam ja lično snimio i to u mom stanu. Lično poznajem Dada Topića, a tada je bio sa suprugom Mirom kod mene, posle koncerta u Nišu. Ako pogledaš moje doprinose videćeš da imam mnogo fotografija nekadašnjih i sadašnjih filmskih i muzičkih zvezda. Većina ih je skenirana sa originala iz 80-ih godina, koje sam sačuvao. Zato te molim da povučeš ovaj predlog za brisanje, jer tvoja pretpostavka prosto nije tačna. Pozdrav! Miomir Magdevski (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird texture is what triggered my tag. Is it a photo of a print on a canvas? Ђидо (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw the nomination. Ђидо (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lower quality of the same picture LeFnake (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry photo of an unidentified city, I think wrongly categorised as London. The City of Lskyline from London City Hall filename comes from a deprecated version of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-filename which told users of blacklisted image titles that City of London skyline from London City Hall was a good title to use, so lots of people just used it (changing it up a bit when Commons said the filename was already in use). The Southwark categories seem to have been added in good faith 11 years later on the assumption that this is a photo taken from London City Hall, which is in Southwark. This does not look like anywhere in London to me. Belbury (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File contains regions which are not under the control of Khaatumo militia, all sources from the sool region article clearly shows that its only limited to a few sections of the region, for this reason this file should be deleted as its false and misinformation {1} https://www.crisisgroup.org/horizon-october-2023-march-2024 {2} https://africaportal.org/publication/overlapping-claims-somaliland-and-puntland-case-sool-and-sanaag/ {3} https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somalia-no-elections-disputed-regions-puntland-says {4} https://www.sadamire.com/somaliland-archaeology-in-a-breakaway-state/ Hawkers994 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment As an aside, there are some very strange POV-pushing uploads related to SSC Khaatumo; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Seidmusse44 for details. Omphalographer (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those files in that deletion request are common images of people places and buildings, this is a geopolitical map with no source or reference Hawkers994 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images in the first request were in fact maps, and all of the ones in the second request have descriptions full of keywords calling them maps (even though that isn't what they are). Omphalographer (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you said “even though that isn’t what they are”. False maps and misinformation thats used in articles is against Wikipedia rules which is why i provided sources for this deletion. Hawkers994 (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

misinformation is no deletion reason (yes it's outrageous but our collective policy!), as long as the file is in use in any project. Hawker, please take the steps to unlink its usage (check if the map was inserted as a replacement for maps which were correct) --> and then we can declare the file to be Out of Scope, for deletion. --Enyavar (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever did their searching didn't look very hard. This is from the July 1953 edition of the Redbook Magazine and that was renewed under RE0000102085 SDudley (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this page seems to claim that Redbook gave the copyrights back to Seuss in 1956. It does appear that Comicmix did end up publishing some Seuss stories in 2022 including The Sneetches. Of course these versions are whatever existed before the changes were made for the book publications. Not entirely sure what to make of this all since I am not a copyright lawyer, and I don't have a better source for the Seuss copyright claim. SDudley (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there the copyright was never renewed the sneetches and zaks from redbook comix are public domain because comix released it to public domain https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/comicmix/the-zaks-and-other-stories?ref=project_link

More evidence https://fanfilmfactor.com/2021/04/12/bombshell-in-the-star-trek-dr-seuss-mash-up-infringement-lawsuit-are-sneetches-and-zaks-in-the-public-domain/

Dr. seuss never renewed the comix red book stories. here is proof. "The ComicMix edition of the stories was created with high-quality scans from the original Redbook stories, tracked down from collectors of the magazine. Redbook reverted the copyright to these stories to Geisel, but the copyright was not renewed, so the versions that appeared in the magazines are now in public domain." This also proof which the a quote from https://bleedingcool.com/comics/comicmix-to-publish-lost-dr-seuss-stories-out-of-copyright/

and to give more proof that it is indeed public domain here is another quote, 'The publication of The Zaks is a byproduct of the suit. In discovery for the case, attorneys for Gerrold and ComicMix found that some of the Seuss stories published in Redbook were in the public domain." This further proves that the sneetches are public domain.

Gilimaster69 ([[User talk:Gilimaster69|talk] Gilimaster28 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is a lower quality PNG version of a different file and thus has been replaced by the other file. The file also has the wrong aspect ratio which does not follow Indiana state flag code. HoosierMan1816 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work, probably re-upload of File:Robert Mleczko.jpg 159.205.181.252 20:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work - low res, exif data. 159.205.181.252 20:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit copyvio - no CC licence on source page (https://bartekkaczmarek.com/about/) 159.205.181.252 20:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, see COM:TOO and Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS Logo.svg 2603:7000:B800:3400:D46B:A80:5426:5DB2 20:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially   Keep Per PD-Textlogo, because "PBS NEWS HOUR" text is ineligible for copyright. However, the PBS icon is copyrighted in the U.S., hence it above threshold of originality. So, this file needs to be removed at Commons, transferred this file locally to English Wikipedia (can retain the similar filename), and put the file without PBS icon (File:PBS News Hour 2024 (2).svg) in Commons instead. Yayan550 (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Delete It's better as non-free I published today, and this contains PBS icon in it for copyright. Akandkur (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the gramophone a simple shape? The 3D throphy is copyrighted and there have been multiple nominations related to the Academy Award's silhouette that resulted in their deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Academy Award Silhouette.svg) Tbhotch™ 21:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Vectorize_logo_file, not PD. Tbhotch™ 21:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given, the picture is of about 1935 Goesseln (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep "PD-EU-no author disclosure" is the correct license. --RAN (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no author given, the picture is of about 1930 Goesseln (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•   Keep The license is correct PD-EU for anonymous images. --RAN (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

despite it is high resolution and has good perpective i doubt this image is in project scope. because people in it is not notable. i cant find wikipedia articles about them.

• File:Bandaminerva.jpg

modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 23:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Three Dikgosi monument, Gaborone. As Botswanan copyright law does not grant Freedom of Panorama, this image under commercial Creative Commons licensing infringes the monument sculptor's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I just realized the Flickr import is under PD-mark. This makes it more infringing as any commercial exploitation is allowed by the Flickr photographer, without consideration of the underlying copyright of the sculpture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana, not Botswanan. Delete. Keep I am working on the enwiki article about this. I have an alternative though, pictures of the three men featured on the monument. 48JCL 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, hold on. Shouldn't there be an exception? The statue was posted on Botswana's official government facebook 3 years ago. 48JCL 23:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL there is no such exception in your country's copyright law that states it is not an infringement to the author's copyright (here, the author is the sculptor) the use/public display/communication to public of works of art and architecture that are permanently fixed in public places. An exception that does not restrict commercial uses of such images without needing licensing permission from the architects or sculptors of the said works in public places. If there had been such an exception, it would have been found anywhere within Sections 12 and 22. Here are three example countries with Commons-suitable FoP provisions: the United Kingdom (FoP is the Section 62 of their copyright law), Hungary (FoP is the Article 68(1) of their copyright law), and Pakistan (FoP is Section 57(r and s) of their copyright law). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Queda avião.png
• File:MARÍLIA MENDONÇA AERONAVE VAI PASSAR POR PERÍCIA DETALHADA (1).jpg
• File:MARÍLIA MENDONÇA AERONAVE VAI PASSAR POR PERÍCIA DETALHADA (2).jpg
• File:Retirada avião.jpg

These images were all uploaded by User:Luiz79. All images is based on scenes from an accident in another Brazilian state. In other words, it is a retransmission from another broadcaster or Record affiliate. In either case, these are images that do not belong to Record TV Goiás and cannot be considered Creative Commons. Fronteira (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are images of assorted artworks, apparently exhibited at the "East African Regional Tourism Expo 2022" (as the uploader claimed). However, Burundi does not grant Freedom of Panorama; therefore, these images under commercial Creative Commons licensing are all infringing the copyrights of the artists who made these artworks.

• File:Tableau abstrait.jpg
• File:Uwicurikiye.jpg
• File:Bâton artisanal.jpg
• File:L'éleveur de bétail.jpg
• File:Danseuses traditionnelles.jpg
• File:Figurines de pays.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear collegue, Hope you are going well.

It's shame on me, so are you going to delete them? Abkev (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abkev you published images that show artworks that are not likely to have been made a long time ago, in which the artists have been dead for more than 50-70 years for the works to be in public domain. You or the organizer of the Wiki Loves Africa – Burundi edition must contact the artists (or their heirs) and should convince them to allow the publication of your images under commercial Creative Commons licensing. They must send an email to Wikimedia Foundation as stated on COM:VRTS. Artworks are copyrighted, and only artists themselves can commercially license images of the works they made or created. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear,

Unfortunately i couldn't reach the artists. But at this expo, i have asked them if i can take the pictures of their works and publish it. They allowed me but i understand that an confirmation email is needed. If laws are again me you can delete it.

Have a nice day. Abkev (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abkev another way is the artists can write a letter – in a formal way – explicitly permitting you to distribute your images of their artworks under the commercial license you chosen (I believe it's CC-BY-SA-4.0), then the artists should sign the letter (signature). You must then scan the letter and attach it to your email to be sent to Wikimedia Foundation at the permissions address indicated at COM:VRTS. This is only possible if the artists do not have emails themselves. If they have, it is recommended to have them send email on the licensing authorization directly to Wikimedia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]