Jump to content

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations

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

CoA files from speedy-deletion. Reason was: Not 70 years PMA, see below

RE rillke questions? 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 1

Changing from {{copyvio|Tous droits réservés - Arnaud BUNEL - 1997-2011}} because I don't agree. They all seem to be from before 1500 so the copyright would have expired. Arnaud Bunel's contribution is probably below the threshold of originality.

 Disagree :
Français : (missing text)
Les blasonnements échappent aux règles des droits d'auteur, mais leurs représentations est soumises aux mêmes règles que les autres œuvres.--Jimmy44 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expliquez-moi, comment peux-t'on trouver des fichiers .gif datant d'avant 1500 ? Voir fr:Projet:Blasons/Droit d'auteur--Jimmy44 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Stefan2/4. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous concernant les fichiers provenant du site http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org, lequel sont assujettis au droit d'auteur.
Pour faire court : les fr:blasonnements échappent aux règles des droits d'auteur, mais leurs représentations est soumises aux mêmes règles que les autres œuvres, c'est le cas de ces blasons dessinés aux XX-XXIe siècles (en détail, voir : fr:Projet:Blasons/Droit d'auteur). Voilà pourquoi, amha, les fichiers suivant doivent être supprimés (on notera qu'ils ont tous une version svg libre d'utilisation)--Jimmy44 (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Je ne savais pas ce règle des blasonnements. Je pensais que les images doivent être libre parce-que File:New Orleans Saints.svg est libre. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Euh...C'est très facile pour une bonne volonté de refaire un gif ou un bmp avec les couleurs adéquates puis d'importer ce fichier.

Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete : they are not a scan of a book from year 1500, they were drawn by someone who owns a copyright on them, according to the French law. Peter17 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete--Jimmy44 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 2

I do not agree that these files are copyright violations. They are logos of the United States and look sufficiently simple, cf. examples at COM:TOO#United States. However, some can probably be deleted as duplicates.

Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously the Texas Democratic Party's logo is way too simple. But yeah, we don't need four of it. Pick the best one, delete the other three. Fry1989 eh? 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dupes deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 3

These were originally speedy-nommed because the Flickr license is NC. These are by a NASA employee, so the question is whether or not this negates or trumps the NC on Flickr.

INeverCry 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we assume that taking such images is part of the author's work as a NASA employee? Do astronauts have free time on board to take their own amateur photographs? If they have, probably similar issues about US military taking their private images while on board of US Navy ships have previously arisen. Do we have precedents?--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A uniform series of images like these look more like official work than private images to me. INeverCry 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the photos were taken by an employee in the scope of their duties, then yes that trumps the Flickr NC license. It looks like the Flickr account does that for all their images, including blatantly PD-USGov images, so that's not much of an indication of anything. But if an astronaut did those photos on his own time, then yes there could be an issue. Private photos taken on US Navy ships (and that sort of thing) are copyrighted by the photographer as normal. This article describes photos he took on previous missions, which do sound like they were on his own time -- and this article basically confirms that. On the other hand, it does say they were shared with the general public, and if these photos got official ISS/JSC photo numbers... that may mean they were released under the same general idea as PD-USGov images. This one is a tough case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I uploaded these files on the basis that work by NASA is normally in the public domain and allowed here on Wikimedia. There is nothing to suggest that astronaut Don Pettit shot these pictures for private reasons using his own personal camera. If he intended them to be private holiday snaps he could have created a personal website and posted them there with copyright restrictions. In fact, I doubt his terms of employment at NASA would allow him to make pictures private that were taken from a NASA space station using NASA camera equipment.

The pictures were posted at a NASA controlled website, not at Pettit's own website. They have all been assigned official NASA photo identifications (e.g. JSC2012-E-051505, JSC2012-E-051506, and JSC2012-E-051507) and some have been posted at NASA's main website – NASA.gov – where the usual freedom of use applies (picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA's main website. Second picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA. Third picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA).

I assume the employee at NASA who created the NASA Flickr account may not have known that he was setting a licence parameter that restricted image usage more than at NASA's main website. If the same pictures at NASA.gov cannot be used from NASA's Flickr account, that is inconsistent and makes no sense. O'Dea (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a fresh copy of File:International Space Station star trails - JSC2012E051505.jpg sourced from NASA and removed it from the list above. Pixel for pixel, it is identical to the file I found originally at NASA's Flickr account. I changed the source information at the file page and removed the {{delete}} tag. This should demonstrate the absurdity of the NASA Flickr restriction. O'Dea (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per consensus to kept. Érico Wouters msg 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 4

Speedy nommed as copyvios by User:Smial, but may be covered by FoP. Discussion seems like a better idea than speedy deletion.

INeverCry 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think the outdoor images are OK and I have put a strike through on them. I recognize that there a small possibility that not all of them were taken from a publicly accessible place, but that seems unlikely.
I'm from there. Most if not all are very likely taken from places open to public. So I think it's FOP--TUBS 21:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete All of the interior images are not covered by the German FOP and must be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wait. It's most certainly not FOP but photos don't put an emphasis on the art (which would complicate this discussion), so it may be OK, if the museum allows exlpictly taking and publishing pictures. I can't tell if this applies here but the absence of FOP doesn't mean that this a case of copyfraud.--TUBS 21:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hatte eine Fotogenehmigung auch innen, allerdings nur mündlich bzw. nur im Museumslogbuch (Name, Organisation, Unterschrift) dokumentiert. Man bekommt dort dann so ein Kärtchen umgehängt, damit man nicht von den Aufsichtspersonen erschossen wird. Hochgeladen habe ich nur Bilder, auf denen die Ausstellungsstücke Beiwerk, also nicht wirklich erkennbar bzw. großenteils verdeckt sind. Ich muß zugeben, daß mein LA aus dem Ärger resultierte, daß mal wieder einer ein Bild, das in DE unter die Panoramafreiheit fällt, als Urheberrechtsverletzung angeschwärzt hat, weil die Werke des Architekten in US halt noch geschützt sind. -- Smial (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted the interior kept exterior as FOP. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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


Files in Category:Copyright violations 5

Original speedy rationale: Unfortunately, this artwork by Miquel Barceló is under copyright--User:LPLT (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these look like Commons:De minimis would apply. INeverCry 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INeverCry 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have just sent an e-mail to Miquel Barcelo himself. He may be a very busy man.... am awaiting his green light.

My pictures are the 4 first ones listed above.

I would however demand that the same deletion rules apply to the following files, which don't even mention the artist's name. The US Mission should not be above rules that apply to others.

Thank you for your patience and your understanding

--BiiJii (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about File:Keramiken-La-Seu BMK.jpg then? Moumou82 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The rights are owned by FUNDACIONONUART . I wrote to them, they don't quite understand the problem, nor why the pictures should be deleted. Am awaiting a more detailed answer - and possibly authorization - from them. I als suggested they upload their own pictures. I'll let you know as soon as I hear something

--BiiJii (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 6

Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio logos by User:Ostiamare. Most of these look too simple to be copyrighted, but I'd like more opinions.

INeverCry 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 7

Previously tagged as Copyvio by Ellin Beltz: © 2008–2015 Astronomical Institute of the Charles University, Josef Ďurech, Vojtěch Sidorin

Alan (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: under the copyright notice at the source it says, “Except where otherwise stated, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.” The files are erroneously templated CC-BY-SA 4.0, but that’s easily fixed.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I agree with Odysseus1479, I've updated the files to use the CC-BY-4.0 license, as mentioned in the footer of the source site. —RP88 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: CC BY 4.0. Alan (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 8

These files was initially tagged by PlanespotterA320 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cropping out artistic parts of postal covers and stamps is strictly prohibited by PD-RU-exempt (read the footnotes about cropping). These artistic renderings by themselves are protected by copyright until expiration, and none are old enough to have expired copyright yet. Until such time, the artists of these works, like Pyotr Bendel and Anatoly Kalashnikov, retain the rights to these works.

--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 9

These three stamps were sent to copyvio, but I think they need to be discussed, because the argument presented is a little bit above the quick decision needed for CopyVio.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Initially nominated for speedy deletion by Hogwarts Portal with the rationale "The Philippine government doesn't hold the copyright of the photograph nor the stamp."
  • Delete. Not free in the United States. Works published in the 2010s. And not free in the source country. Photos by photographer Bong Tan. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete although the Philippine stamps by themselves are not copyrighted (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Stamps), the underlying image of Megan Young may not be. Under 176.3. "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest or otherwise; nor shall publication or republication by the government in a public document of any work in which copyright is subsisting be taken to cause any abridgment or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such work without the consent of the copyright owner." Thereshould be proof that the photographer of the underlying image is a government employee. Also, the Q&A test (through Google forms) of the October 15, 2020 IPOPHL webinar joined by one of our fellow Filipino Wikipedians Higad Rail Fan has a question about whether the government works, having no copyright, can be used even for commercial purposes with no permission from the owner (the Government), and the answer is false (prior permission from the Government is obliged). IMO, this should not be an issue if the uploader sent a permission letter to the Philippine Postal Corporation for the uploading of these files to Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 10

These files were initially tagged by Matthias Winkelmann as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5}}{{SD|reason=No information is given regarding consent, and the tone of the description and the inclusion of "ex-girlfriend" in the filename raise the possibility of this being intentional harassment. Plus, it's pornographic and low-quality. User has about 80+ similar photos.

The uploader (@Ulflarsen: ) asserts the following: "I put this picture up for deletion, to stop a speedy deletion. The picture is posted with the full consent of my ex-girlfriend, she know of it and is still doing amateur pornograpy with me now and then. If this picture (and my 90+ similar pictures) shall be deleted, then there are some tens of thousands of others that also should be removed, and Wikimedians would have to ask what other content that may be problematic, perhaps pictures of war?“

FredWalsh (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The uploader has contributed a significant number of photos exploring human sexuality, nudity, relationships. None of his files have been low quality pornography. FredWalsh (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This is obviously the wrong category, because the copyright status is not in question. But anyway: The guidelines ask for consent of people appearing in photos, and I would assume that a requirement of consent should be required for most pornographic photos, at least of living and non-notable people. The comments on some of these photos still seemed vaguely hostile to me, raising this question. While I would not consider it sufficient for keeping the photos at this point, adding this template should be required if this is resolved in favor of keeping them. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthias Winkelmann: These files ended up in Category:Copyright violations because of the speedy deletion tag you used. See Special:Diff/433571117 for example - it is one of the hidden categories. The correct procedure would have been to start a deletion request. FredWalsh (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Category:Copyright violations" should really not be a category for the Speedydelete tag. The Copyvio tag used for copyright reasons is distinct from the Speedydelete tag used for other reasons. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure the "teen" in one of the above files and those other "teens" in files of this person including "teens" (and also are in some other DR) are all over 18 or 19 or 21 regarding whatever is the maturity age in their countries. And vanity pictures, I mean in the area of amateur porn, are very much in scope. (Only out of scope in Lucknow, Delhi, etc.) I begin to understand, although slowly, why people avoid discussions about porn... The best anti-deletion arguments are being produced in these areas. Congratulations to those for the brain storming. If you ask my opinion, you already know it. That is all I have got to say. Bye. E4024 (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to argue for keep or delete, as I leave it up to the community here on Wikimedia Commons to decide if they shall be kept or not. Regarding consent, the various models I have paid to be with me in amateur porn has all agreed to have the pics and videos uploaded by me on the Internet. Regarding my former girlfriend, I have just a few days ago specifically asked her if she agreed to have the category "Prostitutes and customers", and she was fine with that. Regarding amateur porn in general, I do of course respect it if a decision is made to remove such media from Wikimedia Commons, but I believe then that one would have to discuss professional pornography. And if both of them are unfit for presentation here, what about other media that may be disturbing for some viewer (nude people, dead people, pictures of war). I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004, and I will continue to contribute, regardless if some or all of my amateur pornographic pictures are removed. As an exhibitionist, amateur porn model I do however believe that this also is a part of what should be of interest for a project that: "is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language." - a direct quote from Commons:Welcome. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I have just a few days ago specifically asked her if she agreed to have the category "Prostitutes and customers", and she was fine with that" — could someone please independently (from the uploader) verify that she has indeed consented to it, and that her consent referred to all images in question? GlossyMannequin (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per the first section of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulf Larsen and teen girls in amateur porn 19.jpg, Fred Walsh, Jeromi Mikhael, and COM:CENSOR. This is a fatuous nomination.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, but on the Village Pump I have advised User:Ulflarsen that his ex (with whom he is apparently on good terms) should use the OTRS process to indicate that she's fine with these, and with the description of herself as a "prostitute". Judging by what he's written, I'd be surprised if that is not the case, but it would still help to hear from her and remove all doubt. - Jmabel ! talk 03:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As said by Jeff G. in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulf Larsen and teen 09.jpg, this file are as much in scope as others kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulf Larsen and teen girls in amateur porn 07.jpg, 08, 09, 10, 11, the first section of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ulf Larsen and teen girls in amateur porn 19.jpg. Also, per previous deletion nominations as those were closed as kept proves the scope of this files. Also per other users and COM:CENSOR. Tm (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My ex-girlfriend have now sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating that she support the uploading and keeping of these and other files of her and me in amateur porn. It seems to me that as for the deletion regarding that she is not aware of, or support the upload, now has been settled, and can not be used as a reason for deletion. This applies to all the pictures listed above, except the last one. For that I also got the girl's consent, but I do not have contact with her, and so am not in a position to have her send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - so if that is decided to be needed, the file Ulf Larsen and teen 03.jpg should be deleted. Ulflarsen (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ulflarsen: That email message is in Ticket:2020102510004811 and backs up your claims.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete There is no evidence that the person who sent the email message is really the person shown in the images. We must beware of any risk of personal harrassment. --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Keep I just accepted the portrayed person's permission via Ticket#2020102510004811 --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my ex-girlfriend in the email to OTRS also clearly stated that she accept that the term prostitute is used about pics of her. Thus I again added the category Prostitutes and customers to the pictures with her and me. Alas, the contributer Vysotsky have now removed that category from these pictures. If I have done something wrong in using that category, I do of course accept that. But the picture of her and me both show a couple in amateur porn AND a prostitute and her customer. As there so far seems to be very pictures of such behaviour on Wikipedia, it seems proper that there would be room for more. As the statement from my ex-girlfriend has been accepted by OTRS I would ask for the use of the category Prostitutes and customers to be reviewed again, and possibly added anew. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I deleted or specified several categories, because they were ill-chosen. Many times they were way too generic (Category:Human sexual activity -duh). As to the example you give (prostitute and her client): categories are not chosen by the people in the photo. If I upload a photo of a cat and add Category:Panthera tigris, other people need to correct that mistake. Vysotsky (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that categories are not chosen by the people in the pictures, as I have written several places my main effort is also on Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, so I thus fully accept any changes of categories. Regarding adding categories, I have only tried to add those I thought the project may find useful. But when it comes to the category Prostitutes and customers, is that category only for paintings? Or only paintings and black and white pictures? Or is it only for very low-grade pictures? It does not seem obvious what criteria is used for including the pictures that are allready there, and for excluding the pictures I have added. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is now some four months since these files were marked for deletion. As a volunteer to Wikipedia I do of course understand that various issues takes time, but it would be good if this matter could be solved, one way or the other. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue of this DR seems to be consent of the other partners, rather than scope or other topical reasons. I have kept those files for which OTRS consent has been received, and deleted one for which it cannot be obtained. If there has legitmate scope or other topical concerns, they can be addressed in a separate DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 11

These files was initially tagged by Yinweiaiqing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: videos of performances captured by audience. missing permission from performers. They've sat in CAT:COPYVIO for a few days; converting to DR.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Polarlys. --Minoraxtalk 04:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations 12

Appear to be from 1910s/1020s-era, likely a PD original (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghidul Constantei si Tekirghiol.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:CityStudyCasinoArchive.jpg for evience of this timeframe and porential original being PD).

DMacks (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that any of these were published before 1996 to qualify for PD-Romania. File:InteriorStaircaseCasinoConstanta.jpg and File:Lista detinuti politici.jpg are definitely recent (2000s). The vignetting, sepia tone and "antique" editing present on all of the files is an original contribution of the copyrighted website, some sort of "house rules" for the publication. If proof of publication is provided indicating they qualify for PD-ROmania, non-edited versions should be uploaded for these to qualify for PD.Anonimu (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. While the text of the name list is not eligible for copyright, the photograph of the list probably is (barely). --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Copyright violations

[edit]

Converting these to DR since they've sat in the copyvio queue for a while. Gleb Leo tagged these as copyvio as apparently containing work by author not covered under the existing license template.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, no objection nor counterargument presented. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uploads by User:Myrrine

[edit]

Source site: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." According to the uploader, he/she has the permission to upload the files under the provided license. User_talk:Myrrine#Non-commercial_use_is_not_allowed_on_Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polarlys (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Some are also derivative works of copyrighted Google Earth screenshots, such as File:Calimanesti 3.jpg ("suprapunere pe Imagine satelitară Google Earth 2021" = "overlay on Google Earth 2021 Satellite Image"). Belbury (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Copyright violations

[edit]

Speedy tagged by IP user. Wait: "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." is arguably a free license (although it does not expressly permit derivative works), and I will reach out to the named contact for clarification and to see if consent can be sent to COM:VRT.

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that File:Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png should be restored if VRT permission is granted. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These should be deleted, it doesn't seem like I'm making progress with the contact person, unfortunately. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Mug Shot.webp. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Copyright violations

[edit]

No permission and no evidence of a free license.

Yann (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Copyright violations

[edit]

These are tagged for speedy deletion, but many are in use, and if the book is from 1937, it may be out of copyright. If we can save these, we should.

Additional files added later

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Place DR on hold I've asked for a French-speaking VRT agent to check ticket:2021032110004214 to see if it covers these files. That discussion is here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the answer is no. Nicolas Théobald died in 1981, so these files can be undeleted in 2032, or maybe 2040. I'm not really sure about how the wartime copyright extension works. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am Mireille Théobald, daughter of Professor Nicolas Théobald, who died on 10 May 1981. I am the heiress of the rights on his works. I published in 2022 a text upon the career and works of my father.
I was helped by fr:User:Philippe Rogez, who had already made on Wikipédia numerous articles in Paleontology.
As I was 83 years old and inexperienced in computer systems, I gave him the mission to send to Commons the drawings and photographies choosen in the works of Nicolas Théobald, to illustrate the texts describing the fossils my father had studied. 2A01:CB04:D44:7D00:C0A5:DE72:4A8E:1B5E 15:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
En complément,je vous mets le nom sous lequel je travaillais sur Wikipédia : fr:User:Mireille Théobald(discuter). 2A01:CB04:D44:7D00:C0A5:DE72:4A8E:1B5E 15:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Fit India 09:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Copyright_violations&oldid=1095896087"