Commons:Deletion requests/2025/05/31

May 31

File:Trident Juncture 2018 - Oct 25 - Norway.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grand-Duc as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This isn't actually PD-USMil. According to EXIF, the image was taken by a member of Försvarsmakten, so either Swedish or Finnish armed forces: "photo by Louise Levin/Försvarsmakten". Alin2808 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc - The EXIF of the file also states that the "Copyright holder" is "Public Domain", with the "Credit/Provider" mentioned as being "Allied Joint Force Command Naple". Alin2808 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
The statement of {{PD-USMil}}, "This image is a work of a U.S. military or Department of Defense employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States." is wrong in any case. The entry of "Copyright holder" looks like something made with "Adobe Bridge" (You've only got 2 options there: Public Domain or Copyright protected), I tend to assume that it's the result of a mislead automatism, a fluke by "Tech. Sgt. Brian Kimball 501st Combat Support Wing Public Affairs" (cf. "special instructions field"). Also, "Allied Joint Force Command Naple" is not a US-exclusive entity, it's multinational, so US-only rules about copyrights won't be applicable. At least COM:PRP would mandate a deletion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Had a look through the album and this doesn't seem to be the case, at least not in part. This image is tagged as "Courtesy Photo from the Allied Joint Force Command Naples", it has that same author in the description (Louise Levin/Försvarsmakten) and the same mentions in the EXIF (Copyright holder - Public Domain and Credit/Provider - Allied Joint Force Command Naple). To me this seems like a mistake on this particular file, where the uploader to DVIDS (Tech. Sgt. Brian Kimball) tagged the photo as his own instead of a courtesy photo. As far as I'm aware, courtesy photos posted on US military websites are allowed as long as they are properly marked as public domain (I remember seeing a discussion on this topic a while back). Alin2808 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
This discussion you recall may be the one about Lockheed Martin employees producing F-35 imagery (especially during the plane development) that is indeed available as PD, we've got an explicit confirmation for this. But I'm not aware of a general rule for imagery of military subjects produced by DoD contracted civilians and noted as "courtesy of XY". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Found that discussion and the DVIDS staff clearly stated that "all content - even those listed as 'Courtesy' are public domain and available for anyone to use." Furthermore, on the Commons:VIRIN page, not the case here as the VIRIN doesn't use the O code, but it is pointed out that foreign nationals can be included in posting these photographs and public domain is determined case by case. So again, I do not see how public domain can be contested on this photograph as there is nothing that says otherwise. Alin2808 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:David Melville Heyman (1891-1984) by Bachrach.jpg

Is there an indication this image was ever free? The page isn't in the Internet Archive, I doubt a website owned by an Israeli tech entrepeneur has the right to release an old image of an American under a cc license. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Also: File:David Melville Heyman (1891-1984) by Fabian Bachrach in the New York Times on August 5, 1960.png (close inspection shows it's a low-quality duplicate of the above image). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Image by Louis Fabian Bachrach, Jr. United States case law has an image "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator. To be eligible for a copyright prior to 1964, you had to register for a copyright and then renew that copyright. There are no copyrights for an image of "David M. Heyman" or "David Heyman" or "David Melville Heyman" or any other variation of his name. We already know that Louis Fabian Bachrach and Louis Fabian Bachrach, Jr did not copyright their photos, they controlled the negatives, and there was little aftermarket for the images once they were sold to the sitter. --RAN (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
No, an image isn't published "when it leaves the custody of the creator." This is laughably incorrect. Works were often disseminated among small groups of people and not considered published (i.e., limited publication).
You have provided no publication history, or even proof of publication. Even if itw as published, we don't know if it had a copyright notice because it was uploaded by some random Israeli with no source. A vague assertion that you looked through copyrights for the subject of the photograph's name doesn't come anywhere close to proving it is wasn't registered, since it could be published under a different name or at a different time. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Mark as {{PD-US-not renewed}} I'm seeing no evidence of a copyright being registered in any capacity. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete I'd fail this at license review for inadequate sourcing. Sennecaster (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: isn't File:David Melville Heyman (1891-1984) by Fabian Bachrach in the New York Times on August 5, 1960.png proof of publication? It's on the NYT —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 12:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Was it first published there? If so, does the New York Times publication notice suffice? If not, where was it published? I can't answer any of these questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: never mind, the copyright for that issue was renewed. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Raffles Logo 2016.png

Above COM:TOO Singapore --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Did you think have threshold of originality of Singapore is very low? And because takes TOO Singapore, but very low in UK? but like the COM:TOO Singapore, See Commons:Licensing. 114.5.111.171 00:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I have no idea what you meant. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 08:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Blurry vegetation (46421130954).jpg

Blurry and unused image, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Image is tagged as Category:Unidentified Poaceae and perhaps someone will be able to identify it. Image can be used as an illustrative cover for a report or something similar. It is not too blurry to be totally unidentifiable as to what is being depicted. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Not blurry, very good image. Professional shot. Юрий Д.К. 16:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
 Keep per both, Sikander and Юрий Д.К. This file may be in use on the worldwide internet, so "unused" is unknown. This photo's usefulness is subjective. The central image of an "Unidentified Poaceae" is actually a well done "portrait" image. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

File:شیخ علی قاضی.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 04:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Skyline of Moncton in 2015 (cropped).jpg

This is Saint John, New Brunswick, not Moncton (2 hours away) Quintinsoloviev (⧼https://www.instagram.com/quintinsoloviev⧽) 05:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep and rename per above. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

File:7daysinn logo.PNG

Above COM:TOO China --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 09:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) flags Ni'lin.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Menakei as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Focusing on a non free PLFP logo. Maybe de minimis? If not, it can be cropped or blurred instead of deleted. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

If photo focuses on the non free content, it can't be de minimis. Also blurring and cropping can make this file useless. Menakei (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Hamzah Sheeraz.jpg

Is this from Facebook? 186.172.18.240 11:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Arshad Nadeem 2024.jpg

Own work? 186.172.18.240 11:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Traditional Authority and Security in Contemporary Nigeria.djvu

Work is CC-BY-ND and so not license compatible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:"Taming Americas Warriors" (2025), by Scott Dale Hamm.pdf

ND license which is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Paul Illing, úředník, zástupce zemského velitele organizace Volkssport.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Gumruch as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not own work, Commons:NETC Yann (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Freehz.jpg

Porque este archivo se trata de mi y lo he creado yo, por eso quiero eliminarlo. Payen Peterson (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Archivo equivocado, debe eliminar de imediato Jeff Promo (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: No author, no source, no license. --Achim55 (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Freehz.jpg

Debe ser borrado porque el propietario no quiere que este en internet. Kervenspierre (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: Redeleted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Peter Freehz.jpg

Archivo publicado sin autorizacion Pierre jean1299 (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Que quiere el negrito? Abrir discusiones para evitar Speedy for F10? Salt it. 186.173.247.252 04:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Dr. Grayzon (talk · contribs)

COM:NOPenis - Remaining untagged images of this uploader. These images are explicit, and would ideally also need academic context presented.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Pendulife.jpg

Out of scope --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Picture of a tractor surely is in scope. Better description may be useful. Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Don´t mess with Texas, Austin (Texas), Xaneiro 2007.JPG

No written permission from the sculptor, and Texas is part of the US so US law applies CitationAuditor (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete per nom - no COM:FOP USA for statues. Statue by artist Jim Hamilton installed in 1992 still copyrighted. Consigned (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ахмадбек Мавлонбеков.JPG

No written permission from the sculptor which is required. CitationAuditor (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To leave a file: 1. The specified photo of this person is missing, so a photo of the bust is provided.:Akhmatbek Mavlonbekov.JPG; 2. Tourists visiting the cities of Tajikistan photograph all the sights of the cities, including busts and monuments of historical figures without problems and prohibitions, and distribute them on various Internet websites. (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Lack of a photo of a person is MEANINGLESS. No FoP, no keepy. Simple.--CitationAuditor (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Be the Change Movement of Hawthorne.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama in the US and the mural seems pretty new given lack of weather damage CitationAuditor (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Protest march for justice for Trayvon in Austin, TX (cropped).jpg

No permission from copyright owner on the photo of Trayvon (I'm not talking about the photo of the whole protest.) CitationAuditor (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/"Created with permission of the Forum of the Baronage of Scotland"

These files are all tagged Own Work, but state Source: https://burkespeerage.com/. Created with permission of the Forum of the Baronage of Scotland (representing 60+ barons) for uploading to wikipedia https://baronage.scot/, suggesting that the uploader is not the artist. Some are digital works but others seem to be scans. Permission needed from the artist via COM:VRT.

-Consigned (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete all, appears to be incorrectly licensed. --Sjö (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all - incorrectly licensed, and the user has a history of uploading others' work, including copyrighted work, as their own work. Bastun (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Citing Burke's Peerage (which, last time I looked, did not have color images) could mean only that the image is based on a blazon given in Burke; but the great variation in quality and style is evidence against that. Evidently most of them were scanned from many sources. – A few remind me of the style of User:Mich Taylor. Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment - to clarify all the images above were created by graphic designer and adapted from original coats of arms, some were created from blazons as @Tamfang suggested, but most were adapted as per the licensing: ...in the Baronage of Scotland a digital representation new image of the coat of arms shield element from the full coat of arms. So not including the crest, supporters, motto or anything overlapping or outside the full coat of arms from the original. Created with permission of the Forum of the Baronage of Scotland (representing 60+ barons) for uploading to wikipedia. These images were created last year and I understand now that adapting original images and creating a new images might be against policy here, even though the copyright holders gave permission for uploading to wikipedia by emailing me through their social club representative body The Forum of the Baronage of Scotland. Therefore if it's policy to delete these images please do so. It would be great if a graphic designer created new SVGs from the blazons like they've done for the peerage, I don't have the time or those technical abilities at present. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
@Fram my comment above on this misunderstanding as you've been actively following Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Kellycrak88. In short, we need the permission of the artist in each case. If each artist can provide permission for their images to COM:VRT then their images could be kept here. Consigned (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Kochetkov-barelief.jpg

No permission from the author-sculptor CitationAuditor (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Haqberdiev Qurbon Haqberdievich.jpg

Seems to be a re-photo of someone else's photo given all the glare. And seems to be too new to be public domain CitationAuditor (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Affiche WEB.jpg

Uploaded for en:Draft:Festival interculturel du conte de Montréal, no other use --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:KochetkovUP.jpg

Given it is from 1985 it is probably not actually own work CitationAuditor (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:NokiaE62logo.png

Not needed Knoxmann (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm the uploader Knoxmann (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Grave of Rustem Yakhin (2021-10-11) 04.jpg

No permission from the engraver. Obviously the engraving is less than 70 years old since the subject died in 1993. CitationAuditor (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:18th baroness of kinfauns.jpg

The object in question is PD, but the photo is not. The description states "Photograph is a simple reproduction of this public domain object". Since the photo is angled and framed/cropped in a certain way, I suspect it is an intellectual creation (COM:UK) and is copyrighted. Consigned (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Consigned please see https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/135765148/margaret-murray/photo
There are multiple photos of the same gravestone with user-generated public domain content (required for uploading to the site) may I ask, wouldn't the same rules apply here?
As per the comment: Photograph of the gravestone of Margaret Murray (1750–1825), located in Kinfauns Churchyard, Perthshire, Scotland. The gravestone is dated 1878. (Photograph is a simple reproduction of this public domain object). Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Johanna Franziska von Chantal.jpg

Painting by Michael Fuchs, a living artist born in 1952. Located in the Provinzialat der Oblaten des heiligen Franz von Sales in Vienna, Kaasgraben, COM:FOP Austria may not be applied here. 83.61.242.133 15:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Evrik (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:The Marilyn Monroe mural, on the corner of Calvert St. and Connecticut Ave. near the Woodley Park Metro station, NW, Washington, D.C LCCN2010642107.tif

We need written permission from the painting author CitationAuditor (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Painted in 1981, and I don't see a copyright notice on it. Do we have some specific reason to believe it was copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
No information about the origin of the painting was provided. We must presume it is copyrighted until proven otherwise.--CitationAuditor (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Memphis buildings 2012 020.jpg

No permission from the painter of the mural CitationAuditor (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mural on E. Long Street. Columbus, Ohio..jpg

No permission from the painter of the painting CitationAuditor (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Lepanto AR 20.jpg

No permission from the mural painter which is required in the US CitationAuditor (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Street life New York 2012 (6998934306).jpg

No permission from the painter of the painting CitationAuditor (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:20230612 Boukhara088.jpg

No permission from the painter of the painting. No FoP in Bukhara CitationAuditor (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Polymer Concrete Celtic Gazebo by David Clendining.jpg

Not only "Own work" but also copyvio derivative of sculptural work made by sculptor David Clendining. No evidence of applicability of PD-Old-70 or COM:FOP Canada given. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This image that I created is of the polymer concrete gazebo created by me. I have been asked to upload examples of my work so that they can be included in a Wikipedia page about my work as a Canadian artist. Exbellestartsit (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I used photoshop to attach all six gazeebo sections together. It was for a proposal for an art piece in a sculpture garden in Perth. Exbellestartsit (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
 Keep per above. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Its hard for me to believe that anyone but the original artist would be able to do this detailed of a model of the gazebo. It clearly wasn't created by some rando on the internet. Its not like this level of scrutiny ever applies to 99% of the people who are supposedly professional photographers and upload their own photographs on here either. Although VRT permission would be good but it shouldn't be required given the quality of the model and fact that its unlikely to have been created by anyone else except for the original artist. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    I do not understand your answer, Adamant1. Did you think that I assumed that the model was made by a person X as a copy of a David Clendining work? That wasn't my point! I took objection in that a person made a photograph of a sculpture above COM:TOO and claimed this image to be "own work", disregarding the sculptor's rights in the process. Well, apparently Exbellestartsit is either Mr. Clendining himself or related to him, so there would not be a third person infringing upon rights held by the artist Clendining. But this relationship or identity has to get proven through COM:VRT in my opinion, see also "Commons:Village pump#Artist seems to be active and uploading on Commons, verification needed?". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
It looks like a 3D model of the gazebo, not the real one. So I don't think someone other then David Clendining would have taken the image and/or created the model. It doesn't matter which but it's more then likely he took a screenshot of the original 3D model for the gazebo. But of course him verifying it through COM:VRT would be the best option here either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Map of comuni of province of Frosinone (region Lazio, Italy).svg

Updated version: File:Municipalities of the Province of Frosinone.svg LorenzoF06 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Beatriz García.jpg

Own work?

186.172.130.145 15:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Carlsmith051 (talk · contribs)

COM:PORN - unused low-quality photos of genitalia, no educational COM:SCOPE. Note that two have been replaced by city photos (genitalia still in history), one is likely copyrighted the other a duplicate of another Commons photo.

Consigned (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The media is of lower quality and has little or no educational value. 154.91.163.106 08:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Велигин.jpg

No permission from sculptor CitationAuditor (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Парк-пам'ятка садово-паркового мистецтва 7.jpg

No FoP in Ukraine, clearly less than 70 years old CitationAuditor (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Maslov Ivan Vasilevish (1912-1963) bust.jpg

FoP violation. Clearly less than 70 yo CitationAuditor (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Бюст Алдара Цыденжапова.jpg

No FoP in Russia for this piece of trash. Copyvio CitationAuditor (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bemalter Beförderungswagen in Paris, Bild von Daniel Presberger.jpg

Zero FoP in Paris CitationAuditor (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Adygea01.jpg

No FoP in Russia. Especially for propaganda trash :) CitationAuditor (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Лемеш Вадим Вячеславович.jpg

No FoP in Russia CitationAuditor (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Bust of the Hero of the Russian Federation Mark Evtukhin.jpg

No FoP for statues in Russia (especially since statues of Russian invader trash are worthless and don't belong on Commons) CitationAuditor (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Братская могила советских воинов. Крюково. Памятник Вере Волошиной.JPG

No FoP in Russia CitationAuditor (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:UNESCO headquarters

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UNESCO building Paris - no COM:FOP France. Of the en:UNESCO Headquarters's 3 main architects, the last living is en:Bernard Zehrfuss who died in 1996, so the building would still be copyrighted per COM:France.

Consigned (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2021 Bing's Burger Station 4, Cottonwood, Arizona.jpg

Arizona is in the US. US has no FoP. So there is no FoP here. We have no permission from the LOGO copyright owner. (Forget about the photographer, they don't understand copyright). CitationAuditor (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Please see my talk page for evidence of the nominator's trolling against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
"Help! I'm a victim of a deletion nomination" is not a copyright argument. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. You have a history of failing to accept this basic policy, I am by no means the only person who has brought this up. You have been told to abide by US FoP laws again and again, I am just the latest person to bring it up. Now prove you have permission from the owner of the copyright on the logo to upload this or accept the consequences of uploading a copyvio - deletion.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Example of this guy doing the exact same thing, getting caught, and then the deletion being approved: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veterans of Foreign Wars, 405 Main Street mural, Superior.jpg (just one of many examples of the exact same type of violation) I didn't invent American FoP restrictions.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hereford outside of Tallahassee Automobile Museum.JPG

Tallahassee is in Florida. Florida is in the US. US have no FoP. Equals no FoP in Tallahasse. Equals this is a copyvio. CitationAuditor (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  • This is a sculpture of a bull. Not any specific bull, and with no particular "artistic liberties" taken to the form of a bull. (It's also probably a mass-produced, purchased sculpture.) Does this meet the ToO for a copyrightable work of art? - The Bushranger (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    • It looks pretty detailed to me. It's very textured.--CitationAuditor (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
      • While, true, that's hair. Some cows are hairy. I mean, I can see the argument, but also I still wonder...it's a bull.. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferdinand the bull.jpg

Chicago in US. US have no FoP on statues. This is photo of statue. No permission from sculptor. Equals copyvio CitationAuditor (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Anna-Eva Bergman.jpg

Date is wrong, license is definetly wrong. I can't see, why this image can be free here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Куприн за органом в мастерской.jpg

Copyvio. This is obviously not "own work", no information about the author is given Mautpreller (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio label is erroneous, put due to the lack of legal experience and poor knowledge of copyright rules.
This is a photo taken in the 1920s-1930s, which is freely wandering in Internet, and used on numerous sites dealing with the history of "Jack of Diamonds" group, and Russian painters. The photo is 85-105 years old, it is not labelled as belonging to any photobank. It is absolutely not possible to adequately attribute it to any person, since it is anonymous.
Copyright protection extends to anonymous authors. A work is considered anonymous if the author's name is not identified on the copies or phonorecords of the work. Even though the author's identity is unknown, the work is still protected by copyright, and the term of protection is determined by the date of first publication or creation, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
Please read this again: the anonymous work is still protected by copyright, and the term of protection is determined by the date of first publication or creation.
Due to the physical appearance of the person Alexander Kuprin (1880-1960) on the photo, it was taken when he was about 50 years of age, that is in the period 1930-1940. So it entered into Public Domain since 2001 or 2011, and says there ever since that date. Serpuhov (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:1924, Moscow, photo of Ilya Mashkov, Pyots Konchalovsky, Aristarkh Lentulov, Alexander V. Kuprin, Alexander Osmerkin.jpg

Copyvio, "own work" is obviously wrong, no author given Mautpreller (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Осмеркин Машков Куприн Кончаловский Лентулов Рождественский 1941.jpg

Copyvio, "own work" is obviously wrong, no author given Mautpreller (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio label is erroneous, put here due to the lack of legal experience and poor knowledge of copyright rules.
This is a photo taken in 1941, which is freely wandering in Internet, and used on numerous sites dealing with the history of "Jack of Diamonds" group, and Russian painters. The photo is 84 years old, it is not labelled as belonging to any photobank or photo deposit. It is absolutely not possible to adequately attribute it to any person, since it is genuinely anonymous.
Copyright protection extends to anonymous authors. A work is considered anonymous if the author's name is not identified on the copies or phonorecords of the work. Even though the author's identity is unknown, the work is still protected by copyright, and the term of protection is determined by the date of first publication or creation, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
Please read this again: the anonymous work is still protected by copyright, and the term of protection is determined by the date of first publication or creation.
The photo was taken in 1941, at Pyotr Konchalovsky’s Exhibition in Tretyakov Gallery just before the 2WW. So it entered into Public Domain since 2012, and stays there ever since that date. It is in PD for 13 years now. Serpuhov (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Nude executed and exhibited in 1910.jpg

copyvio, author died in 1960, "own work" is obviously wrong Mautpreller (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All pictures published on territory of the Russian Empire (Russian Republic) except for territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland before 7 November 1917 are considered PD.
This one is from year 1910.
That is why such kind of pictures duly illustrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_V._Kuprin. LvivForev (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Александр Васильевич Куприн. "Обнаженная цирковая гимнастка". Холст, масло. 1913 г. 105 х 87 см.jpg

Copyvio, author died in 1960, "own work" is obviously wrong Mautpreller (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

All pictures published on territory of the Russian Empire (Russian Republic) except for territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland before 7 November 1917 are considered PD.
This one is from year 1913, as stated in its properties.
That is why such kind of before 7 November 1917 pictures duly illustrate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_V._Kuprin LvivForev (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Removed from Wikipedia Deutschland/Austria, can stay in other Wikipedias where PD rule before 7 November 1917 applies. LvivForev (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Copyvio label is obviously erroneous.
Especially as the picture was removed from Deutsch/Austria wiki.
And not used anywhere else.
It is considered PD on English-language wiki - as all the other pictures of Kuprin made before 7 November 1917 and existing on Kuprin’s wiki pages.
If you insist on removing THIS ONE, your must insist on deleting all the OTHER, TOO.
But you do not label them as Copyvio, because you realize it is grossly erroneous. Serpuhov (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Maps of Tosnensky District

These files have three sources - maps from 1937, 1939 and 1941, with 3 to 5 authors indicated on each of them. At the same time the uploader, as a justification for being in the public domain, stated that alleged 70 years have passed since the author's death, without providing any evidence. Copyright status is unclear.

Quick1984 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Belousov2025.jpg

A derivative, no FoP in Russia for sculptures. Quick1984 (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Это в холле здания. Valeriy10f (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
1. Допускаются без согласия автора или иного правообладателя и без выплаты вознаграждения воспроизведение и распространение изготовленных экземпляров, сообщение в эфир или по кабелю, доведение до всеобщего сведения произведения изобразительного искусства или фотографического произведения, которые постоянно находятся в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, за исключением случаев, если изображение произведения является основным объектом использования или изображение произведения используется в целях извлечения прибыли.
2. Допускается свободное использование путём воспроизведения и распространения изготовленных экземпляров, сообщения в эфир или по кабелю, доведения до всеобщего сведения в форме изображений произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и произведений садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в месте, открытом для свободного посещения, или видных из этого места. Valeriy10f (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
You don't need to bring this here, you can find it at COM:FOP Russia. Quick1984 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Всё, изображение можно удалять — я его перенёс, в статье оно больше не используется. Valeriy10f
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Valeriy10f (talk · contribs)

Copyrighted coins of Poland are depicted.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

А в чём проблема? У меня есть эти монеты, я их отсканировал и выложил полученные изображения. Какие правила я нарушил? --Valeriy10f (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Дизайн денежных знаков Польши защищен авторским правом, поэтому сканы монет, как производные работы являются несвободными изображениями и их нельзя загружать на Викислкад. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Valeriy10f (talk · contribs)

These files have two sources - maps from 1932 and 1937, with 3 to 5 authors indicated on each of them. At the same time the uploader, as a justification for being in the public domain, stated that alleged 70 years have passed since the author's death, without providing any evidence. Copyright status is unclear.

Quick1984 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

См. пример для файла KoltushskiyProspekt1931.jpg: https://retromap.ru/14194156_60.172641,30.523037&p=77
На карте указано: «топосъёмка 1890, 1895 год. Рекогносцировка 1931 год».
То есть, авторская работа проводилась в XIX веке, а издание результата — в 1931 году.
И так по всем. Valeriy10f (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Please do not try to mislead your colleagues. : Рисовали Михайлова и Третьяков. Чертил Фрейндлих. Such data is on all maps. It does not matter when the raw data was first obtained. The main thing is that we know who drew this map. Quick1984 (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Это только ваше предположение. Потому что перед вами сборный лист, компиляция из нескольких десятков совершенно разных карт созданных в разные годы.
Вы мне даёте ссылку на нижний ряд (https://retromap.ru/14194156_z12_58.331787,32.390785), где указаны авторы, ну и что? Эти карты в статьях не использовались.
Я же даю вам ссылку на верхний ряд карт (https://retromap.ru/14194156_60.135820,30.665416), которые использовались в статьях, там никаких авторов нет.
Допускаю, что у них тоже могли быть указаны авторы, но мы их не видим, это только предположение.
Вы считаете, что любое предположение нужно трактовать в пользу удаления? Я считаю, что нет. Раз явно указана именно топосъёмка XIX века, а авторы не указаны, то использование данных карт правомочно. Valeriy10f (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. If any map has edition notice cut off in your source, it does not mean that they did not have authors indicated, as they are indicated on all the others. Just read COM:PCP/ru and COM:EVID/ru to know exactly how doubts and assumptions are treated and who must prove their POV. You declare that all the authors died 70 or more years ago. Prove it. And don't forget that 70 pma is not applicable for Russia of that period, cause the term is mostly 70+4 pma (COM:Russia#Durations). Quick1984 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Вы хотите сказать, что военнослужащие «Рисовали Михайлова и Третьяков. Чертил Фрейндлих» создали новый предмет искусства равный картине или скульптуре, охраняемый авторским правом? Мне кажется, что вы преувеличиваете. Они по заданию и за деньги Генштаба РККА скопировали топооснову XIX века и всё. Но вы же не будете предъявлять авторские права на роман Л. Н. Толстого «Война и мир», если перепишете его своей рукой? «Рисовали Михайлова и Третьяков. Чертил Фрейндлих» не авторы, а копиисты.
Авторские права на данную карту принадлежат Генштабу Российской империи и тот факт, что в 1930-е годы Генштаб РККА внёс в неё незначительные изменения и издал вновь ничего не меняет. Но даже если и меняет и права на данную карту (возможно) перешли Генштабу РККА, то военнослужащим-копиистам — рисовальщикам и чертёжникам («Рисовали Михайлова и Третьяков. Чертил Фрейндлих») никто авторских прав не передавал, это нонсенс.
Чтобы быть объектом охраны, картографические произведения должны являться результатом творческой деятельности человека. Чисто технические результаты фиксации местности: аэрокосмическая съёмка, обработка компьютерными программами результатов съёмки местности, ручная обработка результатов съёмки местности или ручное копирование общедоступной топоосновы не является предметом охраны. Valeriy10f (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
You are just wasting your own time and the time of other users to invent non-existent principles of copyright. Regarding the authorship of maps, the WM Commons policies and Russia's copyright law are unambiguous, check out some of the many examples of such discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chir 1940.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Pocket Atlas of the USSR, 11th ed., 1940 (renomination) and so on. And your numerous uploads will meet the same fate. Quick1984 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
ОК. Перенёс файлы на другой ресурс, теперь можно удалять. Valeriy10f (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Asd u jmn (talk · contribs)

Uploader with history of uploading many other copyvios. Some of these credit someone else (e.g. "That is a party logo found it from news" and "That is a logo of political party found it from their page"), others are own work but suspicious (signature of en:Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir). If the uploader is the creator or copyright holder of any of these files, please provide permission to COM:VRT.

Consigned (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep File:Flag of the Bangladesh Jatiyotabadi Chatrodol.jpg is below TOO. Need perhaps change license tag though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File:-edmund-fitzgerald-.jpg

The license tag alleges that this photo was published before 1977 without a copyright tag; the photo is captioned undated but was taken before the ship sank in 1975. Unfortunately we have no evidence of the initial publication of the photo, and particularly we have no evidence that it was published without a copyright notice before 1977 which could make it PD per COM:HIRTLE. Consigned (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:2022 New London Union Station interior detail 1.jpg

No FoP for non-architectural works in the US. New London is in Connecticut. Connecticut is in the US. This poster is not architecture. So it is a derivative work and has to be deleted (despite the uploader pretending he doesn't understand how FoP works) CitationAuditor (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Please see my talk page for evidence of the nominator's trolling against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
"Help! I'm a victim of a deletion nomination" is not a copyright argument. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. You have a history of failing to accept this basic policy, I am by no means the only person who has brought this up. You have been told to abide by US FoP laws again and again, I am just the latest person to bring it up.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Example of this guy doing the exact same thing, getting caught, and then the deletion being approved: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veterans of Foreign Wars, 405 Main Street mural, Superior.jpg (just one of many examples of the exact same type of violation) I didn't invent American FoP restrictions.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could the artwork be PD-USGov somehow due to the subject of the artwork? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Seems it is a tourist poster by the town, not federal government. But regardless, uploader has to PROVE if it is PD, which he hasn't. It's just one of many DW in the sea of copyright violations uploaded by this guy (pun intended)--CitationAuditor (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2022 New London Union Station interior detail 2.jpg

No FoP for non-architectural works in the US. New London is in Connecticut. Connecticut is in the US. These posters are not architecture. So it is a derivative work and has to be deleted (despite the uploader pretending he doesn't understand how FoP works) CitationAuditor (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Please see my talk page for evidence of the nominator's trolling against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
"Help! I'm a victim of a deletion nomination" is not a copyright argument. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. You have a history of failing to accept this basic policy, I am by no means the only person who has brought this up. You have been told to abide by US FoP laws again and again, I am just the latest person to bring it up.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Example of this guy doing the exact same thing, getting caught, and then the deletion being approved: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veterans of Foreign Wars, 405 Main Street mural, Superior.jpg (just one of many examples of the exact same type of violation) I didn't invent American FoP restrictions.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Beyond My Ken: Please keep discussions DRs related to the file at hand and the reasoning it should be kept/deleted. Motives behind nominations is not a factor when deciding a file's faith. Is there any reasons these files are not in violations of COM:FOP/COM:DW? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

File:2022 New London Union Station interior detail 3.jpg

No FoP for non-architectural works in the US. New London is in Connecticut. Connecticut is in the US. This poster is not architecture. So it is a derivative work and has to be deleted (despite the uploader pretending he doesn't understand how FoP works) CitationAuditor (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Please see my talk page for evidence of the nominator's trolling against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"Help! I'm a victim" is not a copyright argument. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. You have a history of failing to accept this basic policy, I am by no means the only person who has brought this up. You have been told to abide by US FoP laws again and again, I am just the latest person to bring it up.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Example of this guy doing the exact same thing, getting caught, and then the deletion being approved: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Veterans of Foreign Wars, 405 Main Street mural, Superior.jpg (just one of many examples of the exact same type of violation) I didn't invent American FoP restrictions.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Martin Bormann, color photo.jpg

Definitely not "own work"; non-colorized version is apparently held by the US National Archives, but it does not clarify who holds the copyright Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The Bavarian State Library credits Eva Braun (1912–1945) as the photographer of the B&W original, see . --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:KTSM-TV 9 News logo.png

Mountain outline may be above COM:TOO Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint François de Sales.jpg

The original source doesn't provide any information about the provenance and creation of this image (illustration, painting, other two-dimensional artwork?). The uploader has a history of file uploads with incomplete and/or unverified information (including some extreme cases where they provide bogus claims), see here: 1, 2 and 3.) The image appears to be a reproduction of a painting, but again there is not stated by the original website when it was created and by who. 83.61.242.133 23:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The accusation leveled at me is intended to be defamatory, since my contributions have always been intended to benefit the Wikipedia community and, contrary to what has been accused, all the publications I have shared have always been of works placed in the public domain. On the contrary, the user who wants the deletion is the one who seems to only intend to destroy the collaborative work of others. Anjo Sozinho (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
@Anjo-sozinho. In any case, instead of difamatory or intending to destroy, it is by judging previous DRs and resolutions obtained there. There is significant doubt about the work's provenance (a simple claim by yourself stating it was published before 1850 may not be a reliable source) and per 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 file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained. [if needed, typically for copyrighted works]"
Note also that it is possibly the work may not be too old even if appearing to be so (example here). 83.61.242.133 00:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
 Info. I found another file that seems to depict the same artwork (but uncropped). It doesn't say anything neither about when was created nor by who, but at least identifies the institution that holds it ("Heimsuchungskloster Oberonning, Bayern", which appears to be this), so it is very likely that more information about the artwork can be obtained there. 83.61.242.133 10:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)