Commons:Deletion requests/2025/06/13

June 13

File:桃園文獻 大溪普濟堂之源起.pdf

Copyrighted book published by the Taoyuan City Government Cultural Affairs Bureau (桃園市政府文化局) . The excerpt in this PDF contains copyrighted text by 陳世芳 and copyrighted photographs by 盧逸峰. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tvpuppy,
We have received authorization from the author, [陳世芳].
You can see [陳世芳]’s signature on the third page of the PDF file.
Thank you. YaoJermyn (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
We also have the authorization from the photographer, [盧逸峰]. YaoJermyn (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by YaoJermyn (talk · contribs)

Derivative works that contains photographs with unknown copyright status. Although some of them appears to be historic photographs, there wasn’t any information provided for the creation/publish date for them, so I am not able to determine if they are in public domain in Taiwan or US.

Tvpuppy (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tvpuppy,
The photos in the files are of our family ancestors, so there are no copyright concerns.
Thank you. YaoJermyn (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
But who created the photos/artworks? Who owns the copyright (not the physical images)? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Pink cloud rainbow bath bomb.webm

Design of the bath bomb possibly exceeds COM:TOO Australia, which is very low. The company that designed this product is from Australia (per the company website ). Tvpuppy (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Estatua de Mafalda en Mendoza.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Allervous as Speedy (db-fairuse) and the most recent rationale was: |2=this work is to illustrate the statue of Mafalda, however, there is no freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in Argentina|help=off

F2 is not relevant. F3 is the relevant criterion here and requires a DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, thank you for correcting it. Allervous (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete， there is no freedom of panorama for 3D artworks in Argentina, as I've mentioned above. Allervous (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

File:EAM Flag.png

TOO is low enough in Australia that this flag could be conceivably copyrighted there. See COM:TOO Australia Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Similar image also nominated for deletion:

TarnishedPathtalk 00:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  • A reverse image search on the image brings up vector images created by a few users and uploaded to either freepik.com or commons. I can't find any evidence that the images release to creative commons licenses isn't valid. TarnishedPathtalk 02:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    The copyright of the flag is most likely held by a member of the EAM. Unless the Wiki is run by the EAM, the CC license is not valid. Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:D1875D55-5EC3-C52A-12FF-Crayenesterbrug.jpg

Insufficient information, too recent for {{PD-old-assumed}} Jcb (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This image is correctly licensed under the Creative Commons Zero (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication.
According to the official metadata of the Noord-Hollands Archief, the entire collection “1335 – Glasnegatieven van het Bedrijf Openbare Werken te Heemstede betreffende topografisch Heemstede” is released under the CC0 license. This applies to all digitized content in the collection.
The archive explicitly states:
“Licentie metadata: Creative Commons Zero (CC0) - Public Domain Dedication”
This can be verified on the official archive page:
🔗 https://noord-hollandsarchief.nl/…micode=1335#inv3t0
Therefore, this file meets the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons under {{Cc-zero}}. Melvinvk (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
They have insufficient information to state that. Without knowing who the author was, there is no way for the archive to know what the copyright status is. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand the concern regarding unknown authorship and the applicability of copyright exceptions. However, in this case the Noord-Hollands Archief, a professional Dutch regional archive, has clearly applied a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication to the entire collection in question — not just individual items.
On the collection-level metadata page for collection 1335 – Glasnegatieven van het Bedrijf Openbare Werken te Heemstede, they specify:
Licentie metadata: Creative Commons Zero (CC0) - Public Domain Dedication
https://noord-hollandsarchief.nl/bronnen/archieven?mivast=236&mizig=210&miadt=236&micode=1335
In the absence of any disclaimer limiting the CC0 to metadata-only, and considering that this appears in the general description of the digitized archival content, it is reasonable to conclude that the digitized images themselves are released under CC0.
Under Commons:Licensing, a valid CC0 declaration from a reputable institution is acceptable, unless there is strong evidence to doubt the institution’s authority or intent. The Noord-Hollands Archief is a trusted public body, and there is no indication that this release was made in error. Melvinvk (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
 Keep. User @Jcb has a history of claiming that official archives are ‘unreliable’ without backing that claim up with anything concrete. This file is clearly public domain. MKoot (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Says a one issue account that is only targeting DRs I started. Smells like sockpuppet. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
So long as you keep making dubious DRs I’m going to keep countering them.
As for your accusation that I’m a sockpuppet, please provide concrete proof. Just like you should provide concrete proof that the archives are unreliable. Mere accusation simply will not do. MKoot (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
@Melvinvk the concern is that several archives have made obvious errors and wrong assumptions in the past. Several archives gave interns access to their collections and often those interns added files without any understanding of copyright regulations. E.g. with both Spaarnestad and the archive of Amsterdam, I have had many conversations with interns who labeled files as PD, because the depicted person died 70 years ago. Or because someone who owned a physical copy of a picture donated that copy. In the case of this image, the information provided is insufficient to determine the copyright situation. So unless the archives knows more about this picture than they have published, there is no way that they can put a CC license on it. Jcb (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jcb: I understand that you’ve encountered issues in the past with other institutions applying incorrect licenses, and those are valid concerns when based on concrete evidence. However, it’s important to assess each case on its own merits and not generalize based on previous incidents.
In this case, the digital material is provided by a recognized Dutch public archive, which has explicitly applied the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication at the collection level on its official website. This license declaration was not made by a third-party uploader or an unverified source, but by the institution itself through its public-facing catalogue and under its own authority.
Unless there is specific evidence that this particular CC0 dedication is incorrect or unauthorized, Commons policy supports a presumption of validity in such cases — in dubio pro licentia. Especially when the license originates from a professional, government-funded cultural institution. Melvinvk (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
The two other organisations were equally "recognized", but made mistakes anyway. In the case of this DR, insufficient information is provided to be able to see on what grounds the CC license was added. Commons has their own responsibility to verify license situation. In this case, it's impossible for us to do this verification. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:NSN Flag.svg

Probably above TOO in Australia, see COM:TOO Australia Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Similar images also nominated for deletion:

--Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  • A reverse image search on the image indicates that it's usage is almost entirely on various wikis. I can't see any evidence that the release under a creative commons license by AFEG64 isn't valid. TarnishedPathtalk 02:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Unless the wikis are run by the NSN, their license statement means essentially nothing. A disclosure by the NSN themselves is necessary as they (or someone from their group) designed the flag. Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I made and uploaded this file because the version I saw used on Wikipedia wasn't a vector image. Most iterations made by other users are under Creative Commons, though whether the flag itself is actually protected under copyright is a different matter. I'm not going to contact the 'National Socialist Network' to ask them about it, but if they hold copyright over the design and disallow usage of it, then won't object to the deletion. Still, I'd prefer something more than a 'probably above TOO'. AFEG64 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Australian copyright law is very strict in this matter. In my opinion, if they allow copyright of the Aboriginal flag, they'd most likely allow copyright of the NSN flag too. Howardcorn33 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Shamsher Gazi.jpg

This appears to have incorrect licensing details. It was uploaded by User:Nurulamin.cse in 2017 as own work, however discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Modern images of historical figures suggests that it is a scan or photo of an older artwork. TSventon (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose deletion.
Although I am not the original uploader, I previously voiced concern over the proposed removal and my stance remains unchanged.
This file is a signed oil painting (see lower right-hand corner) uploaded to Commons by Nurul Amin in 2017 under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. There is no credible evidence that it is AI-generated, user-generated in violation of policy, or a copyright violation. It is visibly a traditional oil painting with the artist’s signature, and there is no visual indicators suggesting it was AI-generated. Just because an image cannot be “proven” to the satisfaction of a skeptical editor/s does not justify deletion.
Additionally, Commons permits posthumous artistic representations of historical figures when no contemporary portraits exist, particularly in the case of underrepresented or pre-colonial era figures like Shamsher Gazi. The deletion reason seems to based more on guesswork than on policy, and does not justify removing this important artwork. Regalhist5 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Regalhist5; seems to be own work, as licensed. Miniapolis 22:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak delete If its copyright status can be verified, it should be kept. If it cannot, then it should be deletted. Per Derivative works, Other volunteers must be able to verify the copyright status. Furthermore, the moral rights of the original creator—which include the right to be named as the author—are perpetual in some countries. In either case you need permission from the author to create a derivative work. Without such permission any art you create based on their work is legally considered an unlicensed copy owned by the original author (taking from another web site is not allowed without their permission). There is no evidence that the uploader is the person whose signature is on the painting, or of whether the painting is in the public domain. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: the image isn’t widely available online, and there is no evidence it was taken from another source. I mentioned this in my original argument as well, that the uploader should be consulted since they might have got it from a credible offline source. It was uploaded as original work, and unless proof to the contrary is provided, WP:AGF applies. Unsupported assumptions about derivative works or authorship don’t help the discussion. Regalhist5 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I'm making no assumptions about the uploader's intent. Whether it's available online is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what source it was taken from: unless the uploader can positively verify that it qualifies for use, it shouldn't be here. Per Commons:BURDEN, it's on the uploader to demonstrate compliance, not us to assume and verify it. Per BURDEN, If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence. As for consulting the uploader, note that they were notified, 5 hours ago. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I understand that Commons:BURDEN means the uploader needs to prove the image is okay to use. But for now unless there's actual proof it was taken from somewhere else or is a derivative work, WP:AGF still applies. There’s no evidence of that here, and the image isn’t widely available online. Also, earlier you questioned if the uploader was the artist, but now you're saying the source doesn't matter. If its original, then the focus should be on verification and not guessing where it came from. I’m not sure how you know the uploader was notified 5 hours ago if you weren’t part of the earlier discussion. either way, they should be given time to respond before jumping to conclusions. Regalhist5 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think your arguments are based in policy. Per the policy I quoted, if there's any question, evidence is required. This discussion shows that there's a question. Whether it's original or not really doesn't matter, because either way we need verification. Without verification, per commons policy, it should be deleted to prevent copyright violations.
    Also, please use AGF correctly. AGF means we assume someone wants to help. It doesn't mean we assume things are done correctly without evidence that they have been. That's why it's "assume good faith", not "assume correctness". EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Hi yes, Ive already addressed these points, so I believe you may be misrepresenting what I actually said. Just to clarify: I never argued that verification isn’t needed. I explicitly acknowledged that Commons:BURDEN requires it. I simply explained it in my own words instead of quoting wiki policy directly. what I am saying is that no concrete evidence has been presented so far to suggest this is a derivative or copied work, its only speculation right now. And per WP:AGF, the uploader should be given reasonable time to respond before conclusions are made. Let’s not reframe this discussion unnecessarily, we all agree verification is important, but decisions should be based on facts, not assumptions. lastly, it is misleading to claim the uploader was notified "5 hours ago" unless you were directly involved in that earlier part of the discussion. Shifting the focus of the discussion rather than addressing the questions raised doesn't really help move things forward. Regalhist5 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    it is misleading to claim the uploader was notified "5 hours ago" I provided a diff. I concur with Traumnovelle's last sentence below. I trust the closer will understand policy and come to the correct decision. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    The uploader appears to have multiple images either already deleted or currently nominated for deletion. However, they do not have a user talk page, and I believe it's important that they be properly notified before this file is removed. Deleting without notifying the uploader, goes against Commons norms.
    Regarding User:Traumnovelle's accusation, I find the accusation that I may be a sockpuppet both inappropriate and baseless. This is a deletion discussion page.. by definition editors are expected to express opinions either in favor of keeping or deleting a file. In my earlier discussion, I made it clear that I opposed deletion because this image may hold potential encyclopedic value, particularly given that Shamser Gazi is a older historical figure with limited visual documentation. Also, for the record I never definitively stated the painting was by the uploader, I said that based on the information currently available, it appears to be his uploaded work pending any further clarification from his end.
    Misrepresenting that as a contradiction is disingenuous. I’ve explained my position multiple times and have participated in good faith. I ask that we keep the focus on policy and evidence, not personal speculation or unfounded accusations. Regalhist5 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Are you unable to read the diff I provided above? It shows that the nom did notify the uploader. If you can't understand that, Commons:CIR seems appropriate. As for policy, it's clear that one of us is grossly misinterpreting it, and we won't convince each other. Let's let others !vote, and a closer interpret consensus, rather than spamming the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    As previously stated, I did see the uploader's Commons talk page where they were notified. I also explicitly noted that the uploader has no user talk page, which is why I suggested posting the notification there (creating one, in this case). If the goal is to "follow procedure," then it should be done properly. A file talk page alone is insufficient, especially if the uploader isnt actively monitoring it.
    Let's also avoid shift the goalposts. I have remained focused on policy and offered a solution. In contrast, your repeated nitpicking of words I used, insinuations, and sarcasm aren't really bringing this discussion to an end. If your argument were as solid as you claim, it wouldn't require deflection or passive-aggressive commentary.
    Proposed solution: I suggest one of us notify the uploader on their main user talk page about the image deletion. If they dont respond within a reasonable timeframe, admins can then make an informed decision. Regalhist5 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I cannot understand any good-faith reason you are taking two contradictory positions on different projects. You cannot argue on Wikipedia he didn't paint it therefore it is an appropriate image and then argue on Commons that it appears to be his work therefore we cannot delete it due to lack of certainty about copyright. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    I dont think youre reading my responses, maybe just skimming through them? so Ill narrow it down for you.
    On both Wikipedia and Commons, I only disputed the claim that the image is modern or user-generated, based on the painting style and visible signature.
    On Commons, it was other users who brought up copyright concerns to counter that. since theres currently no clear proof of a copyright violation or that the image is user-created, Commons policy leans towards keeping the image until this is clarified.
    Ive already proposed a fair solution. But you seem more focused on pushing for deletion rather than following the rules. Also, I never claimed the uploader painted the image, just that he uploaded it.
    Again: the proper way forward is to notify the uploader on his user talk page so he is given time to respond per policy Regalhist5 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Regalhist5 I think I did my bit by informing the uploader on their Commons user talk page, you are welcome to post to their en or bn Wikipedia user talk page. However as far as I can see, their last activity on any project was in early 2018. You might also be able to contact them off wiki using the information on their user pages. TSventon (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the suggestion. I attempted to post a notification on the uploader's user talk page, but encountered an error message preventing the edit. Ive submitted a request to have the uploader informed there.
    I have no off-wiki connection to the uploader, so thats beyond my scope but since you mentioned it, feel free to reach out that way if you think it would help. Regalhist5 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    I will keep you all updated here Regalhist5 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    Regalhist5, I mentioned trying to contact the uploader off-wiki as another possibility. I don't think it is necessary and I am not implying that you have have any off-wiki connection to the uploader. TSventon (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
    Im still working with admins on the report regarding the error message. If that doesn’t resolve it, we’ll proceed based on the notification already posted to Commons. Regalhist5 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
    Update: The admins have resolved the error message issue I was having. I’ve also posted a notice on the uploader’s Wikipedia user talk page: User talk:Nurulamin.cse since they haven’t responded on Commons. According to Common's policy, we will wait 7 days for a response. If there is no response by then, we can proceed with a final decision. Regalhist5 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Clarify: First, the above link goes only to the commons page, where TSventon already posted a notification. I believe Regalhist5 meant to link to the enwiki user talk page, where they left a second notification. Also, the instructions state, Less clear cases should remain open for at least seven days. Not that we're obligated to wait 7 days for a response. If I'm mistaken in this, I'd appreciate a link and quote. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    To clarify, I have not seen anyone argue that the image is an entirely digital creation, and thus the image counts as a Derivative work. Thus there are 4 possibilities that I see: 1) The painting in the image was also made by the uploader; 2) The painting in the image was made by someone else but gave permission to the uploader; 3) the painting in the image is in the public domain; or 4) the painting in the image is copyrighted and Wikipedia was not given license to use it.
    I also note that the instructions also say, If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. My reasoning for the delete !vote follows:
    1. It's original by the uploader. If so, the image has correct copyright info, and the image should be kept. Given that oil paintings can take months to years to make and often render the space where the oils dry uninhabitable from fumes, it's hard to see someone put in all that work and dedication only to forget to give themselves proper credit, or upload a high-quality image where their signature is legible, or give themselves due credit and provide more detail to the image. I don't know of any artists who'd go through the trouble of making an oil painting and not make sure they got credit for it. I think there's ample doubt that this was the casual creation (and thus "own work") of the uploader. We could be wrong, but we'd need confirmation that this is the case.
    2. The painting was scanned/photographed with permission that is not listed. In this case, because we don't have the permission on file, if that isn't clarified promptly, it should be speedily deleted.
    3. While possible, as Regalhist5 has said, the image is not widely available online, which makes it difficult to verify. Again, per the precautionary principle, it should be deleted.
    4. The image is copyrighted and used without permission. In this case, a speedy delete is obvious.
    Hopefully this clarifies my reasoning somewhat, as the above thread seems to have gotten cluttered with topics not related to my !vote. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for redirecting this thread to the correct link, Educated Redneck.
    Actually, Commons policy states that:
    “In general, requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. Problematic or complex requests... can wait longer – even for several months if necessary.” Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions
    Given that this case relies largely on speculation rather than verified evidence, and no clear proof of copyright violation or derivative status has been presented, I believe this remains an open and ongoing discussion. I am allowing the uploader time to respond in good faith, as per Commons policy, before any premature conclusion is drawn.
    Clarifying my position:
    1. There is no confirmation that the image is a derivative work. It has previously been treated as an original upload by the uploader as their "own work". If this is now being disputed, it requires evidence to overturn that assumption.
    2. The file is not widely available online. While this can make verification harder, it does not automatically suggest a copyright violation. Many original works are not published broadly.
    Commons policy encourages a 7-day wait for less clear cases like this one. This is not an "obvious" copyright violation, nor has a violation been proven.
    3. Per the precautionary principle, deletion should occur only when there is reasonable certainty that the file cannot validly be kept. That threshold has not yet been met here.
    Therefore, I continue to oppose deletion at this time and recommend we allow the uploader the full 7-day period to respond before a final decision is made. Regalhist5 (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    I suggest we allow the uploader time* Regalhist5 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    not I am allowing, typo. Regalhist5 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    I believe you're misunderstanding policy, and your response has missed the point. (I suspect you feel the same about my responses.) I note in point three that you actually invert what the instructions state. I understand you disagree, and as stated above, I doubt we'll convince each other, so I won't debate it with you further. If a third party has any questions, I'll respond to those, but at this point we both are bludgeoning and bloating the discussion, so I'll disengage and let the closer decide. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    No, I have thoroughly read your points and addressed your entire message together, so point 3 was not missed. To reiterate, there is still no proof of source or copyright infringement. Also, I quoted directly from the official policy link Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions, so it is not my personal interpretation of the policy.
    And yes, as I have repeatedly stated earlier in this thread, the final decision should be made by the admin. Regalhist5 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I understand that you think you're right and that you addressed my points. I believe that you're wrong, and you didn't. This is understood. As I said, we won't convince each other, and the closer will find the truth. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Im not sure whats unclear. I've already made my position clear for some time now, you're the one continuously dragging this out. This isn’t about who’s "right", it's a discussion, not a contest. I’ve presented my reasoning, and you've presented yours. Now, it's up to the admins to decide. Regalhist5 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete, AGF doesn't mean we should assume every user with several uploads understands copyright policy and isn't just box-ticking on the upload wizard to add an image to Wikipedia. I will note one of the user's other uploads has been photoshopped and is likely a copyright violation as well. Also on Wikipedia Regalhist5 argues that 'There appears to be no proof that the image is user-generated', yet he argues on Commons that the work is the authors? I can't help but wonder if this is the same user who uploaded the work or a troll. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per nominators reasoning. Ixudi (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Kohout Jaroslav (1968).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Quick1984 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Gumruch (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The file was uploaded by Czech professor and notable Wikimedian Jan Sokol (philosopher), who is already deceased, so no more permission from him can be sent. I suggest that this is his scan of his own photo from 1968 as he was active in the philosophic community in Czechia. See his other files. I presume them own work. –Gumruch (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Sedia in Legno Riccamente Decorata.jpg

This file was initially tagged by 83.61.242.133 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: {{PD-Art}} does not apply to tridimensional works. Photograph taken in 2004, no evidence of permission from the original photographer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment If we follow the source link, it says that "LICENZA METADATI" is "CC-BY 4.0", but I'm not sure if that applies to the photo. Also, "DATA DI COMPILAZIONE" in 2004, but that doesn't seem to be the date of the photograph necessarily. In any case, we need an Italian speaker to sort this out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by PannaDragon (talk · contribs)

Previously tagged by Grand-Duc for copyvio with the rationale: "A few copyvios arouse my suspicion about the uploads by PannaDragon, File:OCE Aladdin 3477 Cover.jpg is a clear case per COM:BOOK. Then, I parsed through the remainder of his contributions. All of them ticked warnings signs that license reviewers are trained to look for: EXIF with camera data all over the place, from professional full-frame DLSR (Nikon D850) to entry-level DSLR (Canon EOS 750D / Rebel T6i), even from another maker, smarphones (iPhone) and EXIF-less PNG for photographic media. That's not the kind of selection you would expect from truly someone's own works." Suspicion based on heuristic evidence is not a valid basis for COM:CSD#F1, so converting to DR.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the confusion. I worked on the films a few years back and took most of the photos. I didn't understand how to have the creator email in permission, but I think I figured it out and am asking him to do that now. Thanks for your patience! PannaDragon (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Also, one of the reasons why there are so many different cameras and phones taking the images is because these are photos from the early 2000s to today. I've had a lot of different phones and cameras in the last 25 years.
I just talked to Matt Busch, and he is sending emails of consent now. Thanks again. PannaDragon (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello! The copyright holder of these images has emailed his consent for each one. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to lift the deletion requests. Thanks! PannaDragon (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
@PannaDragon: Please have a look at COM:VRT. I think that forwarding your correspondence with Matt Busch to the permission e-mail queue is the thing to do. The people there will check if the licensing terms are in order and fit for Commons and put an info on the files. About the DR:
  • seen that there are visible activities for solving the issues, no admin is likely to delete the files on short notice.
  • the VRT agent that takes charge of the mailing will likely post a message here, hopefully confirming that everything is fine.
  • You're likely monitoring your uploads with your watchlist, aren't you? Assuming that's the case, you'll also see if a VRT agent adds a ticket on verified images. If that happens without further notice here, please inform us about the fact and the relevant image.
  • If a valid ticket verification is there, then anybody may close the DR per Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions; if I see it in a timely manner, I'll do it myself. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I FWDed the correspondence to the first email listed over the weekend, but I got a reply that it was the incorrect Wikimedia address, so I sent it to the permissions-commons one again. Thanks again- I appreciate your your help. PannaDragon (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Grand-Duc! It's been over 2 weeks since the copyright holder FWDed communication as directed. Any movement on closing these Deletion Requests? Thanks so much for your help! PannaDragon (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the VRT, so I don't have information about the current status, sorry. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Tickets 2025062310005341 and 2025061410000719 are relevant here, but no permission has been achieved yet. --Krd 16:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
It's been 2 weeks since the copyright holder FWDed communication as directed. Any movement on closing these deletion requests? Thanks! PannaDragon (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)