Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/19
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
October 19
[edit].jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by CherryX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this and the other 2 pics from this place are from a family photo album. I am not the photographer or author of these. So I was not allowed to put them under a free license or publish online. I am requesting the deletion because I was asked to from the original photographer. —-CherryX (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Converted to regular DR to allow for discussion. Nearly 12 years after upload this confession cames quite late. as Google-Images shows, some people have relied on the falsely claimed free license and are using the image externally. You need to notifiy them first to take the image down. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Same problem, though here I couldn't identify external uses:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's two websites involved, I have written to both of them and informed about this. --CherryX (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Sebastian Wallroth as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: source and date in question Yann (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by CherryX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this and the other 2 pics from this place are from a family photo album. I am not the photographer or author of these. So I was not allowed to put them under a free license or publish online. I am requesting the deletion because I was asked to from the original photographer. —-CherryX (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Yann (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deletion request is part of this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Culhali, Hekimhan (1).jpg --CherryX (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by CherryX as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: this and the other 2 pics from this place are from a family photo album. I am not the photographer or author of these. So I was not allowed to put them under a free license or publish online. I am requesting the deletion because I was asked to from the original photographer. —-CherryX ([[User talk:CherryX|{{int:Talkpagelinktext Yann (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deletion request is part of this: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Culhali, Hekimhan (1).jpg --CherryX (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Guapa la galla, pero quién es? 200.39.139.12 14:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded by a sock; likley a hoax. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: It's currently COM:INUSE which prevents us from deleting it barring exceptional circumstances. Can you explain a bit more about the hoax / situation for us please? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- No longer in use. See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japansonglove. Note also that uploader's account is globally locked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
incomplete upload, out of scope vip (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 07:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Image uploaded under improper copyrights. It's claimed as CC/own work, but it's merely a scan or photograph of a piece of content previously published in a magazine -- but as a magazine article, it still has the magazine's preexisting copyright on the content, and simply scanning or photographing copyrighted content does not magically render the derivative image into your own "new" CC-eligible work. It was also previously "in use" as a misguided and badly formatted attempt at "referencing" a statement in a Wikipedia article, which I've had to remove as it was causing a gigantically oversized copy of the image to sit as "wallpaper" behind all the rest of the referencing, rendering the footnotes unreadable — so the "use" that derailed the prior nomination is no longer applicable. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Uploader claims copyright of 17 century work of Бантони = en:Pompeo Girolamo Battoni. Not specified source. Which version it is - we already have at least 2 variants from different museums File:Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Batoni, Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn.JPG File:Batoni, Pompeo - Prodigal Son - Louvre.jpeg Drakosh (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The own work part and authorship of the painting can be easily fixed. As a 17th century painting it's in the public domain. So the only question is who took the photograph. Do we have reason to believe that it was not the uploader? Nakonana (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no license (No license since)
File has a license, but it's dubious. Circa 1910 postcard, possibly public domain in Germany, but need to know if Koch died before 1954. Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Buchbinderei Johs. A. Koch is a company and apparently the publisher. We would need to know which (if any) photographer is named on the card. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The uploader said this on their talk page "Die meisten Bilder bis 1910 stammen von dem Fotografen Friedrich Wilhelm Schaufuss (1839-1913), der sie an die in Bützow ansässigen Verlage, wie beispielsweise A. Koch, verkauft hat" so if this is a Schaufuss photo, we can keep this and fix the license. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Very little information about image provided. It's a rather dull shot of some buildings in a beach town, not very good at illustrating any subject in particular. Out of COM:SCOPE Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep It's not a great photo, but it's far from being so bad that we'd have addition by subtraction, we know what town it's in, I didn't find any picture of the same view in Category:Walton-on-the-Naze (though maybe there could be one or more only in a subcategory) and it does give us a little flavor of the town. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)- Comment Thanks for ping, although it's my image, I pretty much agree with the comment above,but I'll take what comes Jimfbleak (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak, you could increase the value of the photo by specifying what street we are looking at in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This is claimed to be a selfie, but as this is small photo without metadata and the uploader's only contribution, in my opinion this is somebody other's work. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by XenonX3 as no license (No license since)
Has a license. 1910 German advertisement, possibly PD but would need to know if photographer died before 1954. Too young for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the name of the photographer, if unknown is PD-EU-no author disclosure. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not known to us doesn't mean photographer was never known. Photographer was likely known by publisher, and thus that license is not usable per German law. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
