User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2023/Q1

Most memorable shot 2022 / Wikimania 2023

Dear member of the Commons Photographers User Group,

I wish you a Happy New Year! As it has been our tradition at the beginning of the new year for a while, we're sharing our most memorable shots of the past year with each other. I invite you to share a picture that is particular meaningful to you and to describe why that's the case. Also, as Wikimania 2023 will be here before we know it (August 16 to 19), please consider adding your thoughts on our planning page, where we gather ideas for how we can make Commons photography more visible than in the years before.

All the best to you, your family, and friends! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Image moving?

I really am not sure, how do I move the image? Do I have to download it and re upload it to wikipedia? Or was there an option, the move option just appears to rename images. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have to download and then re-upload it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Quinault Rain Forest June 2018 011.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quinault Rain Forest June 2018 011.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Thanks for closing the section "Files uploaded by 冷床系" on UDR. Could you please also close COM:ANU#Dronebogus and COM:ANU#Yann. I don't think we need a honeypot there. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like it will give off the appearance of impropriety if I make a closure after being requested to do so by one of the involved parties. Just don't engage anymore with the thread, and people will get bored of talking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Flux tendu 3.jpg

Hi, Not sure this image is really "no valid reason for deletion": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flux tendu 3.jpg. The video shown in the center of this image (where it is not "de minimis") was made by artist Laurent Faulon, who is not the youtube user who made the other video from which this image is taken. There does not seem to be evidence that Faulon's work is free. Delphine Reist (the youtube user) is Faulon's partner, but that doesn't mean that Faulon's works are free. Similarly for the artworks by Faulon shown in the Reist video (e.g the yellow thing on the left of the image in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flux tendu 6.jpg, etc.), although maybe less clear depending if those modified pre-existing objects are considered copyrightable artworks. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is true that no valid reason for deletion was presented. My closure does not prevent someone from renominating with a different reason. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:09.09.2019 15.36.27 REC.png

You removed this page from the category Copyright deletion requests (without replacing it with a more specific category), even though this discussion clearly is about copyright as well as scope. Why?

Regarding scope, in my experience, personal images are allowed only if they are used. The policy allowing personal images for substantial contributors has been scrutinised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last night in Sweden.jpg; if 09.09.2019 15.36.27 REC.png is to be kept, then surely Last night in Sweden.jpg must be kept too, and the policy must be clarified. Brianjd (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of DRs are copyright-related, so it is not a useful category (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Copyright deletion requests). I don't see how it is a contradiction for me to have closed this DR as kept, when simply nobody has gotten around to closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last night in Sweden.jpg (which will almost certainly be closed as kept as well). Maybe you can start a thread on Commons talk:Project scope to clarify whether personal images are required to actually be used. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Commons talk:Project scope#Are unused personal images by substantial contributors allowed?. Brianjd (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Building categories going haywire?

Hello! Could you please take a peek here? If I am wrong I need to know it asap. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

+

Hello, in Turkish Wikipedia some university students creating articles and uploading images for their assignments. Most of the articles deleted in trwiki because they violated copyrights. This image uploaded by one of the students, it may be copyrighted, since we do not have a chance to investigate more, we need to wait for VRT process. Best, Kadı Message 07:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This user has not uploaded any images which have been proven to be copyvios or which seem highly unlikely to be own work, and there is no obvious reason why these photos cannot all be photographed by the same person. Therefore, in the absence of evidence we should assume good faith. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Every student create different accounts, that's why I added VRT tag, but if you do not agree with me, that's okay. Best, Kadı Message 05:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Translation notification: Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023

Hello King of Hearts,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish and Chinese on Wikimedia Commons. The page Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023 is available for translation. You can translate it here:

• translate to Spanish
• translate to Chinese

Wiki Loves Folklore starts on 1st of February and we need your help in translation of the main page in your local language.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Wikimedia Commons to function as a truly multilingual community.

You can change your notification preferences.

Thank you!

Wikimedia Commons translation coordinators‎, 05:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fakkek21

Hello. It appears you restored these files without removing the DR from the file pages or adding anything to the DR. Was that any mistake? --Krd 07:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I restored them per request by Ganímedes at COM:UNDEL regarding permissions received at Ticket:2021111110000025. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is required in such cases to remove the DR and put some {{subst:OR}} into the file pages, to trigger deletion if permission will not be achieved. --Krd 10:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Permission

Sure, we don't need to go the speedy delete way if you prefer, but just curious: Where do you see a "plausible existence of permission" in the user name? That is a publishing house that hired an independent photographer to do their photos. I am sure they bought the usage rights, but they can't buy the copyright. --87.150.10.172 00:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course they can. Whether they did or not is another question, which we give them a grace period of 7 days to resolve. Also, this question is unimportant for speedy deletion, which should only be used for images clearly lifted from the Internet or somewhere. {{No permission since}} should be used for all other cases where we have reason to suspect the uploader is not the copyright holder; the photographer might be preparing a VRT ticket as we speak, so we need to give them this courtesy before deleting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait for 7 days if you wish, doesn't make any difference to me.

However, in reply to "Of course they can": No they can't. The copyright is not for sale. This is a Germany-based photographer and a Germany-based company. No transfer of copyright in Germany. Ever. --87.150.4.88 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

These are legal intricacies which are not suitable for speedy deletion; you can make the case for that interpretation in a COM:DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

POTD Notification

⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐ The file File:Stanford Memorial Church October 2019 HDR.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sona Patel Image.jpg

concealed in this was a further file. Please see its file history, which may or may not be valid to delete under the same DR 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

OTRS

I tried to link OTRS to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRS?wprov=sfla1 but it gets caught in the abuse filter because I guess I'm not supposed to edit someone else's page. I'm new to editing. Seems this should be a link, though, since the page is available. I didn't know what OTRS was. Raeraeone (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Query about some photos

Hi King of Hearts. I'm wondering if you could take a look at File:Tshekedi Khama II.jpg, File:Christian de Graaff 3.jpg and File:"Gaolese Kent Koma, New Mexico, 1974".jpg. Each photo is lacking any real EXIF data, but the third photo actually looks like a cut-out image copied and pasted onto a bluish-white background.

The first two photos were uploaded by Mompati Dikunwane, who has uploaded lots of similar photos to Commons. Many of Mompati Dikunwane's other uploads do have more detailed EXIF data so may be it would be OK to AGF in for these two photos. The first file can be seen online here but that's an article from January 2021 so the Commons upload came first. However, I am concerned about this August 2018 use of a similar file which pre-dates Commons. It seems clear that both photos of Khama were taken at the same event, but the 2018 date could be wrong or the photo could've been added at a later time. I can find the Graaf photo being used anywhere else online, but it looks like a profile photo that might have been taken for some kind of official purpose. FWIW, the uploader of both files hasn't edited on any WMF project since September 2022; so, I'm not sure asking them for clarification will help sort things out.

I'm not sure about the second photo. The uploader is different and it really looks like a copy-paste job. It the only file uploaded by this user and their user talk page is not filled up with notifications. I can't find it used anywhere online, but the subject of the photo en:Gaolese Kent Koma died in 2006 well before the uploader is claiming to have created the photo. Given that Koma 88 years old when he died, this photo probably was taken well before then. This would seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion, but not 100% sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

For the first and second, the large number of deletion notifications on their talk page increases the level of suspicion, but I do see that they have a DSLR (File:Dihosana dance troupe 1.jpg) so it's not impossible for them to have taken the photo (note: File:Tshekedi Khama II (1).jpg has similar EXIF and resolution). For the last one, the fact that it's from 1974 makes own work less likely, though we do tend to AGF a bit more often for images that are 10 years old. You could also just send them to DR and see what other people think. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these. I started a separate DR for the third photo, and did a multiple DR for the first, second and photo you found. However, the formatting of the multiple DR seems to have screwed up Commons:Deletion requests/2023/01/31 because the previous three DR with the same name are also being listed on that page.If you can tell where I mucked things up, I can try and fix them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Srd 3.5 document I uploaded is to prove a point

That the ogl is irrevocable and wizards can't deauthorize the 3.5e srd 2603:7080:B40:A5C3:5402:647E:F753:D007 03:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert deletions

Several files of mine were nominated for deletion, many of them erroneously. I removed the deletion tags and to others I added licenses. Now still some were deleted. I am rather sure I added a license to some of them, but now not even the diffs of the original upload appear, much less if I added a license or not. Only the notification of the nomination tag appears. To all either a FOP or an expired license can be added if they do not already have one. Could you please revert the deletions? Its all the ones who are marked red in the link. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You probably won't believe how relieved I was and am that as far as I double checked only to one you had to add a license. Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your services to Wikipedia in general and me in specific. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Battery Park City New York January 2018 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Battery Park City New York January 2018 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pier 25 New York January 2018 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pier 25 New York January 2018 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pier 25 New York January 2018 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pier 25 New York January 2018 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brooklyn from Staten Island Ferry February 2015.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry February 2015 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. (Excellent view) --Terragio67 11:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry February 2015 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. (and FP IMO) --Terragio67 11:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry February 2015 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

File:1969 - Lafyette Electronics - Allentown PA.jpg

Hi King of Hearts. What do you think about the licensing of File:1969 - Lafyette Electronics - Allentown PA.jpg? I asked the uploader about it on their user talk page, and they stated the photo was one of several that they purchased at a flea market. They've got no idea about the provenance of the photo or even whether it was ever published prior to being uploaded to Commons. They bought it, scanned it, did some minor tweaking to it with some software and then uploaded it to Commons under a "PD-US-no notice" license because there's no visible copyright notice on the photo. Were copyright notices also required back then for photos intended for personal use only? Should this be treated as unpublished with an anonymous author? Should it be treated as published after 2003 (since the first publication was uploading it to Commons) with an anonymous author? In either of the last two cases, it would seem that this photo is not old enough to be PD under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it counts: "publication occurred when … the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. Would that be the date the photo was bought at the flea market if that's the only date that can be reasonably verified by the uploader? Would "PD-US-notice" only be valid if the photo was purchased prior to 1978? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If this sale took place after 1989, then there would be insufficient evidence as of yet to conclude that the photo is PD-US-no notice. We would need to find evidence that the copies of the photo were first sold or distributed to the public prior to 1989, or that the photo was posted in a public place (including a private store that the public could enter, as long as the store did not prohibit photography) prior to 1978. (The reason for the different dates is that public installation no longer counts as publication after 1978.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional clarification. I have asked the uploader if they remember when they purchased the photos. Maybe they will respond. The same uploader also uploaded File:1969 - Lafyette Electronics - 10 Aug MC - Allentown PA.jpg and File:1969 - Leon Furniture Fire - 9 Feb MC 3 - Allentown PA.jpg under the same "PD-US-no notice" license, but those are described as being scanned images from old copies of en:The Morning Call newspaper. It would seem that these two photos are different from the flea market one in that there would clearly be a date of publication and a known copyright holder (either the person who took the photo or the paper), right? My understanding was that only print advertisements in newspapers were required to have separate visible valid copyright notices, but newspaper articles and the photos contained therein weren't. Can it just be assumed that these crops from the paper are "PD-US-no notice" because there's no visible notice in the file's that were uploaded?

Finally, the same uploader also took some photos of photos of former mayors of Allentown that were hanging on some wall of the Allentown City Hall and uploaded them as File:2022 - Roy C. Afflerbach - Allentown PA.jpg and File:2022 - William L. Heydt .- Allentown PA.jpg. I don't think the photos taken by the uploader would be considered COM:DW and, therefore, no new copyright was created by the uploader per COM:2D copying; so, I'm not sure about the CC licenses the files are uploaded under. Would that be a fair assessment to make? The provenance of the original photos, however, is unclear. Pennsylvania doesn't seem to be one of the US state which releases official works created by state, country, city and municipal government employees as part of their official duties into the public domain. These might have been works-for-hire taken when the men assumed office or taken at some official city function. The uploader stated that they asked for permission to take the photos and the mayor (en:Matthew Tuerk) said it was OK. I'm not sure that kind of verbal permission meant COM:CONSENT or just OK to take the photos. Even if it meant CONSENT, I'm not sure the mayor could give it and that such consent given verbally would be OK for Commons purposes even if they did. Anyway, the last response the uploader made regarding this was "Whatever babe". FWIW, I came across these two mayor photos why looking at some other stuff on English Wikipedia, and clicked on them to see how they were licensed. The licensing seemed a bit iffy so I checked the uploader's user talk page and contributions and found the flea market photo. There are quite a lot of licensing related notifications on their user talk page and even a {{End of copyvios}} notice, which could mean that just maybe the uploader isn't being sufficiently careful when it comes to image copyright. At the same time, I could also mean I'm being a little too "paranoid" when it comes to the images. My only motivation is to try and get the licensing as right as possible; so, if these three files are OK as licensed, then that's good enough for me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since they are not advertisements, a copyright notice anywhere on the newspaper is sufficient. If we can find a full version of these exact issues, great; otherwise, we could try to find other issues from around the same time, since usually a newspaper's practices regarding copyright notices will not change all the time. The best way to license self-photographed versions of 2D PD works is {{Licensed-PD-Art}} + the correct license for the original work; this explicit release ensures that reusers in certain countries (e.g. the UK) do not have to worry about any new copyright on the photography. For the Afflerbach photo for DR, I don't see a reason why it is PD, nor is there an adequate explanation of why the mayor is authorized to release this image under a free license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The photos taken of the two mayors probably, as you state, should be further discussed as a DR. I'm wondering, though, if you'd mind taking another look at File:2022 - William L. Heydt .- Allentown PA.jpg. The tie, in particular, looks a bit odd. It could just be an old looking tie, but to me it looks like it was some altered in some way, perhaps using some type of software. Not sure if that would be related to the original photo's copyright, but it just seems odd. As for the photos and clipping from the newspaper, similar photos came up as part of a discussion at COM:VP#Category pages that look like quasi-Wikipedia articles. Someone mentioned in that discussion that it doesn't appear the that same newspaper renewed the copyright on any of its back issues; so, maybe those are OK but as {{PD-US-not renewed}} instead and the licensing needs to be tweaked as you suggest above with {{Licensed-PD-Art}} or {{PD-scan}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point: usually no notice is the easiest to verify, but for periodicals it is often worth the effort to check the renewal records to find out which timespans are OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It turns out that there were quite a number other photos of Allentown mayors like the two mentioned above. Some of them might be OK since they've already lapsed into the public domain, but I started Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atwngirl so that they could be discussed as a group. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tribeca New York January 2018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 11:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Deletion or undeletion of Dave Silverman?

Hi. Dave Silverman.png has a VRTS ticket, but Dave Silverman.svg was deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dave Silverman.svg). I'm not sure whether the PNG needs to be deleted or the SVG undeleted, but I assume that one of these two actions needs to be taken. Would you mind having a look at this? TilmannR (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the SVG for now and nominated them both for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dave Silverman.png. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert Deletion

Hello King of Hearts

I saw that the picture Perrin-IBPC.jpg has been removed, on January 31, from Commons, under your authority, as well as the links to display it on the article 'Lydia Luzanowsky' in the french wikipedia. I checked on the site of the 'Institut Henri Poincaré' from which the photo has been downloaded https://patrimoine.ihp.fr/item/340 and noticed on a related page https://patrimoine.ihp.fr/page/apropos that all the photos of this web site are covered by Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA, as long as a exact credit is given. That was precisely the case as you can check on the article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Luzanowsky  : Buste de Jean Perrin / Physicien français / Président de l'Académie des Sciences 1870-1942 (Plâtre 1930, Collections de L'Institut Henri Poincaré) As a matter of fact, I cannot check if I set the correct licence while loading the image on Commons.

Can you please restore the photo ?

I think I am able to set the correct licence and complete the credit in commons if needed, then restore the display of this image in the article galery by myself. Best Regards from France.

Moinolitto (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

NC licenses are not permitted on Commons. Check out commons:Licensing/Justifications to see why. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi King of Hearts

I thank you for your clear and fast answer. I am going to try to discuss the point with the people of 'Institut Henri Poincaré' and try to have at least one photo of this sculpture with a CC Licence. I suppose CC BY-SA 4.0 is OK ?

Best regards

Moinolitto (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Note that both the copyright holder of the photo as well as the sculpture must agree to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license (unless the sculptor died more than 70 years ago). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip Awad och Marina Norström gifter sig på en strand- 2014-07-08 19-55.jpg

Could i please get your input on this courtesy deletion request? No admin have responded to the request so far Trade (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Possibility of copyrights infringement

Hello King of Hearts, I would like to ask you whether there's any copyrights tag/template regarding a copyrights statement which is wrong. As an example, I've seen today quite a few cases where coats of arms of italian comunes, despite being, obviously, under the copyrights of their own comune, are tagged with the default copyrights tag that appears on Commons when uploading a file of your own. How could I properly tag them for their lack of proper copyrights statement? 😕 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 12:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Εὐθυμένης: I am not the most familiar with Italian copyright law, so you can ask on COM:VPC for another opinion. The general rule for Italy is that old works where the author died more than 70 years ago are public domain. Also, if it's an SVG created by the uploader, I would keep the CC license since it conveys useful information. While a vectorization is probably not copyrightable in the United States if it's intended to reproduce an existing work as closely as possible, other countries' laws may differ, so the CC license ensures that the SVG can be freely used worldwide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

20th C Fox logos - false claims of "own work"

Hi. Re [1] and similar - I wasn't aware of the precident for these so I'm not going to argue, but how would you suggest I deal with the obviously false claim of "own work" as the source? Voice of Clam 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: Incorrect copyright, authorship, or source information is not in and of itself a reason to nominate for deletion; it is only a reason if the problem cannot be easily fixed by editing the file description page (i.e. the information necessary to verify that the image is public domain or freely licensed is lacking). You can probably just change the source to "20th Century Fox".

For logos which are inherently simple, use {{PD-textlogo}}. For logos which may exceed TOO but are a simple stylization of an image whose copyright has expired due to no notice, use {{Copyright information|design={{PD-US-no notice}}|item1=Stylization|item1-license={{PD-textlogo}}}}. If the logo exceeds TOO in your opinion with no mitigating factors, you can nominate it for deletion. Only use {{Logo}} if it is so obviously above TOO that no reasonable person could disagree (review COM:TOO US for some surprisingly complex logos which ended up being rejected for copyright registration). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 10:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lincoln Park Jersey City September 2021 018.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Ronald Leoardo

Hi, sorry, I don't think this is the right medium, but can you or someone else review all the files uploaded by Ronald Leoardo, he was banned for being Himmer Ariel's puppet account on Spanish Wikipedia and he's uploading a lot of song audios copyrighted. ItsMario97 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What? They are not copyrighted, the audio files are in OGG format and are published under a free license. 190.150.105.133 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Should this deletion request category be changed from "kept" to "deleted?"

See your close here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Goddess of Democracy (San Francisco)? I mentioned this DR on which I had commented here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Black History Month DR's Ooligan (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Superonecool and User:Katia Alejandra

Hello, again (sorry if I bother you), another user named Superonecool (possible Ronald Leoardo puppet account) is uploading audios of copyrighted songs on Wikimedia Commons and user Katia Alejandra (possible Ronald Leoardo puppet account) is adding them to English Wikipedia articles. ItsMario97 (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless admin work. It is valuable and appreciated. User1042 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

DR comment and file question

Hi King of Hearts.

First, no worries about that DR. I understand why it was started. I just wanted others to know why I tagged the file for speedy deletion. I was actually going to ask about that user an COM:AN/U because the seem to be either not understanding COM:L or just not caring about it. I think they might be somehow connected to en:New Right (Denmark) since every photo they upload seems to be added to that article (at least on English Wikipedia). Moreover, whenever a file ends up deleted or tagged for review, they simply upload another one. They might actually be affiliated with the party which means all they need to do is have someone at the party email VRT or make the photos available online under an acceptable free license. Unfortunately, they never seem to respond to anything posted on their user talk page; so, it's hard to figure out what their status might be.

Next, I'm wondering what you think about File:Al McCoy Shirts at Phoenix Suns team shop.jpg. It seems like a derivative work to me since the point of the photo is the T-shirt. I don't think it would be considered PD. Is there enough of an angle and enough clutter in the background for this logo to be considered de minimis or incidental? I'm not sure there's a strong argument that can be made for that, but would like some other input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Clothing is a tricky subject; see COM:CLOTHING for more guidance. You can ask COM:VPC for their opinions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"No permission since" reverted without any explanation

Sir! I added Template:No permission since to some of the highly suspected files (according to what you told me last time in my talk page), and all those edits were reverted by that uploading editor, without any explanation. He's already remarked for uploading files without permission, whose notifications are piled up at his talk page. Additionally, thought not significantly, he removed those nomination/notification about those files from his user talk page. I don't want to engage in edit conflicts with anyone. Please check through the edit history of me as well as his. Thanks! Haoreima (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I sent them to DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I didn't see all his uploads properly. There were around 20 uploaded files. And after my edits getting reverted, I feel reluctant to add anymore suspected files for the "permission missing since". When you have free time, please do make sure to check the rest. By saying so, I am not against or in support of any person (the bad remark which I really don't want to be associated with me). You are welcome to check even my uploaded files list too. Thank you, sir. --Haoreima (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The new flag of Saudi Arabia as per saudiflag.sa website

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the Saudi Flag (type 1) to the old version despite the sources I posted. The saudiflag.sa website was published in celebration of its first flag day, and it contained a few edits to the flag like darkening the color green, tilting the sword guard and adding more diacritics to the Shahada. The old version (Type 1) image is used in a locked Arabic article about the Saudi flag. Please change it to the current version. You can use Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg

Regards, Cergun62 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cergun62: The purpose of the "type 1" and "type 2" flags is not to be used or to be "correct" in any way. Their sole purpose is to facilitate discussion, so that people can unambiguously refer to the different variants without having their words become outdated because someone else modified the image behind "type 1" or "type 2". Arguments over which flag to use in a Wikipedia article should be resolved on that Wikipedia, not by revert warring on Commons. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still used in the locked Arabic artice of the Saudi Flag, that’s why I’m trying to change it. Cergun62 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a problem with Arabic Wikipedia then. You have to convince the admins there to allow changing the flag. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Poul Andersen mf 2010.jpg

Hi King of Hearts. What do you think about the licensing of File:Poul Andersen mf 2010.jpg? I came indirectly came upon it since I had User talk:Hjart on watchlist for a different file. The licensing and permission claim seemed a bit odd to me, and the source url is dead; so, I tried to find an archived version of it. There's no archived version for the sourced url, but I was able to find an some archived versions of the primary website. I couldn't fine the image on any of them, but the website does have a general copyright notice at the bottom of its homepage on all the archived versions I checked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged as "no permission". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please revert

Sir! A user भोजपुरी (4-5 days old account, blocked in English wikipedia for similar vandalism activities) is re-uploading new versions of images in many files, without any discussion or explanations or consensus. Please revert all those edits. His username "भोजपुरी" is transliterated as "Bhojpuri" in Devanagari script (Hindi script). This user is frequently replacing the Hindi/Devanagari script by Bhojpuri script/Kaithi script. Haoreima (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Another user लोहरान is doing the same type of edit both at Commons and English wikipedia. He's also blocked in English wikipedia. Haoreima (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Aiysha Hart.jpg

Hi King of Hearts. What do you think about File:Aiysha Hart.jpg? There's no EXIF data and it's the only file uploaded by this particular account. The same image is used on Hart's IMDb page, but that could've come from Commons based on this and this. There do seem to be a number of other photos from the same event being claimed by Alamy like these, but none of them are this exact photo. Do you think this is OK as is or should it be VRT verified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a tough one:

1. The image shows up on IMDB (-) but is lower-res than our version (+) and does not appear to predate our version (+).
2. The account has no history (=), positive or negative.
3. The file is high-resolution (+) but lacks EXIF (-).
4. The file was uploaded 2 days after the event (+), five years ago (+).
5. This type of photograph is neither especially likely to be self-photographed like a landscape nor especially unlikely to be self-photographed like a studio portrait (=).
6. There are similar photos on Alamy (-), but they are all by different photographers suggesting that the event was reasonably accessible to a wide audience (+).

Overall, I'd lean towards COM:AGF if we cannot find proof of a version of this image that could not have been derived by Commons or with explicit attribution to a different photographer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look a this. It does seem reasonable to AGF absent "proof" clearly establishing at least the significant doubt required by COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Edyta_G%C3%B3rniak_1991.jpg Matlin (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This image was not tagged as {{PD-Poland}} at the time of the previous DR. If you wish to dispute the validity of this tag, you may file a new DR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)