@Quick1984: Indeed the licenses are bad, but I think most can be allowed under other licenses.
The first 9 are poor quality reproductions, the originals look different. I will correct them as soon as I get an answer.
Keep The 1 is allowed because the author has been dead since 1936.
Keep The 4 is an anonymous work and old enough for PD-Russia
Keep The 5 is allowed because the author has been dead since 1943.
Keep The 6 and 7 is allowed because the author has been dead since 1929.
Keep Image 10 is quite simple, TOO in Finland is admittedly quite low, but the most complex element is called the Poets' Hands, an old symbol. I am not sure if I can call it folk, but it was already widespread in the 1920s. What's more, the artist who created this particular logo died in 1931.
Keep Image 11, I don't know what country this comes from, but it's a simplified drawing that loses detail [1] and in this case the license may be real. The only problematic element is the handshake, which is probably the author's original interpretation, definitely lower than TOO in the States.
Delete Image 12 This cannot be defended, it should be deleted.
Keep Image The symbol 13 comes from the USA and existed in 1919, so the copyright has expired.
Keep File 14, I'm not really sure, but its elements are already available in allowed files: The problem may be the cartographic grid, but it is geometric and probably not enough to be removed.
Keep Files 15-25 are government files, specifically military files from Finland, such things are subject to PD-FinlandGov
И как же я могу доказать что Flag of the Russian Communist Bolshevik Party (2018).png именно мой проект? Еще тот герб который удалили? Если я тупо их сделал в pain.net и сразу же запихнул на вики? Еще смешнее мною сделанные фотографии из Музея Ленина, я чё должен снимать видео самого себя как я их фотографирую в качестве доказательства? Trotskists (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheodorHoidekr is associated with the director of the theater who in 2018 tried to promote, but was blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia, now he has returned to upload more images and insist on the promotion with a second account Hoidekr Prague and is carrying out crosswiki spam. He has been massively uploading images and videos for promotional purposes only. --Taichi (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taichi @Ruy It is the same person - me! On English Wikipedia my username has been blocked, because it was misunderstanding - I had the nickname same a the theatre genre name is - Black light theatre. I was asked to change my name and I changed it - and after waiting declined and changed again. I do not understand why or which account my computer log me in, I am still online not logged out.
Anyway why you want to delete the materials? Those are pictures and videos from black light theatre - tatro negro - the genre. The same as any person or building can be on Wikipedia, why not black light theatre pictures and videos?
It seems Wikipedia wants (its editors) that the world will not have the informations about tradition of black light theatre that is mostly based in Prague, Czech republic - as the heart of the black light theatre genre. But here is no discussion - Prague IS the heart of this theatre genre and there are only few other theatres in the world trying to do the same work. We - black light theatres from Prague are the artists who are living for this theatre genre. And we deserve all to be listed on WIkipedia in any languages with our groups history.
So I kindly ask you to help us and not to delete us just like a trash on the floor.
Your Theodor Hoidekr, director of HILT, actually leading own theatre group and acting in the theatre genre from 2006 (the black light theatre tradition in Prague started in 1960´s with the first group of Jiri Srnec, later there were 9 groups of black light theatre here in Prague (after covid times we are only 4).
Keep While these appear to be uploaded (partially) for promotional reasons, I see that they have artistic value. Theater performances are copyright protected, so we should keep stuff that is uploaded with a proper license. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's from Globo, as in this 1996 TV report for Fantástico they show archive images apparently taken in the same day that photo was taken with Pedrinho walking in the prison courtyard in a date previous to 1996. The original source is gone, but the photo appears in the blog of historian Joel Paviotti and in Globo itself. As it is a documental photograph produced in Brazil before 1998, it's in the Public Domain in Brazil, in the terms of {{PD-Brazil-URAA}}, therefore Keep.--DarwinAhoy!16:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spielvogel: Who is the illustrator? I see the initials CH, but if possible artists should be named in the description. And also, when was this cover drawing published first? In 1952 or earlier? Thanks. --Rosenzweigτ07:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo was undeleted in 2020. This artwork is not PD in US because of URAA copyright restoration, so I nominated this photo for deletion again. -- Htm (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright defends the right of publishers, freedom of speach is the freedom to express your views. Later is more important. Keep. If it not possible to keep, you can delete it. Elekes Andor (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mi köze van ennek a szólásszabadsághoz és a véleménynyilvánításhoz? Mindenbe bele kell keverned valami hülyeséget? A portréfotó szerzői joga vagy a fotósé (azé, aki a portrét készítette, és nem a tiéd), vagy a kiadóé. Így is, úgyis engedélyköteles, mivel jogvédett fotó. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A szerzői jog nem a szerzők, hanem a kiadók és mások érdekeit szolgálják. A szerzőknek nem érdeke az, hogy a művükkel kapcsolatosan idegenek döntsék el a hozzáférés jogát. nem fűződik érdekük ahhoz, hogy az alkotásaikhoz történő hozzáférést hosszú időre akadályozzák. Ezen a fényképen nincs semmiféle portré, ez egy kirakat. Indokolatlan a betiltása mondvacsinált okokkal. Elekes Andor (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Te egyedül találsz ki ennyi hülyeséget, vagy valaki segít neked? 1. A szerzői jog elsősorban a szerzők érdekeit védi. Abban igazad van, hogy a szerzőknek nem érdekük, hogy művükkel kapcsolatosan idegenek döntsék el a hozzáférés jogát. Ezzel szemben te pont ezt csinálod, mert eldöntöd a szerző helyett, hogy a portréfotóját te szabad licenc alá helyezed, azaz olyan jog helyzetbe, hogy azt bárki, akár ellenszolgáltatás nélkül újra felhasználhatja. Anélkül döntve helyette, hogy erről egyáltalán megkérdeznéd, tehát kizárva őt a döntési jogából. 2. Az a legnagyobb hülyeség, hogy a képen nincs semmiféle portré. Ott van Komoróczy Géza arcképe (arckép=portré), ami le lett vágva. Ott van a kirakat mögött, amit lefényképeztél. Azért nem semmi, hogy eljutottál oda, hogy nyilvánvalóan látható dolgokat is megpróbálod letagadni. 3. Nincs itt semmilyen mondvacsinált ok, az okot szerzői jognak hívják. Meg kéne ismerkedned a jogokkal. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree. They appear to be different prints from the same negative or different scans of the same print. Neither is obviously superior, and they should be linked with {{Other version}}. - Jmabel ! talk21:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source to both files link to the same Flickr page, so they definitely are the same image. The one that isn't nominated was slightly retouched, but has the original file (the image nominated for deletion) in its file history. NutshinouTalk!21:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of an elaborate hoax, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123/Archive and fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/11 juin 2024#Edwin Symonowicz - canular ? 🐢 Monsieur Tortue (💬) 13:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-PRC-exempt}} only applies to texts, not other media types such as images, photos or sound recordings. This is backed by an abundance of clear, well-established consensus here on Commons, for example:
Je collabore régulièrement avec cette contributrice et je peux attester que cette photo est réellement issue de son propre travail. Erbvdat (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a CSPAN broadcast. Have you any examples of a time when CSPAN asserted copyright claims on one of their debate broadcasts? PopePompus (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exhibition is permanent, but the poster is only temporary. I doubt that there is still a poster with opening times from 2007 hanging there today. Therefore, the freedom of panorama unfortunately does not apply here. I also see the height of creation as having been reached here, as the compilation of the images is a creative work. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of scope: videos with no clear educational use.
File:Road 2.webm - low frame rate video of a road with heavy fog. No sound.
File:Puppet.webm - bizarre manipulated video of a person saying a few words with a silly expression, "chopped and screwed" into nearly two minutes of nonsense
These are experimental videos created by myself, illustrating the extent to which simple phone footage can be transformed into near abstraction. They have been used in a number of art installations successfully. You may find them “silly” and “nonsense” but others have felt differently! Ctfac (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I am glad that the commentator has taken the time to view the videos, and the comments are technically accurate apart from the value judgements. Are these negative subjective opinions relevant? I am happy to add additional context to clarify the thinking and intentions behind these… Ctfac (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrations and examples are an essential feature of education. These illustrate the transformation of mundane phone video into near abstraction using basic tools like iMovie. These have been used in art projects, most recently Whiteknights Studio Trail this last weekend [3]http://www.studiotrail.co.uk/ I will be adding a discussion page, but I can't do that if the videos aren't there! How do you know in advance to what educational purpose - within the broad scope of Commons - such media might be put? You don't, so you are simply trying to give the force of authority to your personal prejudices and opinions with uncalled-for abuse: "bizarre", "silly", "nonsense". Ctfac (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just abuse! If this and the other commentator are typical, there is no safe space here for educational materials which do not conform to the lowest common denominator of plodding explanation. The obvious workflow for someone creating educational materials around media such as these is to upload them first, then to link to them from the text. But this is not possible if they have been deleted as a result of some random individual regarding them, without the context to be added later, as "useless". It is not merely abusive, but factually incorrect to call these useless if they do in fact have a use, and our entry under CTFAC here [4]http://www.studiotrail.co.uk/ establishes this as a proven fact. I therefore require you to withdraw your comment, which does in fact conform to the definition of "useless". Ctfac (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are serious, it certainly didn't seem like it. The usefulness of the videos which show barely anything is unclear. The videos don't have proper titles and descriptions and just show an airplane from afar or a few seconds of rain dropping on the ground. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that the image in question applies to such delicate and dangerous content (crime in Brazil). I don't want to be involved in this in any way, even with the anonymity of Wikimedia Commons.(I actually wanted to delete the photo the same week I uploaded the file, years ago... But that's when I discovered it wasn't possible). It's possible to apply a Courtesy deletion? Otatá (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The year this photo was first published, or if it was previously unpublished is unknown, because this website took this photo from another unknown source. See removed watermark on the original upload. A caption under this photo making a claim of a date- does not support a Public Domain license.
The source link needs to be to a webpage, publication, etc., where this photo was actually first "published." This website's contents are copyright. Ooligan (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original image was published in 2008 here with credit "Zdroj (=source): Petr Krajíček". The uploader is unlikely the original author and copyright holder of the photo from 1978, or he can confirm it via VTRS. Gumruch (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "My News24" youtube channel, which published the video this screen is from with "CC" license, is obviously not the copyright holder for the video. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license."
The video in question retains the CC licensing as of 17 June 2024. Deletion request is therefore inappropriate and not factually based. 99.42.144.21818:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bookshelves and other mundane interior elements. These may be inside of a protected architectural work, but they are de minimis portions of the larger work and below the threshold of originality individually. I'm particularly baffled by the inclusion of the stool at File:Hocker im Kulturhaus WOB.jpg. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 1 is allowed because the author has been dead since 1936.
Delete Image 12 This cannot be defended, it should be deleted.
The problem may be the cartographic grid, but it is geometric and probably not enough to be removed.
_-_disputed.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
%E7%AC%AC347%E5%8F%B7.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
