Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Lack of EXIF as a deletion reason

See also: Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 6#How you can make reviewing easier.

Relatively small images with no EXIF or an EXIF which is not held to provide evidence that the uploader took the photo are routinely deleted as presumed copyright violation. However, we've been having a discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Do we (should we) require EXIF data? about how EXIF is not and should not be required on Commons, does not prove authorship, is easily faked, and that the 2021 Picture of the Year has what would likely be considered an insufficient EXIF in a DR thread. So what should our policy be on EXIF? Should we give up drawing any conclusions about copyright based on the lack of an EXIF or its failure to seem to demonstrate authorship by the uploader, keeping only conclusions drawn based on the mention in metadata of specific authors or copyrights different from those of the uploader or at variance with usable licenses, plus FB codes and the like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I will respect any consensus, but I think it's important for us to have consistent policies on how we treat metadata. If the PotY can have "insufficient" metadata, how can we use that same criterion to support deletion of other photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of EXIF is not a reason to delete per se. Lack of EXIF and small size are just reasons to suspect a copyvio, because files copied from the Internet are usually small and usually lack EXIF. If it's reasonable to assume that a image is not copyvio, it can be PotY or featured even it doesn't have EXIX metadata.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

EXIF data are one of several factors to be considered in the aggerate. A single "red flag" (lacking EXIF, low resolution, uploader copyvio history, intimate vantage of a notable person, professional quality/pose, etc.) may be meaningless alone, but meaningful in aggerate. There is no one-size-fits-all and the specific facts and circumstances of a given image need to be considered. To believe "it's important for us to have consistent policies on how we treat metadata" is almost not to understand the issue; for example, the presence of EXIF indicating a very expensive professional camera can be as telling, if not more so, as a lack of EXIF. Эlcobbola _talk 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Эlcobbola. But some DR's only cast vague suspicion by saying "small size, no EXIF data". That should be avoided. In fact the project page says, "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself. It often is however supporting evidence for copyvio, in particular when looking at a series of uploads by a user. As experienced admins can tell you, it is very unlikely that reliable users upload all their own images in low-res web-sized formats (especially newer images - 1st generation digital cameras were pretty crummy). So, admins may close such DR's as delete if no one disputes it and per COM:PRP. But that doesn't mean that EXIF data should be mandatory. In fact, I deliberately remove the EXIF data from my own uploads (IMO this can actually be helpful in copyright claims in the future since I am the only one can then provide the image with full data). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Small resolution and lack of EXIF are just two of many factors which contribute to the likelihood that an image is not own work as claimed. For me:

• Definition: A copy of an image A (whether on Wikimedia Commons or an external website) is said to dominate another copy of the image B if A is of at least the same resolution as B, has at least as much EXIF metadata as B, and was published earlier than B. If A dominates B, then it is possible that B was copied from A (i.e. someone downloaded A and uploaded it as B), but not the reverse. Note that it is possible to have two copies of an image, neither of which dominates the other, e.g. an image which shows up on a news site in 2021 in low resolution without EXIF and is subsequently uploaded to Commons in 2022 at high resolution with EXIF. If an external version dominates the Commons version, then that is valid grounds for speedy deletion if there is no evidence that the external version is freely licensed or was submitted by the same person as the Commons uploader. If the Commons version dominates all external versions, then that is a pretty good defense against deletion. Everything else must be handled case by case.
• Small resolution and/or lack of EXIF are never valid reasons for speedy deletion if there is no additional evidence of copyvio. Generally for me, a Commons image which is not dominated (as defined above) is ineligible for speedy deletion, barring very obvious signs present in the image itself, e.g. Google Earth watermark, Getty Images in the EXIF, etc. (in particular, having a name of a random person in the EXIF which does not appear to match the username does not qualify; that is grounds for "no permission").
• Small resolution and/or lack of EXIF can be valid reasons for regular deletion or "no permission" tagging, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors which make the image less likely to be own work include: uploader having a history of copyvios, professional-looking portrait, author in EXIF or watermark which does not match username or other uploads, camera in EXIF which does not match any of their other uploads. Mitigating factors which make the image more likely to be own work include: uploader having a history of good contributions, image uploaded more than 5 years ago, author in EXIF or watermark which matches username or other uploads, camera in EXIF which matches other uploads. When in doubt, I tend to assume that a photo of nature/travel/architecture is own work per COM:AGF.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is a regular deletion reason (usually from a handful of hardcore deletionists of whom I have negligible faith in their judgement) and there is no good justification for it. Also there is often some Exif, just not very detailed, and they will still claim that as a justification. Sure, there are problem images that do have no Exif. But this is never of itself sufficient reason to delete. There are far too many legitimate editing processes by which this information may be lost or simplified. We also have a vast number of images here were there just isn't any Exif. Bulk film libraries for one, where scanned metadata is usually negligible. Are we to delete everything on that basis? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• I sounds like we are all in agreement that this is not a sufficient criteria and explicitly so at Commons:Deletion requests: '"small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio).'. It sounds like if this habit has crept in by some people here, it should be challenged and stomped out. -- Colin (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will start challenging it and see how the closing admin decides. I have seen countless deletion requests of "Small image without (useful) metadata" result in deletions as presumed copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I note King of Hearts' mention of COM:AGF. I much more commonly see what I read as presumptions of bad faith, or at least mendacity, by users claiming to have uploaded their own work when it is subjected to a deletion request and there is no ("useful") EXIF on the page, and the precautionary principle often seems to me to amount to considering the uploaders of challenged images guilty unless proven innocent, in non-obvious cases. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here is a typical example of a deletion request specifically citing the lack of camera details as suspect as a rule. That's a wording User:Timtrent has used probably hundreds of times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also, should I withdraw my own nominations with this argument, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:HonorableSaahJoseph2021.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Фото Даяна 1.jpg? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: File:HonorableSaahJoseph2021.jpg clearly has aggravating factors (as King of Hearts called it): glare and a bar across the bottom that seems to indicate photo of existing photo or screenshot - so, don't withdraw but elaborate on the reasons. As for File:Фото Даяна 1.jpg, I would say it is out of scope. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  File:HonorableSaahJoseph2021.jpg is a derivative of this image (direct), flipped horizontally with stock image champagne bottles photoshopped on the sides. Эlcobbola _talk 03:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  File:Фото Даяна 1.jpg is here (direct). Эlcobbola _talk 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks to both of you for tracking down the sources! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  A lot of the time it is about weighing probabilities. If I believe that an image has a >90% chance of being free, then I will argue to keep it. If I believe that an image has a <50% chance of being free, then I will argue to delete it. Anything in between, I don't have a strong opinion and probably won't !vote either way. There are two sources of uncertainty about the freedom of an image: factual uncertainty and legal uncertainty. Factual uncertainty is the possibility that the factual claims used to verify the copyright status are false, while legal uncertainty is the possibility that the our interpretation of the law as applied to the factual claims is wrong (i.e. different from how a court or other legal authority would see it). Examples:

  1. File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg has almost zero factual uncertainty: Benh claimed to have photographed it, and because he is a long-term respected user, it is a virtual certainty that the authorship information is as claimed. There is a certain amount of legal uncertainty surrounding the claim that the Louvre Pyramid is COM:DM, but I would say it is small since it seems to be "accessory to the topic depicted" as worded by French courts, so it is OK to keep the image.
  2. File:Best Western logo.svg has almost zero factual uncertainty: it does not rely on any good-faith claims by Commoners, and the only risk would be if File:Best Western logo US Copyright Office decision.pdf turned out to be a forgery. The legal uncertainty is also almost zero, because the U.S. Copyright Office has twice refused to register the logo. For logos without a USCO ruling, we have to make COM:TOO determinations on our own, which will raise the legal uncertainty somewhat. But there is some level of uncertainty that each person is comfortable with, and in aggregate they combine to form a consensus at DR.
  3. File:Tagh1.jpg has a small amount of factual uncertainty: Did Varbab actually take the photo as claimed? Unfortunately, they stopped editing in 2008, and it is unlikely they will return to give an explanation or provide additional evidence. The image shows up a ton on Tineye, but none of the results predate the Commons upload; a few results have higher resolution, but they either go to dead links, are clearly upsampled, or are of a different image entirely; in short, there is no evidence of external circulation of a version that could not have come from Wikipedia. Also, we tend to have a higher tolerance of factual uncertainty for older uploads, since it's not fair to expect people to comply with de facto requirements that were not in place at the time of upload, even in unwritten form. Any legal uncertainty comes from the chance that the depicted relief is somehow copyrighted, which is extremely low since it was carved around the 4th century CE.

  So under these principles, if at COM:DR or Category:Media missing permission (but certainly not at Category:Copyright violations, which would be an insta-challenge from me), I see a 800 x 600 photo uploaded in 2022 with no EXIF, by a user with zero other contributions on any project (which would immediately start tilting the scales towards trustworthy or untrustworthy), with no results on reverse image search, I would probably delete if it's a picture of a celebrity, and keep if it's a picture of a landscape. Certainly a bit arbitrary, but I've found that it approximates the real distribution of outcomes in the few cases where we do eventually find out with reasonable certainty whether the uploader is telling the truth about "own work". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for laying all that out! Side point, but one thing that confuses me is the text-logo policy, because even if a logo is too simple to copyright, it's still trademarked and therefore couldn't be used by a competitor, so why doesn't that violate the requirement that all images hosted on Commons be available for commercial use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  We call that a non-copyright restriction. Our aim has never been to allow only media that can literally be used for any purpose whatsoever: that would disallow US banknotes because you can't print them out and try to spend them, or any photo of a person taken without a model release because you can't use the photo to advertise. So our only requirement is that there be no copyright restrictions on any form of use, while acknowledging that all other laws continue to apply normally. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for explaining that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ikan Kekek Deletion, as far as I am concerned, is a dual key process. My attention is drawn to files because I review enwiki draft articles, and the editors who create drafts are often naive editors who also often upload files naively.

  I follow the files to commons to seek to determine whether they are appropriate. The way an editor has declared files os "own work" often looks very much worthy of investigation, the more so when a file has no exif details.

  Files without camera details are often but not always scraped from some website or other. Those that are obvious copyvios are flagged as such. Others suggest that COM:PCP means we need to look more carefully. The only way to look more carefully that I know is to nominate them for deletion. The nomination then triggers an admin to reach a conclusion, and ought to trigger the uploader to take further action. Obviously I trust the closing admins judgement.

  It is not a matter of AGF for the uploader. My good faith remains intact when they make genuine errors. They are alerted to a need to regularise the licencing via COM:VRT. A good uploader understands this need. One who drives a coach and horses through copyright law seems not to understand. 🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦 08:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I understand your point of view and appreciate your laying it out. I also look forward to seeing how other people who've participated in this thread react to it, because it looks to me like so far, a majority do not believe a lack of camera details is a deletion reason by itself or automatically suspect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Colin That was added after it was mentioned, with no real discussion, at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 6#How you can make reviewing easier. But I think this discussion supersedes that issue. Brianjd (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am just a bit surprised that people are so quick to quote such a thing without checking where it came from. Brianjd (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, are you seriously actually criticising me for quoting official procedure and blaming me for not ensuring it has consensus? Excuse me, but if the official procedure doesn't have consensus or you disagree with it, then open a talk page discussion to change it. That text has been there for a year so you've had plenty time. And it isn't typically easy to check when Commons procedures/policies changed because they are often nested withing templates and translation. It is an absolutely reasonable assumption that procedure policy pages have consensus unless tagged otherwise.

So, let's be clear. That quoted text has consensus from being there for a year. It is now up to you to argue and gain consensus that it isn't a reasonable rule. From the looks of this discussion, you haven't a hope. -- Colin (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Colin I wasn’t accusing you of any of that stuff, just adding a bit of background information.

The word ‘people’ in my last comment refers collectively to the people involved in this discussion, not just you. There is a lot of discussion about how common practice contradicts the official procedure, and I thought someone might try to investigate how this contradiction arose. Brianjd (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your comment at 14:03 is not "background information" but expressing surprise that "people" (i.e. me and P199) might be naïve enough to think such pages represented accepted norms. I could equally say "I am just a bit surprised that anyone might think something added to the procedure a year ago and unchanged since was in fact seriously dubious". You pinged me in two locations to point out the apparent ridiculousness of citing year-old procedures.

I don't think there is a "contradiction". There are, as always, people who don't read the instructions and do their own thing. And also perhaps a case where someone mentions EXIF as a contributing factor but in a rather terse way that makes it look like it was sufficient in itself. So other people reading that follow that. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"small photo"

See File:Фото Даяна 1.jpg. Why should an image >1,000 pixels wide be judged for deletion because it's a "small photo" ?

Is the claim here that its small size indicates web sourcing? While that might have some justification for things 480px wide, even 640px wide, this is 1,200px wide. How many web designers would use that as a resolution for a web image?

This whole inference seems dubious. If we are to use it, we should agree what we mean by "small" here, and I can't see any reason to term 1,000px within that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't think that evidence to be enough, you can dispute it in the deletion page for this image. However, the fact that a few hours of suspecting copyvio on that basis, a version of that image was found on a copyrighted page shows that such an evidence wasn't completely misleading.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• So why wasn't it nominated as a copyvio, rather than "small" ?

No-one is disputing that there are problem images that turn out to have no EXIF, or to be small. But it's a fallacy to simply assume that being small then implies that it's a copyvio. We need to have other evidence too. Maybe not for this image, but we've had far too many deletions (and speedies, which are just invalid) on a rationale that's "small image, no EXIF" and no other reason is ever presented before they're deleted.

I can't "dispute this in the deletion page". That takes time, and it's much quicker and easier to just rubber stamp nominate them as "small image, no EXIF". Once they're nominated the burden of proof gets shifted and the nominators start requiring VRT and the like (on images uploaded years earlier, by editors no longer active). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I get what the fuss is about? EXIF are only cherries on cake and because they are relevant like only 99% of the time (when they are there) and can absolutely and easily be forged, they are no relevant at all. The disclaimer that is displayed on each media page where applicable should be expanded to make this more clear instead. I think EXIF considerations shall be ignored in all DR requests. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we should ignore EXIF entirely. Just because something can be faked doesn't mean it routinely is. If you lift a photo off a website it likely won't have EXIF (the thumbs on Wikimedia pages don't). So you do have to go to some effort to make up the data. It is just a suspicion factor just like having a redlink newbie account makes one question if the user is aware of the rules. -- Colin (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree with you. EXIF is one of the many assets avail to judge a photo. The lack of it shouldn't be a reason to consider in DR (and anything else) but yes, we should make wise use of the information it gives. Like we must always look at a photo with critical eyes, as recent breakthrough in AI, deepfakes and all has made us realise, we must always be skeptical when reading EXIFs, since they can be forged even more easily than photos. Anyways, if some people must be taught that lack of EXIF is not enough to validate a DR, maybe they shouldn't be on DR committees at all. - Benh (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

didn't edit the picture enough and took too long to realize

could anyone help delete my picture i uploaded? it's supposed to be cropped a little bit more at the bottom so it wouldn't have a black line i didn't realize it while editing :( Bigbat55 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bigbat55: I've cropped the file for you, so no need to delete. You can always upload a new version of an image over an old one anyway, just click "Upload a new version of this file". Belbury (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Long pending nomination

Not well versed about activities on Commons, but will Commons:Deletion requests/Election apportionment diagrams of Angola never be closed as successful or unsuccessful? —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 08:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a large backlog, currently admins like myself are working on Category:Deletion requests August 2022 (only 108 files left), so in a few days/weeks, this will be closed I would expect. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, we'll get to it eventually. But since this was a simple uncontested DR, I went ahead and closed it.  Done --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much both of you. —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 08:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reasons for deletions

Deletion request threads often end up like this or this. Other times, they end up with "Deleted per nom" without addressing arguments against the nomination, or versions thereof such as we see at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhongtianbiao.png, where COM:TOO was broached in the discussion but never addressed. I realize admins on this site are terribly overworked and that there is therefore always a lag in considering deletion requests, but it would be helpful if reasons were given for contested deletions or deletions that were not contested but for which the deletion reason was at issue. In view of your workload, and because volunteers can't be subject to demands on their time, this is merely a request, but it would certainly help users understand deletion reasons better if disputed cases were addressed by the closing admin whenever possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The first is a personal image for someone who has 9 edits in all Wikimedia projects. The second one has 14 edits, so both are clearly out of scope.

File:Zhongtianbiao.png would be in scope if it is somehow notable, but I doubt it. There is no description, source, author, date, or license. Yann (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if a deletion rationale is poorly explained (maybe the nominator is not a native English speaker) or not in English, but the closing admin is able to understand it, it is generally a good idea for them to give a proper English summary using standard Commons policy terminology. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yann, all of your explanations are clear and would have satisfied me; I'm just asking for explanations. On Wikivoyage, when users give edit summaries of "Deleted x," we often ask them to give a brief explanation of why, as we can see they've deleted the text in question but don't know why unless they tell us. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bashar0120.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:المترجم نادر أسامة.jpg, linked above, the image is said to be out of scope as personal image, but it is also claimed to be in use (if I understand the wording correctly). If the latter is true, then an explanation of why the use does not count is needed. I share the concern that deletion rationales are often lacking, like IK describes above. –LPfi (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. When I look at deletion requests, I always check whether the file is in use. Files that are in use are presumed to be ipso facto useful, so explanations of why they were deleted, anyway, would be appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yann, doesn't the fact that File:Zhongtianbiao.png was in use mean it was in scope? Perhaps the article it was in was deleted or the file was removed from the article between the time when I saw it was in use and the deletion actually occurred, but in that case, it would be really helpful if the closing admin were able to state that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Many new users upload one or several personal images to illustrate their userpage. However since these users are not active anywhere, these files are out of scope. This s such a case. Yann (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was used in an article in Chinese Wikipedia, but if I got that wrong, it's because I don't read Chinese. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: This delinker log shows that File:Zhongtianbiao.png was used in zhwiki on page zh:中天道, in mainspace, when Krd deleted it for not having a license for over 7 days (not due to being out of scope). Note that the page has since been speedily deleted by Ericliu1912 as pure destruction / vandalism, and Túrelio cleaned up by closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhongtianbiao.png as already deleted (perhaps leaving in "per nomination" by mistake).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a good explanation! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

t-unit T-60

Hello, can any admin please add a tvar on t-unit 60. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

also t-20. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

having a tvar for t-43 would be convenient as well ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Being a relatively new admin I don't understand a word of what you are asking. What does tvar mean and what is t-unit T-60 etc? Ellywa (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ellywa: What I'm asking is all about translation extension stuff. A tvar is a tag that we generally use for links whilst preparing a page for translation; for example see this edit where I've used a tvar tag to make the translation for feasible and convenient. T-60, and so the other numbers are translation unit markers which you can find on the base page since it is in translation. The above diff can perhaps help you understand what the tvar is and what "T-60" type stuff means. Since this page is edit-protected, I cannot edit it myself but have to seek an admin's help. Please let me know if there is any other confusion. This source from MediaWiki can be helpful to execute my request. I am a translation administrator here but I'm not an admin yet. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 13:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@AafiOnMobile and TheAafi: I changed the protection of the page so you can make the required changes. I will revert in a few hours. (Before my bedtime) Ellywa (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ellywa,  Done. Thanks a lot. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

yw. Ellywa (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Automatic tagging of mass DRs

It seems illogical that nominators should have to manually tag potentially dozens of images after already listing them in a mass DR section. Why not make this an automated process? They have already been tagged by being listed after all, it's pointless double work. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find where to put my comment

I want to comment on an open request but cannot find it. Look on my talk page. The article in question I have copied is a governmental publication and not copyrighted. Deisenbe (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Click the 'its entry' link in bold in the message (in the English version). For File:Francisco Menendez, Mose Leader.jpg, which I assume is the one you refer to, it points to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Menendez, Mose Leader.jpg. –LPfi (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have copied it, why do you claim it is "own work"? Please correct the description. Also, as it isn't own work, you cannot licence it with a licence of your choosing, instead add an appropriate PD rationale. –LPfi (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of meaning

We see in Deletion requests/Archive 8:

(deletion requests for categories are posted via Commons:Categories for discussion).

But when on the right side panel of a category we click "Nominate category for discussion" we see on the template:

This category is being discussed as part of a Categories for discussion process. As a result of this discussion, pages and files in this category may be recategorized (not deleted).

So please fix the latter text. Thanks.

Wait, it never speaks about what about deleting the (empty) category (page) itself!

Jidanni (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Deletion decision" by administrator requested for picture not yet uploaded

I request a decision by an administrator, if a photo I've taken myself may be legally uploaded and published in Wikimedia Commons under a free licence, before I upload it. My photo shows a street panorama quite similar to this commercial photo. It's a painting on a house wall in Cologne, Germany, showing mayor Henriette Reker. May I, or could this cause trouble due to possible copyrights on the painting?

In this discussion last year, I was advised that COM:FOP Germany would apply. The advisor assumed the work were non-permanent and would "probably be overpainted after the election". However, the election took place in 2020, the painting is still there today, and as far as known, there is no discussion about overpainting it at all.

This article explained that "election posters in public spaces normally must be taken down promptly after the respective election. However, this does not apply to murals on private house facades". There seems to have been no attempt or plan to remove/overpaint it since then at all. So I think, the requirements of "Freedom of panorama" are fulfilled and the photo may be published? Anti. (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin, but  Support. This appears permanently enough. Thanks for the persistance on your side, Anti. --Enyavar (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Permanence in the context of FoP generally means the natural lifetime of the work, not until the end of time--"permanently enough" is not a thing. That a mural may be painted over should not make it non-permeant, as that would merely be the end of its lifetime. The problem here, however, is that this mural is clearly derivative of this image; is there evidence that the photographer approved the photo's use as a basis for the mural? Эlcobbola _talk 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I clicked your link, there comes a sequence of 24 photos. In my impression, not one of them shows a facial expression or angle of view similar to the mural. Which photo do you mean, counting from the 1st one?

The article says that Reker herself ordered this mural to be realized by Cologne artist group "Coloured Boulevard", as part of her campaign to be reelected mayor of Cologne. So we can assume that the mural was checked by legal experts (and political competitors) and was 100% legal, including approvals by others if necessary. --Anti. (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"So we can assume that the mural was checked by legal experts (and political competitors) and was 100% legal, including approvals by others if necessary" No, we cannot make that assumption--this is your concoction and unfounded speculation. Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject, and does not transfer in Germany but through inheritance; Reker's opinions and actions on the matter are thus without meaning. I see no evidence provided for what "legal expert" considerations were given, including whether this was determined to be fair use. Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Then please: Which photo do you mean? I clicked your link, there comes a sequence of 24 photos. In my impression, not one of them shows a facial expression or angle of view similar to the mural. Which photo do you mean, counting from the 1st one? And what makes you sure, "that this mural is clearly derivative of this image"? --Anti. (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I used the wrong link--it is this image. A derivative work is "a work based on or derived from one or more already existing works." (underline added) It need not be identical nor have entirely changed features. (For example, this photo is adjudicated to be derivative of this this photo despite entirely different facial expression, colouring, etc.) The mural does in fact have the same facial expression, same orientation/angle, same clothing patterns, same hair (e.g., where the part falls), blazer creases, etc. A test is whether "an average lay observer would [...] recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work" (Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d 759, 766 (2d Cir.1991)), and I think it is clear. Эlcobbola _talk 18:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Comparing these two photos, I'd say: Same hairdo yes, same blouse probably (although the collar is lying in a different way), same jacket maybe or not.

But: Clearly different profile of lips and teeth (lower row almost not visible on Instagram, on mural yes). And Reker's head is turned 10 to 20 degree more to her right on the mural than on the Instagram photo. Inspite of hairdo and clothing: Instagram and the mural show the same person at different times. So no derivation. --Anti. (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear not to have read what I wrote, nor to have reviewed the sources provided. Эlcobbola _talk 18:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course I have:

>>The mural does in fact have the same facial expression, same orientation/angle ..: Please check the differences I've specified above. And comparing this case to the Naked Gun derivation from Vanity Fair (obviously intended derivation as a parody) is, pardon my English, beside the point.

I hope you're not saying that we have to assume that one picture was derived from another, whenever a person is wearing the same clothing and hairdo on both pictures? No matter how many other differences there are between them? --Anti. (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The mural is not a reproduction of a photo; it incorporates more artistic elements (hands, bubbles, logos) into it than the campaign photo which we may assume here to be the 'original'; and the artist decidedly took artistic liberties to "pretty up" Reker; oh and I only now noticed the mural is greyscale, but not clearly not a greyscale of the 'original', meaning even more artistic liberties: As a result, I'm convinced the mural crosses the threshold of its own originality, when compared to the campaign photo. Until the photographer and the mural painter sue each other, we won't ever know how German courts will rule in this matter (while US courts have no say at all here).
But as I check the graphic introducing COM:DW in a nutshell, the originality of the work doesn't even seem to matter. Even if we had a 1:1 exact color print of the 'original' photo on the wall: the artwork is permanently installed in public. In Germany, FoP includes 2D. --> Take the picture(s) and upload under a free license. It still won't hurt to find a photographic perspective that shows not just the mural, but its surroundings as well. --Enyavar (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

And: Otherwise, everone taking a panorama photo would be obliged to check if any part of this panorama, although located permanently in public, might eventually be "based on" some unknown protected work out there. Checking this would be practically impossible for a photographer, so COM:FOP Germany would be taken ad absurdum.

Further more, there are good reasons to doubt the "derivation" asserted by user:elcobbola, as I pointed out above.

@Elcobbola: Would you please be so kind as to either keep dealing with our arguments and objections or explicitely hand this matter over, so that another administrator can take over? --Anti. (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"Unused logos are not educational, out of scope" as a deletion reason

Here's an example: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErikGhukasyanam. My question was not answered by the closing admin: "Is Armenia TV not notable?" I think and hope that we all agree that Commons' purpose is to host images that could be useful, not only images that are currently being used by other Wikimedia projects - or to put it another way, that "not in use" is not a deletion reason except in the case of personal images that lack educational value and are allowed only when being used by an active Wikimedia user, as an exception to COM:EDUSE. So is it up to the individual admin to decide based on a personal opinion such as "unused logos are not educational" that a logo that is currently not being used by another Wikimedia project could not possibly be notable enough to be worth keeping as potentially useful, or is there some kind of standard admins are supposed to agree on? Because it seems to me that some deletion decisions such as this one, or at least the reasoning given for them, depend a great deal on who the closing admin is.

By the way, would this thread be better placed at Commons talk:Deletion policy or some other page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be really nice if someone addressed this. Whether a logo is deleted or not seems to depend more than it should on which admin decides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I requested undeletion and linked this discussion. –LPfi (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Backlog?

Is it normal for unopposed deletion requests to sit for 2 months without action, e.g. this one? I'm not sure what the backlog on this project is like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, it is normal. The backlog is often a lot longer than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: At present, our oldest DR is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 赤羽蒼玄, filed 06:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC), 4 months 29 days ago. I found it at the top of Commons:Deletion requests/2022/11, which I found linked in the "Open requests" at the top of the list at Commons:Deletion requests/Older discussions, as transcluded to the second box at COM:DR#Lists of requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. I'll just be patient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)