Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/28: Difference between revisions

Who is he? 186.173.178.34 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brother of a poet 186.173.178.34 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook 186.173.178.34 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English: best photography 186.173.178.34 00:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: F10. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA watermark in upper left corner calls into question whether this is really uploader's own work C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 04:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w:fi:Jaakko Valo is still alive, and his works are not free for distribution using commercially-licensed photographs. Finnish Freedom of Panorama does not allow for-profit or lucrative uses of artistic works permanently exposed to the public.

• File:15. Voikukat, Mattilanniemi, Historian kuuntelua 016.jpg
• File:16. Tunnust.Palok.jpg
• File:17. maaimanpyora.jpg
• File:18. loka marras joulu.jpg
• File:22. Hylly.jpg
• File:23. Tahko.jpg
• File:26. ohjus.jpg
• File:27. Reliefi6-o.jpg
• File:31. DSC 2337 (3).jpg
• File:4. la.rel.jpg
• File:8. Kes-sai.jpg

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although Commons isn't generally for censorship, adult content does not get a special pass from the inclusion guidelines simply due to the nature of the thing. In this case these videos seem to be of a woman removing and/or display her underwear, which has questionable educational value. They also appear to be from a YouTube channel where the videos aren't available anymore and the videos that remain don't seem to be freely licensed. So their copyright status is questionable at best, if not outright invalid. So these videos should be deleted as OOS. As well as possibly COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:【パンティ】 ち◯びが透けてるノーブラの巫女さんがノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】Tバックピンクセーラー服でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】「アレ」にそっくりなワンピースでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】【重大発表】ミニスカアイドル風ワンピースでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】あのおとぎ話風コスでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】お風呂あがりのバスタオル姿でノーパンノーブラ生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】これ大丈夫かな？キャンギャル姿でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】すけすけ赤ちゃんがノーブラノーパン下着紹介しちゃいます.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち○びでちゃったミニミニ過ぎて危険な裸エプロン姿でノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち○び出ちゃった！裸エプロンでノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯びポロリしちゃったメイド姿でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯びポロリレースクイーンがノーパンノーブラパンティ生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出すぎたミニスカチアガールが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出すぎちゃったかな？ウエイトレスさん姿でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着レビュー.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出ちゃった透けすぎワンピースでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着レビュー.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出ちゃった！ナース全裸エプロンでノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出ちゃった！裸エプロンノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出てるかもノーパンノーブラ裸ミニスカナースが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び出過ぎなセクシーウェイトレスさんが、ノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び完全透けすぎレースクイーンノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介エメフィール.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び透けすぎの囚人さんがノーパンノーブラ生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ち◯び透けすぎノーブラノーパンレースクイーン生ぬぎ下着レビュー.webm
• File:【パンティ】はみ乳出てる？ノーブラノーパン保育士が全裸エプロン姿で下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】はみ乳出過ぎかなハート型全裸エプロンでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】アイドルのような赤水玉ワンピースでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】エ◯チな実験中裸エプロンでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ギリギリ大丈夫かなセクシードレスでノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ギリギリ大丈夫かなノースリーブ着物姿でノーブラノーパン生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】セクシー浴衣でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ノーブラノーパンエステティシャンさんが生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】ノーブラノーパンセクシーナースが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ノーブラノーパンチアガールが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ヒョウ柄ミニスカワンピースでノーブラノーパン下着紹介エメフィール スリット.webm
• File:【パンティ】ポチッとしすぎなCAさんが生ぬぎ下着紹介しますノーブラノーパン生着替え Cabin crew Flight attendant Lingerie review.webm
• File:【パンティ】ポチッとしてるかな？ノーブラノーパンビアガールが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ポチッとしてる？チャイナドレスでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ポチッと下乳出すぎちゃった船長さんが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ミニスカノーパンノーブラナースが生着替えで下着レビューをします.webm
• File:【パンティ】ミニスカポチッとノーブラノーパンセクシーポリスが生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】ミニ過ぎた過去にタイムスリップしてノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】乗せるより乗りたい派のタクシー運転手さんがノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】今日は見ないで欲しいなCAさんがノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】全裸で作業着を着てノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】全裸で着物着ちゃったノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】全裸オーバーオールノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介でゴールドラッシュ.webm
• File:【パンティ】全裸バスローブ姿でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】全裸甚平でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】大丈夫かなセクシー店員さんがノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】彼シャツでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】彼シャツ着てノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】彼パーカーでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】彼ロンTでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】普段着でしちゃった私服でノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】最後まで見てねち◯び透けすぎかなレースクイーンでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】最後まで見てねはみ乳ポリスでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】最後まで見てね！横チチはみ出るセーラーエプロンでノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】横から丸見えほぼ全裸のキョンシーがノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】熟れきった熟女がノーブラノーパン生着替え下着紹介します.webm
• File:【パンティ】白エプロンでノーブラノーパンになっちゃった生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm
• File:【パンティ】紐パンほどいてノーパン姿でパンティ紹介アーミー柄のセクシーコマンドーがノーブラ生ぬぎ下着紹介.webm

Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. I'm having a very hard time imagining any educational purpose to these videos. The titles all appear to focus on prurient aspects of the videos, e.g. describing the model as "セクシー" (sexy), "全裸" (nude), and/or "ノーブラノーパン" (wearing neither a bra nor panties). Omphalographer (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete – All sixty files are sourced from reuploads from the YouTube channel Buramania and thus meet criterion F6 for speedy deletion (license laundering). The "source" video pages of all of the above files are now private, and the YouTube channel which uploaded them is currently a vlog channel entitled Công Vlog, which seems to be strong evidence that the channel was fraudulently reuploading Buramania's content under the CC-BY license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama for sculptural monuments in Finland, and this commercially-licensed image infringes the late sculptor's posthumous copyright. The monument dates to 1974 and was designed by sculptor Martti Peitson. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major presence of the statue erected in 1952 and authored by sculptor w:fi:Oskari Jauhiainen. As there is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Finland for sculptural monuments, this image under the commercial CC-BY-3.0 licensing infringes on the sculptor's posthumous copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bust is the main subject here. Finnish copyright law does not grant commercial Freedom of Panorama for public art; removal in 2022 does not magically remove sculptural copyright. Per this article, it was installed in 1977 and authored by Russian sculptor Mihail Anicushin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Busto Lenine Turku Finlandia 01.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in Finland for images of copyrighted public art. The sculpture dates to 2011 and was authored by sculptors Jani Rättyän and Antti Stöckellin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI garbage, account globally locked Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I've also tagged it for speedy deletion per COM:CSD#G3: Content that is posted with the intention of Vandalizing. THere are examples of such vandalism at w:en:Special:Contributions/Choo Choo Train Engine. --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 07:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: G3. --Wdwd (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not uploaders own work; imagine is headshot from University of Chicago website and is owned by the University Lindsey40186 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a porn site, not own work A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 3D works in USA, artist Roy Lichtenstein died in 1997 A1Cafel (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment. I know Lichtenstein erected the first copy of this statue in 1974. Does anyone know if there are published images of this? If so, it may be possible to prove that this is {{PD-US-no notice}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erected in 1989 per this source--A1Cafel (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Yes, this copy. The issue is that Lichtenstein erected many duplicates of this statue and the first one was erected in 1974. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PCP, if someone finds that the 1974 original was published without a copyright notice, I'll undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Thooompson as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: YouTube re-upload of a TV broadcast. |source=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beuSOuPdYoo Royalbroil 03:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete converted from speedy to full discussion. It is a case of license laundering by a Youtube contributor who licensed as CC-Attribution. It is an ESPN broadcast. Royalbroil 03:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, how can I proceed with just deleting the image file? I will try to find a suitable alternative when I can Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

너무 오래된 사진입니다. Kangheelee777 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused photo of non-notable person. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 00:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in New Zealand A1Cafel (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These images seem to be freely licensed but they are also cross wiki promotional spam that serves no educational purpose what-so-ever. So they should be deleted as OOS unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

• File:CRM система WeStudy Online.png
• File:WeStudy Online - Українська платформа для онлайн шкіл та курсів.png
• File:Інтерфейс створення курсів в українській платформі WeStudy Online.png

Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi (PPP).jpg Hasanbahr17 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio. caputure of book or website ChongDae (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright violation; unable to confirm license status. Image is a promotional photo from the Canadian TV show Zone Franche produced by Montreal media group Urbania, broadcasted by Télé-Québec. TQB's press website does not appear to state anywhere that its photos are Creative Commons, but I cannot read French and my machine translation may have missed something.

If the uploader has additional evidence of licensing, please provide. RoxySaunders (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed personally with Urbania, who owns the images, by email. In such a case, should I share screenshot of the emails or? Flowsthatglow (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a screenshot on these pages isn't possible but if you email info-commons@wikimedia.org with this (alongside a link to this discussion and an explanation). The backlog for these administrative requests is pretty long, so I think the image will probably be fine in the meantime. Sharing a transcript of that conversation here would be helpful. RoxySaunders (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed the address with an explanation of the situation and a PDF of the email chain confirming the copyright/CC BY-SA status.

A short summary of the email chain: I emailed Urbania, who owns the picture. Their Director of operations asked me what the process would be for granting the rights. I said that I could upload the picture but that Wikimedia wanted confirmation of specific criteria, which I listed for her (republication and distribution must be allowed; publication of derivative work must be allowed; commercial use of the work must be allowed; the license must be perpetual and non-revocable). I added that the upload wizard also had Creative Commons options and noted that CC BY-SA would seemingly be the license that corresponds with their aims; I included the paragraph on the Creative Commmons website describing CC BY-SA. I then asked if that all worked for them. She replied affirmatively. Flowsthatglow (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related ticket: 2024063010000897. I cannot read it, sorry. Bencemac (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 00:32, August 12, 2024, by Krd (No ticket permission since 12 July 2024). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled-down dupe of File:U.S. Embassy Islamabad lit up with Ukrainian colours to stand in solidarity (1).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Orcas NRL Bid.png Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fake logo Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request --Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it fake Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are described as being copyleft (Creative Commons), but we'd need evidence for the (extraordinary) claim that the copyright holder actually CC copylefted these. Several among them are described as having an unknown author: quite how an unknown person can be known to have copylefted their own work according to this or that license is a riddle indeed.

Somewhat exhausted by all of this, I have not additionally listed any of the photos that the same uploader has claimed, more or less credibly, are in the public domain. These include photographs taken as recently as the 1960s that are (i) described as "in the public domain in its country of origin" -- most commonly the US -- "and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer", despite being (ii) by an unknown author.

• File:George Barris in 2012.webp  Delete Active copyright
• File:Mamie Van Doren publicity photo for "Running Wild" in 1955.webp  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Van Doren in a newspaper clipping as Miss Palm Springs in 1949.webp  Delete we have a hires version. See: File:Mamie Van Doren, who was then Joan Olander, in The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California on May 6, 1949, as Miss Palm Springs.jpg
• File:Mamie Van Doren at sixteen, c. 1947.jpg I cant find a version online, but no renewal or registration in the USCO database
• File:Mamie Van Doren, c. 1960.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in 1960.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in 50s.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren, black & white photo, 1950s.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren, c. 1950s.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in the 1950s.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in 1992.jpg  Delete Active copyright
• File:Mamie Van Doren in a polka-dot swimsuit, c. 1958.jpg  Keep published, no renewal or registration. Signed version available from eBay. --RAN (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Mamie Van Doren - Paris in 1955.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Van Doren at a swimming pool, c. 1955.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in 1958.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Van Doren in a Universal Studios Photoshoot, c. 1954.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren, c. 1955.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren in 1955.jpg  Delete active Corbis copyright
• File:Van Doren at Universal, c. 1953.jpg  Keep no renewal or registration.
• File:Mamie Van Doren with Howard Hughes and Jane Russell.jpg  Keep published, no renewal or registration.
• File:Van Doren in 1955.jpg  Delete active Getty copyright

Hoary (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, on the content of "File:Mamie Van Doren with Howard Hughes and Jane Russell.jpg": Howard Hughes didn't particularly resemble Robert Mitchum. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect that Robert Mitchum smoked so many Jazz cigarettes that he thought he was Howard Hughes. --RAN (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes that was a mistake, I will fix it. Wcamp9 (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only now that I glance at the uploader's talk page and thereby get to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mamie Van Doren American actress.jpg, which ran from January to February. To quote the nominator, Pinkbeast: "It seems likely all the uploader's other files are equally bogus". It does indeed. For that matter, to quote Infrogmation, the nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/File:FordMansionFeb20.jpg (February to March): "All of this user's other uploads have been deleted as copyright violations. I think they have forfeited assumption of good faith." It does indeed seem so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Most appear to be publicity images according to Tineye, available on eBay, most have expired on eBay, but Tineye has them in their cache. I will continue searching and marking them. The few I checked do not have a copyright symbol on the front or back. I am also looking through the USCO database for registrations and renewals and cannot find any images of Mamie Van Doren under variations of her name. Registration was required up to 1989. Most will fall under: {{PD-US-not renewed}} Universal Studios did not copyright their publicity images until about 1985 when the copyright symbol appeared on the front of the photos. The idea was to allow copyright free distribution so that newspapers would publish them for free, rather than having to buy ad space for a new movie. Some are labeled as Getty Images, but so far I have not found any in their database via Tineye and Google Image, generally I would side with Getty when they claim there is an active copyright, but only if I can confirm the image comes from their collection. It looks like the uploader just added "Getty" to every image, Getty always has good exif data with their copyright info and their database is easy to search by itself or with Tineye. Getty and Alamy routinely run a match against Commons looking for their images. Those are the rare images that the WMF removes each year. --RAN (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• User:GreyChen is now User:Wcamp9. -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The list of files above is part of my nomination. Despite appearing above my signature, the comments attached to the list items -- " Delete active Getty copyright", " Keep no renewal or registration", etc -- aren't by me; they're by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (RAN). Hoary (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am never sure how to handle multiple images where some need to be deleted and other entered the public domain, sorry for the confusion. This was all done one at time, it took all day. --RAN (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate (and, before your latest comment, appreciated) the effort you'd put into it, RAN. Though really, it shouldn't be you who felt obliged to do it; it should have been the prospective uploader, before uploading. And I don't mind your way of annotating the list. But perhaps it would be better in future to copy such a list, paste it below, and annotate the pasted copy. Though imaginably the method you used is common in Commons and utterly unsurprising to those who know Commons a lot better than I do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete file:George Barris in 2012.webp, not sure about the others. 200.39.139.13 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: most as PD, deleted the ones that are still copyrighted per RAN. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EC - Audiovisual service source states "Information and education only, Non-commercial use" A1Cafel (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Orcas NRL Bid.png Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It fake logo Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion request --Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Tasmania12345 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it fake Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Google Maps Saiphani02 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna go on Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as requested by the uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong filenames; actually copyrighted books.

• File:SSID-13093560 文心雕龍（二）.pdf
• File:SSID-13093561 文心雕龍（一）.pdf

沈澄心✉ 04:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading the deletion debate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Storm vs Brisbane Broncos NRL Trial Match At North Hobart Oval In 2012.jpg that links to this page. Tasmania12345 (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as that's not a concrete reason. This file may qualify for COM:CSD#G7. @Tasmania12345: please be more specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get tonnes of hits when image searching this on Google so it's likely a copyvio as well.  Delete. Jonteemil (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOLV6ryg8WU (0'26"). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading the deletion debate Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Storm vs Brisbane Broncos NRL Trial Match At North Hobart Oval In 2012.jpg that links to this page. Tasmania12345 (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as that's not a concrete reason. This file may qualify for COM:CSD#G7. @Tasmania12345: please be more specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get tonnes of hits when image searching this on Google so it's likely a copyvio as well.  Delete. Jonteemil (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOLV6ryg8WU (0'26"). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no longer want this image been shared publicly on the Internet Youngson9453 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Ђидо (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It may be checked the registration/renewal catalogs of the U.S. Copyright Office to verify if the footage has its copyright registered and/or renewed in some point. Works published between 1929 and 1963 whose copyright was not renewed (although being originally published with a copyright notice/registration) are assumed to be PD in the US; and works published before 1978 without a copyright notice/registration are also PD in the US. Verification that one of the cited cases applies to this file. If none of them, then deleting the file should be considered and tagged it for undeletion for 2059 (95 years after publication). 81.41.177.91 11:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info: According with this, the film was first broadcasted on 6 March 1975, at Goodnight America. 81.41.177.91 12:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep: The footage may be eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} or, more likely, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or any equivalent. For one hand, I made a research at the US Copyright Office copyright records website and the 1967 edition of the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in which a footage by Abraham Zapruder named "Kennedy Assasination" is included. The video registered in 1967 appears to be a fragment of the full-complete footage, as its details recorded in the copyright catalog describe a 10 seconds film. Date of registry for that video was 15 May 1967.

The 1967 registry also appears in the US Copyright Office copyright records website and is the oldest entry which names a video by Abraham Zapruder of Kennedy's assasination (the other entries are of photographs by Zapruder, prehaps photograms extracted from the film, registered with Life magazine/Time Inc. between 1963 and 1964; also are some recent entries from 2000, but them aren't relevant for this discussion).

For the other hand, I didn't find any other copyright entry of the footage in any other version of the Catalog of Copyright Entries from the 1960s, excluding the 1967 version (which cites a 10 sec. film). I haven't found any registration/renewal entry for the full 30 sec. footage (only the 10 sec. video named in the 1967 catalog, which may be a frgment).

Moreover, additional verification should be needed to determine the copyright status carefully. 81.41.177.91 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zapruder family donated copyright in January 2000:

The personal collection of the Zapruder family, which includes a first generation copy of the historically significant Abraham Zapruder amateur movie that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, has been donated to The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. The donation, made by the heirs to the Abraham Zapruder estate, also includes the copyright to the film.

https://web.archive.org/web/20061008133947/http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Press_Conference.htm

Ђидо (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is record of this assignment:

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=13&ti=1,13&Search%5FArg=Zapruder&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=U5GJDvVIUrzw91IVbjGJDnKSXS&SEQ=20240628190259&SID=3 Ђидо (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2071. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Southern Orcas NRL Bid.png NRL Bid (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim55 (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brisbane Firehawks NRL Bid.png}} NRL Bid (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Deletion requested by the uploader shortly after upload, but file is still COM:INUSE at en:Expansion of the National Rugby League. --Rosenzweig τ 19:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Rosenzweig τ 19:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

flag deleted Nawab of Atrauli (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of Scope. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverletzung. Offensichtlich kein "eigenes Werk", sondern ein Scan aus einem Buch axel (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverletzung. Offensichtlich kein "eigenes Werk", sondern ein Scan aus einem Buch axel (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.

• File:Flag of Riau.svg
• File:Riau flag.png
• File:Flaf of the male members of the Royalty.gif
• File:Flag of Riau (1818).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - (Male Royal Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - (Royal Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - (Sultan Personal Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Civil Ensign.svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Naval Ensign.svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Pangeran Laksamana (Personal Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Royal Ensign.svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Yamtuan Muda (Personal Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate - Yamtuan Muda (Variant Standard).svg
• File:Flag of Riau-Lingga Sultanate.svg
• File:Flag of the Pangeran Laksmana.gif
• File:Flag of the Royal Boat.gif
• File:Flag of the Sultan - Riau.gif
• File:Flag of the Viceregal Boat.gif
• File:Malay Tricolor in Riau.svg

Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Adamant1, I understand your concern regarding the deletion of the flags due to the suggestion that they represent the provincial flags of Indonesia. While it is true that Indonesia does not have provincial flags, the items in question are actually the royal standards of the Sultanate of Riau-Lingga, formerly used by the royal house. The image is based on the historical record from this source.--The Bangsawan (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your aware that the website you linked to says "© Hubert de Vries" right? That aside, what makes them an authority and how do we know the "flags" there are based on historical examples? Because the images of the flags there look no different then these ones. They aren't original and for all we know Hubert de Vries got them from Commons to begin with. The only image on there that seems to be from an original source is at the bottom of the page and doesn't even have "flags" that look like the ones I nominated for deletion to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input and apologies for my delay, @Adamant1. I wanted to clarify that the flags uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by me and another user, Muffin_Wizard, were created in 2015 (We had a discussion on my talk page about the Riau-Lingga Sultanate and the flags back in 2015, although the discussion was conducted in the local Sabahan Malay dialect). According to the Internet Archive, the flags on Hubert de Vries' website have been available since April 14, 2011 (see Internet Archive version from April 14, 2011). This shows that the designs on the website predate the uploads on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, it is unlikely that Hubert de Vries obtained the flags from Wikimedia Commons.--The Bangsawan (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Whist true that the provincial flags did not exist in law, it was used at events such as the opening of the National Paralympic Week event 2016 (XV) in Siliwangi Stadium, Bandung. Although this was done prior to the notice that it did not exist in law, its usage in commercial and non-commercial events was set as a predicament to not delete such flags from commons. Meanwhile the rest of the flags options presented here does not correlate your reasons for deletion as none were used in a provincial setting. Given flags were used in a Historical context at some point during the existence of the Riau Sultanate, thus not a valid reason for deletion Kaliper1 (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1

Now, Concerning the flags whether it gives legitimacy or not, i'll give you an image. Here is a collection of flags made by the Topographic Bureau, of The Dutch Ministry of War. The intention of Such catalogue was to note the different signage and identification used by Dutch generals, traders, and sailors in navigating the land and waters of the Dutch East Indies. Charted in 1865, The Riau-Lingga Sultanate was far from destroyed such in the eve of the Second World War. No, in 1865, they were tributary states who acted autonomously within the framework of a Swaprajan system of the Dutch East Indies. The Sultan had authority over its subjects albeit in the strict oversight under the authority of the General Gouvernorship in Batavia, but given autonomy neitherless. Such like flags are also given authority as par as Dutch flags (commercial flags, Warflags, ect.). Unless the Dutch Ministry of War in 1865, (still trying to consolidating their hold in the Dutch East Indies mind you), purposefully spoofed and made up the existence of these flags to publish it widely, there's no reason to delete. Kaliper1 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I we're to grant you most or all of that we'd still need to know the dates and locations of the original designs publication. As well as figure out the proper licensed. Since these clearly aren't the uploaders own work. So "PD-Self" doesn't work. Nor does "PD-IDGov" for the reason I've already stated. So what's your suggestion? Or should we juat keep the images despite the clearly invalid licenses and just call it good there? I assume you have an answer since you seem to know more about the subject then I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Adamant1. For the first and Second points, it applies to PD-IDGov as it is still used in its original nature. Given that the only modification or changes made isn't on the Coat of Arms itself where PD-IDGov applies. Instead, the coat of arms (not modified) rest on a white field. No different from putting said coat of arms on a white Paper, background of a Government website, or Government Billboard with a different background color. The nature and meaning of the Coat of Arms remain unchanged, and its symbolism is preserved. As long as the Coat of Arms itself is not modified (such as changes in the number of symbols, rewritten text, or color alterations), its use remains within its 'original nature.' This interpretation is common in Indonesia, where government agencies frequently reuse symbols in their official (such like a meeting) and Unofficial capacities (such like a sponsored local-Marathon or province-wide national competition.). Eg. Differing ministries use the state emblem, the 'garuda', in many flags with differing additions such from letters and colors. The emblem is not modified, PD-IDGov applies to the emblem. The same can be apply here.

For the rest, usually flags such like these does not have copyright given its longevity and un-uniqueness? I'll get back on that in a minute. However if there are any, there are many ways we could identify these flags. We could easily use PD-Art-100, as the flags were created 100 years prior and given that the Riau-Lingga Sultanate ceased to exist in 1911. Another way would be PD-IDOld-Art30, an Indonesian copyright tag that signify its classification is now on the Public domain, given that the Indonesian copyright system only lasts about 50 Years. Now if any of these two somehow cannot apply, use the most likely license;

PD-shape or its accurate cousin, PD-Flag. Yes we have a specific license id for such! Flags across WikiCommons that have either no origin or existing current countries, eg. pirate flags, old Kingdom/Duchy flags from the 1400's, or signaling flags, use this. Given that flags like listed above only consisted of Squares, triangles, circles, saltires, ect. falls under simple shape. {{PD-flag}} {{PD-shape}} Kaliper1 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For place, time, location? Just insert the actual Kingdom's information. Riau-Lingga Sultanate. Located on the Islands of Riau, existed from 1824–1911. Again from it's existence, it is more than 100 years old, way passed public domain. Its flags, either done by a digital recreation or an actual dated flag sheet, is also to simple to be copyrighted. Kaliper1 (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion, old and/or simple flags that are historic. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.

• File:City Flag of Bogor.svg
• File:City Flag of Cimahi.svg
• File:City Flag of Cirebon.svg
• File:City Flag of Depok.svg
• File:City Flag of Sukabumi.svg
• File:City Flag of Tasikmalaya.svg
• File:Flag of Banjar City.png
• File:Flag of Bekasi City.png
• File:Municipal Flag of Bandung, Indonesia.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Bandung.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Bogor.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Ciamis.png
• File:Regency Flag of Cianjur.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Garut.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Pangandaran.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Subang.png
• File:Regency Flag of Sumedang.svg
• File:Regency Flag of Tasikmalaya.svg

Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://x.com/rizkidwika/status/1270015800699691010?t=yXxjEymH-w3WAo5Nn3lWIg&s=19 For the city of Bangdung, at least it exists. I also had a friend send me pictures he took. (Zscout370 logged out). 184.180.249.138 12:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So for Bangdung, https://www.bandung.go.id/news/read/4/lambang-dan-bendera-kota-bandung is the official government information I could find. The specifications are at the end of the article from the government website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall for the note for "there are no official provincial flags in Indonesia", this is not true. There is a 2007 law that allows for flags to exist. Chapter 4 Article 6 gives details what the designs are allowed to look like. To quote the law "(1) Desain bendera daerah berbentuk segi empat panjang dengan ukuran panjang dan lebar 3 (tiga) berbanding 2 (dua) yang memuat logo daerah." Google Translates gives the following translation: "(1) The design of the regional flag is rectangular in shape with the length and width are 3 (three) compared to 2 (two) that contains the regional logo." While the category does say that flags can only be registered via the Opens profile photo Asosiasi Veksilologi & Heraldik Indonesia/Indonesian Vexillological & Heraldic Association, I do have an issue with this. Their website is not active, not filled out, no registry and no contact information present. A lot of "lorem ipsum" content. Now, does this mean we cannot double-check to see if the flags exist? No. I am the editor of the FOTW page for Indonesia and for the past few years, been trying to clean up that section and mark things as real/fake and add sources over time. But many times, we pretty much have only photo evidence to go off and sometimes we do not know what the flags look like. I think each flag should be looked at individually. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep

there are no official provincial flags in Indonesia

This claim is not completely true. Per @Zscout370's comment, these flags are sometimes actually used in official contexts in the respective regencies and cities. I found a number of images that might support this opinion: [2] and [3], even though the two images were taken in regencies/cities located in Kalimantan, not Java. The problem may lie in the images of this flag which are not published on the official regency/city websites, with the exception of a number of regencies/cities such as Bandung. However, these flags may be used in official contexts such as rallies or regional events. Even though the source of the image is a less credible primary source, it is better than a baseless statement like this. Fazoffic (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Bandung City, it is actually the same, although there is a Flag statement on the website. However, it is not legally clear how to remember from the source Decree of the Temporary Regional People's Representative Council of Bandung City dated June 8, 1953 No. 9938/53 (Surat Keputusan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Sementara Kota Besar Bandung tanggal 8 Juni 1953 No. 9938/53) and there is no increase to the Regional Regulation. So, De Jure Bandung also does not have a flag considering that I have not found a Regional Regulation related to the determination of the Flag. Baqotun0023 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvoSwatch (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the notion that deletion must be taken individually and not carte blanche. Calling the aforementioned flags as "fictional" is also wrong, I'm not sure where the suggestion originally comes from, but most likely it was a unilateral claim. I also find these notes:

NOTE: Indonesia doesn't recognize regional flags, and most flags in this gallery are either unofficial or fiction. Official flags are usually registered by the Indonesian Vexillology and Heraldry Association (IVHA). Therefore, this gallery is made by vexillologists and for unofficial purposes only. Please check the sources of the flags before you use them in any way.

To be inaccurate, based on my short research it seems IVHA was created in 2020, I highly highly doubt they have any official nor legal bindings to anything government related. Considering they have yet to be mentioned once by the Government in any capacity, and their leader Frederik Widjaja is self proclaimed as President, I doubt they should be taken seriously. As someone with IT background I also can second that their website and social medias are all abandoned, never updated, and used. Website is very basic and filled with placeholders and untouched templates, no way to contact them whatsoever. Therefore their words should not be taken as face value and until proven otherwise are better ignored and the notes removed because its incorrect. Indonesia does recognize regional flags (provincial, etc.) sure their regulations are a bit hard to find but they exist and in use by officials, in official capacity, on official events. TL:DR they should not be deleted based on a wrong note. -EvoSwatch (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In general, my comments are the same as in this discussion, but I'll rewrite them here anyway.

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia.

This is not true, Government Regulation No. 77 of 2007 outlines general guidelines for regional coat of arms and flags, covering provinces, cities, and regencies. According to Article 6.1, regional flags must be square with a 3:2 ratio and feature the coat of arms.

Some provinces have specific regulations regarding their flags, which provide a legal basis for their status. Additionally, under Article 42(b) of Indonesian copyright law, any content derived from regulations cannot be copyrighted, meaning flags governed by specific regulations are in the public domain.

It’s important to note that, unlike regional flags, all regional coat of arms are regulated by specific laws, placing them in the public domain. Since provincial flags are simply the coat of arms placed on a square background, they are considered derivative works of public domain images. As such, anyone arranging the coat of arms on a square background can rightfully claim it as 'own work' and no copyright violation exists.

So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.

According to COM:OOS, Files are considered within scope if they are media files in an allowable free format, freely licensed or in the public domain, realistically useful for educational purposes, and do not contain only excluded educational content. The images in this deletion request meet these criteria, as they are media files, freely licensed or public domain as on my comments mentioned above, and serve an educational purpose by representing regional flags per COM:INUSE. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There was a similar CfD discussion where the nominator was the same, and the nominator's statement in the CfD was identical. The subject of the CfD is also similar—here it's the flags of cities and regencies in West Java, while in the previous case it was the flags of provinces in Indonesia. Therefore, the arguments for keeping the files in this nomination should be the same. The previous CfD closed with a 'clear consensus towards keep.' I suggest referring to that discussion. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wir haben hier auch ältere Kollegen, die damals schon dabei waren und selbst fotografiert haben. Ein Scan oder Reprofoto von einem alten Abzug mäßiger Qualität kann schon mal so aussehen. Ohne stichhaltige Beweise  Keep. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rechts und links oben sieht man etwas, das wie Raufasertapete aussieht. Demnach wäre das hier ein Fotos eines Abzugs, der irgendwo an der Wand hängt. Spricht nicht unbedingt für eigenes Werk. Ähnliches findet sich bei anderen Dateien des Benutzers. --Rosenzweig τ 19:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated flags; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host".

• File:Flag of Indonesia with the national emblem.svg
• File:War Flag of Indonesia.png

GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the designer of the first file and who made the category, I'm not against the nom. Bennylin (yes?) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nomination - Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Commons:Undeletion requests - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year!. --Missvain (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though.

• File:Flag of Aceh.png -> derivative work of coat of arms which specified in Peraturan Daerah No.39 tahun 1961 tentang Lambang Daerah Istimewa Aceh, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Bali.svg -> derivative work of coat of arms which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Bali Nomor 5/DPRD-GR/1966 Tahun 1968 tentang Lambang Daerah Propinsi Bali, not COPYVIO
• File:Bendera Kerajaan Buleleng.jpg -> unsourced
• File:Central java flag.png -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 13 (2) Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Jawa Tengah Nomor 9 Tahun 1984, not COPYVIO
• File:East Java Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Java.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Djawa Timur Nomor 3 Tahun 1966, not COPYVIO
• File:East Kalimantan Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Timur Nomor 2 Tahun 1965, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of East Nusa Tenggara.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Nusa Tenggara.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur Nomor 4 Tahun 1970 adalah tentang bentuk dan penggunaan lambang daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Aceh, Indonesia.svg -> derivative work of coat of arms which specified in Peraturan Daerah No.39 tahun 1961 tentang Lambang Daerah Istimewa Aceh, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Bangka-Belitung.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Bangka Belitung Islands.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Nomor 1 Tahun 2001 tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Kepulauan Bangka Belitung , not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Banten, Indonesia.svg -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 6 Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Banten Nomor 10 Tahun 2002 , not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Banten.png -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 6 Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Banten Nomor 10 Tahun 2002 , not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Bengkulu.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Bengkulu.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Bengkulu, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Bengkulu.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Bengkulu.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Bengkulu, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Central Java.svg -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 13 (2) Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Jawa Tengah Nomor 9 Tahun 1984, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Central Kalimantan.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Central Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Nomor 5 Tahun 1965, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Central Kalimantan.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Central Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah Nomor 5 Tahun 1965, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Central Sulawesi.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Central Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah Nomor 3 Tahun 1969 Tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Central Sulawesi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Central Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah Nomor 3 Tahun 1969 Tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of East Java.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Java.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Djawa Timur Nomor 3 Tahun 1966, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of East Kalimantan.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Timur Nomor 2 Tahun 1965, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of East Nusa Tenggara.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of East Nusa Tenggara.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur Nomor 4 Tahun 1970 adalah tentang bentuk dan penggunaan lambang daerah Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Gorontalo.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Gorontalo.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Gorontalo, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Gorontalo.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Gorontalo.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Gorontalo, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Highland Papua Province.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Highland Papua.png, serve as placeholder coat of arms, most likely not COPYVIO as it was mentioned in provincial offices before replace by official coat of arms.
• File:Flag of Jakarta (vectorised).svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Jakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah DKI Jakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 1963 tentang Lambang Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Jambi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Jambi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Jambi Nomor 52 Tahun 1969, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Jampaslandia (Fictional).png -> it is a fictional flag, so it's likely author own work and based of it's simplistic design may *not* be eligible for copyright protection, see Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Lampung.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Lampung.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Lampung Nomor 2 Tahun 1971, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Maluku.png -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 8 Peraturan Daerah (Perda) Provinsi Maluku Nomor 7 Tahun 2016 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Maluku.svg -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 8 Peraturan Daerah (Perda) Provinsi Maluku Nomor 7 Tahun 2016 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Kalimantan.png -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Lampiran II Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Utara Nomor 3 Tahun 2021 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Kalimantan.svg -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Lampiran II Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Utara Nomor 3 Tahun 2021 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Maluku.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Maluku.svg which specified in Lampiran VI Peraturan Gubernur Maluku Utara Nomor 41 Tahun 2022 Tentang Pakaian Dinas Aparatur Sipil Negara Di Lingkungan Pemerintah Provinsi Maluku Utara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Maluku.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Maluku.svg which specified in Lampiran VI Peraturan Gubernur Maluku Utara Nomor 41 Tahun 2022 Tentang Pakaian Dinas Aparatur Sipil Negara Di Lingkungan Pemerintah Provinsi Maluku Utara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Sulawesi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Sulawesi.svg which specified in Lampiran Peraturan Gubernur (Pergub) Provinsi Sulawesi Utara Nomor 33 Tahun 2020 tentang Pakaian dinas aparatur sipil negara di lingkungan pemerintah provinsi sulawesi utara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of North Sumatra.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Sumatra.svg which specified in Pasal 4 (l) Peraturan Daerah Sumatera Utara Nomor 5 Tahun 1993 tentang Lambang Dan Moto Daerah Propinsi Daerah Tingkat I Sumatera Utara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Papua 2.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Papua 2.svg which specified in Perda No.7 Tahun 1992, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Papua Barat Daya.png -> derivative work of File:Logo Papua Barat Daya1.png which specified in draft of Perda Lambang Daerah Papua Barat Daya, not COPYVIO but please delete because the quality is very poor
• File:Flag of Papua.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Papua 2.svg which specified in Perda No.7 Tahun 1992 tentang, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Province of Central Java.svg -> PD-NoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 13 (2) Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Jawa Tengah Nomor 9 Tahun 1984, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Riau Islands.png -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 4.3.b Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kepulauan Riau Nomor 1 Tahun 2005 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Riau Islands.svg -> PD-IDNoCopyright since it specified in Pasal 4.3.b Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kepulauan Riau Nomor 1 Tahun 2005 tentang Lambang Daerah, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Riau.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Riau.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Riau Province, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of South Kalimantan.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan Nomor 10 Tahun 1963, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of South Kalimantan.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan Nomor 10 Tahun 1963, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of South Sulawesi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Tingkat I Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 1972, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of South Sumatra (vectorised).svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Sumatra.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Sumatera Selatan No. 4/DPRDGR-55/1968, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Southeast Sulawesi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Southeast Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Gubernur Sulawesi Tenggara Nomor: 10 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pakaian Dinas Pegawai Negeri Sipil Di Lingkungan Pemerintah Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of the AGL Empire.svg -> it is a fictional flag, so it's likely author own work and based of it's simplistic design may *not* be eligible for copyright protection, see Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Java (vectorised).svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Java.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat Nomor 21 Tahun 1961, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Kalimantan.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Barat Nomor 4 Tahun 1964, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Nusa Tenggara.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Nusa Tenggara.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of West Nusa Tenggara Province, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Papua (vectorised).svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Papua.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah (Perda) Provinsi Papua Barat Nomor 2 Tahun 2006 tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Irian Jaya Barat, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Sulawesi.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Barat Nomor 8 Tahun 2006 Tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Barat, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Sulawesi.tif -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Barat Nomor 8 Tahun 2006 Tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Barat, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Sumatra.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms West Sumatera.png which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sumatera Barat No. 10 Tahun 1970, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Sumatra.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms West Sumatera.png which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Sumatera Barat No. 10 Tahun 1970, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Yogyakarta.svg -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Yogyakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta No. 3 Tahun 1969 tentang Lambang Daerah DIY, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Jakarta.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Jakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah DKI Jakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 1963 tentang Lambang Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, not COPYVIO
• File:Jakarta Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Jakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah DKI Jakarta Nomor 6 Tahun 1963 tentang Lambang Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, not COPYVIO
• File:Jambi flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Jambi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Jambi Nomor 52 Tahun 1969, not COPYVIO
• File:Lampung Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Lampung.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Lampung Nomor 2 Tahun 1971, not COPYVIO
• File:North Sulawesi Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Sulawesi.svg which specified in Lampiran Peraturan Gubernur (Pergub) Provinsi Sulawesi Utara Nomor 33 Tahun 2020 tentang Pakaian dinas aparatur sipil negara di lingkungan pemerintah provinsi sulawesi utara, not COPYVIO
• File:North Sumatra Flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of North Sulawesi.svg which specified in Lampiran Peraturan Gubernur (Pergub) Provinsi Sulawesi Utara Nomor 33 Tahun 2020 tentang Pakaian dinas aparatur sipil negara di lingkungan pemerintah provinsi sulawesi utara, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of Papua.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Papua 2.svg which specified in Perda No.7 Tahun 1992, not COPYVIO
• File:Papua indonesia flag 2.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Papua 2.svg which specified in Perda No.7 Tahun 1992, not COPYVIO
• File:Riau flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Riau.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Riau Province, not COPYVIO
• File:South East Sulawesi flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Bengkulu.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of Bengkulu, not COPYVIO
• File:South Kalimantan flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan Nomor 10 Tahun 1963, not COPYVIO
• File:South Sulawesi flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Sulawesi.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Tingkat I Sulawesi Selatan Nomor 2 Tahun 1972, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of South Sumatra.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of South Sumatra.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Propinsi Sumatera Selatan No. 4/DPRDGR-55/1968, not COPYVIO
• File:West Java flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Java.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Jawa Barat Nomor 21 Tahun 1961, not COPYVIO
• File:West Kalimantan flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Kalimantan.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Barat Nomor 4 Tahun 1964, not COPYVIO
• File:West Nusa Tenggara flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Nusa Tenggara.svg, specific regulation that regulate the coat of arms is not found yet, but coat of arms can be found on as letterhead of others regional regulation of West Nusa Tenggara Province, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of West Papua province.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of West Papua.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah (Perda) Provinsi Papua Barat Nomor 2 Tahun 2006 tentang Lambang Daerah Provinsi Irian Jaya Barat, not COPYVIO
• File:Flag of special region Yogyakarta.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Yogyakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta No. 3 Tahun 1969 tentang Lambang Daerah DIY, not COPYVIO but please delete it due to poor quality
• File:Yogyakarta flag.png -> derivative work of File:Coat of arms of Yogyakarta.svg which specified in Peraturan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta No. 3 Tahun 1969 tentang Lambang Daerah DIY, not COPYVIO

Adamant1 (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian provincial flag is really in use. See links below for evidence.

- https://regional.kompas.com/read/2020/11/25/17362011/jateng-jadi-provinsi-paling-informatif-ganjar-beberkan-kunci-suksesnya

- https://papua.inews.id/berita/provinsi-termuda-bendera-dan-lambang-pemprov-papua-barat-daya-diserahkan-kepada-mendagri

- https://seputarpapua.com/view/bendera-kontingen-npc-dikibarkan-di-stadion-mandala-jayapura.html

Ibrahim Muizzuddin (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim Muizzuddin: From what I understand there's only like 2 or 3 provinces that have official flags. The question with your evidence is if those particular flags were original or someone created them after they were uploaded to internet. If it's the later then they would still technically be fake, despite someone using them IRL. There's still the potential COPYVIO issues regardless anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I'd like to clarify a few points. According to Indonesian copyright law, any content derived from laws, acts, and regulations is not copyrighted and is therefore in the public domain. Since all coat of arms for provinces, cities, and regencies are stipulated in regional regulations, they fall under the public domain and are not subject to copyright. Therefore, the appropriate license for use on Commons would be Template:PD-IDNoCopyright.

Provincial or regional flags are essentially just the coat of arms placed on a square background, making them a derivative work based on a public domain image. As such, they cannot be considered a copyright violation.

Furthermore, some provinces or regions have specific regulations for their flags. Since these flags are explicitly mentioned in their respective regulations, they also fall under the public domain, are not subject to copyright, and can use PD-IDNoCopyright license. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete English wikipedia have removed many provincial flag from its infobox years ago, if you guys check any provincial website like this https://www.riau.go.id/ you can see the emblem but the flag are nowhere to be seen.

and also, why does so many of these flag suddenly becomes "own work" with creative commons license when it should be PD-IDGov if they're truly come from official sources?

If you guys want to delete those flags, there are others not mentioned yet in the above nomination :

File:Flag_of_Surabaya_City.png

File:Flag_of_Central_Papua_Province.svg

File:Flag of Highland Papua.svg

File:Flag_of_South_Papua_Province.svg

File:Flag_of_Tegal_City.png

File:Flag_of_Pekalongan_City.png

File:Flag_of_Southwest_Papua.svg

File:Flag of Batu City.png

File:Flag of Salatiga City.png

File:Flag of Madiun City.png

File:Flag of Kediri City.png

File:Flag of Magelang City.png

File:Flag of Mojokerto City.png

File:Flag_of_Semarang_City.png

File:Flag of Yogyakarta City.png

and everything in Category:Flags_of_cities_of_Indonesia

Afif Brika1 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There have been reports of ceremonial flags of provinces used by the governors since at least 2000. [4] [5]

For instance, here's a photo of the ceremonial Jakarta flag. [6] SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second link I meant [7] SVG-image-maker (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per SVG-image-maker. Most of these flags are really in use officially, particularly for sporting events like PON (Each 4-year Week national Games) and Perpanas (national paralympic games). If you want to see the further information, see here and you could see the information of example at Perpanas 2021 in Papua, with its photo. (https://seputarpapua.com/view/bendera-kontingen-npc-dikibarkan-di-stadion-mandala-jayapura.html). 103.111.100.82 08:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep As several other users have suggested, looking at some Indonesian local media, it appears that these provincial flags are actually being used. Therefore, the claim that these provincial flags are fictitious and not in actual use does not seem persuasive, and I believe that the original requestor made the request without being fully aware of this fact.
  It is also not reasonable to assume that the flag is not actually used just because it is not featured on the provincial government website. As you can see by looking at the provincial flags and emblems uploaded on the Commons, provincial flags were made using the same provincial emblems. Therefore, from the provincial government's perspective, flags that overlap with the emblem may be omitted without having to introduce them on their website.
  Lastly, regarding the COPYVIO issue, the writing of "own work" on flag files may simply be due to the file uploader's unfamiliarity with the Commons' license policy. As mentioned earlier, provincial flags use the same provincial emblem, so the problem can be solved by applying the {{PD-IDGov}} template currently applied to provincial emblem files.
  In conclusion, since this is an issue that can be sufficiently resolved by appropriately correcting the license template, there appears to be no need to delete these flag files. Lee6597 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, looking at the content written in the deletion request template, the original requestor made the mistake of misunderstanding the content of Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights as specified on {{PD-IDGov}}.
  According to Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights, “Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature” are included in “acts that are not considered as copyright infringement.”
  However, the original requestor misunderstood that "there should be no copyright infringement" in “Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature.”
  Therefore, if interpret this correctly, the COPYVIO issue can be solved by applying {{PD-IDGov}} to the flag files. Lee6597 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then prove it in case by case basis, your argument cannot be universally applied to all flag. For example, lets imagine a scenario where East Java flag truly exist with proof of photograph, it doesn't mean that the flag of Kediri City suddenly become real. Each case have to be proven, the burden is on the uploader to provide the proof of the flag existence. We have image description for a reason, the uploader have a responsibility to provide everything important in the description (using external link) and provide the correct license.

  
  

  As I've said before, English Wikipedia have removed flag of Indonesia subdivision from its infobox for years while the neighboring region like Malaysia and Thailand have flag. Yeah, the largest wikipedia are doubtful about the flag existence Afif Brika1 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am simply suggesting that there may not be a need to remove all flag files, and I am not the uploader of those flags. I don't have a responsibility of proving whether the flags are real or not. So words like "Then prove it" should be directed to the uploader, not me. While each case might need to be individually proven as you say, there may not necessarily be a need for those flag files, which have been verified to actually exist and be in real use, to be unconditionally removed. Lee6597 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Not sure how much to say it, but given that those flags are in use officially, especially for sporting events, those files don't necessary needed to remove (per COM:INUSE policy). If some of those flags aren't properly licensed, those flags should be relicensed as "PD-IDGov" instead of "own work". 2404:8000:1037:456:64FC:4FD6:E3A1:5353 10:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "given that those flags are in use officially" is not a proof, Wikimedia commons is not a place to store user generated image. Each case have to be proven in the description. And looks like most of them have "OWN WORK" license which are totally wrong. Afif Brika1 (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Afif Brika1 Wikimedia Commons does allow "own work" images, as long as they adhere to the platform's licensing rules and are properly documented. If the uploader created the image (such as a vector graphic representation of a flag based on a public domain design), they can rightfully use the "own work" license, provided the original design is in the public domain or freely licensed. You just contradicted yourself there. The 'own work' license is appropriate when the uploader recreates a public domain design, such as a national flag. The uploader is not claiming ownership of the flag's original design, but rather of the digital file they created based on that design. National and regional flags are typically in the public domain, allowing anyone to create and upload representations of them under the correct licensing. If this isn't deemed enough then the uploader should instead clarify, whish is solely enough. (see COM:INUSE) Kaliper1 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kaliper1: If I buy that these "flags" are based real government symbols then your actually wrong there. In fact, these "flags" wouldn't be the uploader's own work because they aren't sufficiently different from the original symbols to retain a separate copyright. Generally if someone just takes an exiting drawing and slaps a white border around it that's not enough for the person to be able to claim it's their own work. Although I still think a lot of these "flags" either don't exist to begin with or are embellished. But that's besides the point. They should be licesed as PD-IDGov if they end up staying on Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose you are correct in the context of whether it applies to own work or PD-IDGov. And that they aren't sufficiently different from the original symbols to retain a separate copyright. But wouldnt that mean it would still retain public domain via PD-Id? given its use through their original nature and no changes applied? (Though Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights. Point A.) Kaliper1 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No because these flags aren't sourced to government regulations. Ckfasdf's provided a link to general text document saying municipalities could make symbols, but that doesn't these particular flags exist and if they did we would need actual images of them in government regulations for them to qualify as PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The nominator and a user who supporting the deletion seems have a doubt that provincial flags are actually exist. If someone remember the National Regional Autonomy Day (Hari Otonomi Daerah Nasional) on April 26, 2023 in Makassar, they're actually have provincial flags in existence, and recently South Papua (sourced from Sorong News) and Southwest Papua (sourced from VoI) have the official flags, and these flags are submitted to Interior Ministry and used at many purposes, especially at Peparnas and PON. So, in regard of this, these files shouldn't be deleted (unless there are counterarguments that doubt the provincial flag's existence). 223.255.229.79 13:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  just because those flag exist, doesn't mean that ALL flag exist. Contributor have responsibility to provide sources in the DESCRIPTION.

  No sources in the description + Own Work License = FAKE, and should be deleted because real flag should be public domain under IDGOV template

  And it's weird how a lot of defender of these flag in this discussion are anonymous, I wonder if they're the same person

  Afif Brika1 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Commons is a collaborative effort; while it's true that contributors should strive to provide accurate information, if another user has better information, they are encouraged to correct it. Just because a contributor initially provides incorrect information doesn't mean the file is fake and should be deleted. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I believe @Adamant1: misunderstood the discussion on enwiki regarding the decision not to include provincial flags in provincial articles. The decision wasn't due to copyright issues or the absence of provincial flags, but rather because, at the time, we were unsure which flag images were official. In fact, there is currently a discussion on enwiki to verify those flags, with the possibility of reinstating them into the articles.

Additionally, he didn't review each flag individually on Commons, as some of them are already sourced from the exact regulations they originate from. For example, lets look up on File:Flag of North Kalimantan.svg, the source on that file already mentioned that the flag is based on Annex II of Regional Regulation of North Kalimantan Province No 3 Year 2021 (Lampiran II Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Kalimantan Utara Nomor 3 Tahun 2021).

Lastly, since provincial or regional flags are essentially just the coat of arms or emblems of their respective provinces or regions placed on a square background with specific colors—and unlike flags, ALL provincial or regional coat of arms are specified in official regulations—according to Article 42(b) of Indonesian copyright law, any product based on such regulations is not copyrighted and is considered to be in the public domain and Template:PD-IDNoCopyright should be used. Therefore, there cannot be a copyright violation if we simply place a coat of arms on a square background, as it would be a derivative work of a non-copyrighted image. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think provincial or regional coat of arms or emblems are covered by the template. Per the template "This file is come from results of open meetings of State-level institutions, law acts and regulations, orations of State or government officials, court decisions and judge provisions, and religious scriptures or symbols." How exactly did these flags "come from the results of open meetings when they aren't source to anything? Sure, you have that one example but the flag didn't come from it. Was created seperately and just included in the document. I think for it to qualify as PD we would need the government documents that it originated from as the source. More so with the ones that don't a source to begin with. Just because you came up a source for one of the forty images in the DR that doesnt mean the rest just get a pass.

As a side to that, while I agree that "if another user has better information, they are encouraged to correct it", it's on the uploader to provide a source for where they got the image from or what they based it on at thr time of upload. Its not on us to do that for them. Especially 13 years later. More then enough has passed for the uploader or anyone else to add the proper information. Its ridiculous to act like that's not a resonable enough time or that we should have to wait indefinitely for some other user to come along and add the information. There is a limit and 13 years is way past it. It's like the images were uploaded last week here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I believe the template is clear in stating that anything taken from a regulation is considered to be in the public domain, whether it is a coat of arms or a flag. In the case of the North Kalimantan, as mentioned earlier, the coat of arms is explicitly shown in Annex I of the regulation, and the provincial flag is shown in Annex II. Therefore, the {{PD-IDNoCopyright}} license applies to both the coat of arms and the provincial flag.

As for other provinces, there is an ongoing effort on enwiki to locate the regulations for each provincial flag.

It’s important to note that while all provinces, cities, and regencies in Indonesia have regional regulations governing their coat of arms, not all have specific regulations for their flags. This is likely because the requirement for flag regulations to accompany coat of arms was only established in 2007 through a government regulation. In any case, this still means all coat of arms are in the public domain, as explained above. Since flags are essentially the coat of arms placed on a square background, they are considered derivative works of public domain images. Therefore, no copyright violation exists, even if we are unable to locate specific regulations for the flags. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is an ongoing effort on enwiki to locate the regulations for each provincial flag. I'm aware. But again at least the images I checked were uploaded in 2011. So realistically how long should we wait for enwiki to do things on there end before deleting the images? It's not like they can't be undeleted in another 13 years when or if they find what they are looking for.

Therefore, no copyright violation exists, even if we are unable to locate specific regulations for the flags. Except we don't know what flags are actually based on the real ones or not without the regulations since the files don't have sources. So yes the specific regulations are kind of important to this even if you think they aren't. Otherwise there's no way to confirm which file is actually based on an exiting coat of arms and to what degree. It's just as possible that they were embellished and/or totally fabricated. We certainly don't just give the uploader the benefit of the doubt that an image is authentic if they don't provide a source. That's not how this works. Like if I look up "West Nusa Tenggara flag" on Google the top 10 or so results are just from Wikipedia and similar sites. That's not good enough. We need the specific regulations to confirm the authenticity of the original coat of arms that the flags are based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have assessed each flag in this DR and provided my comments next to each DR above. The general approach is as follows:

• If we can locate a specific regulation governing the provincial flag, the appropriate license is PD-IDNoCopyright. For example, this applies to the flags of Central Java, Banten, Maluku, North Kalimantan, and the Riau Islands
• If we cannot locate a specific regulation for the provincial flag, we will review the image itself. Since the flag is essentially just the coat of arms placed on a square background, we will look for the regulation governing the coat of arms, confirming that the coat of arms is PD-IDNoCopyright. As the coat of arms on the flag matches the one in the regulation, we can conclude that it is a public domain image placed on a square background, making it a derivative work of a public domain image. The majority of provincial flags fall under this category.
• If we cannot find a specific regulation on the coat of arms, we will search for other regulations issued by the province. Many older regulations, especially those issued before 2007, mention the coat of arms in their letterhead. This confirms that the coat of arms is PD-IDNoCopyright, as it is referenced in a regulation, even if it is not in a regulation specifically governing the coat of arms.

In all cases, I conclude that there is no copyright violation for any of the provincial flags mentioned in this DR. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are actually two fictional flags in DR, but even in those cases, they are simple images that may not meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you, even though the Flag has a source, whether through Gubernatorial Regulations, Mayor Regulations, Regional Regulations, etc. However, the detailed description also does not mention that the background, shield, colour, etc. are mostly not mentioned either. And most of the Provincial and Regency/City Flags are also mostly just patches of the Coat of Arms (included Bandung, because this flag has weakly source). Baqotun0023 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, those regulations actually do mention such details (background, shield, color, etc.). Please take a look at the regulations.

In the case of flag of Bandung, the flag regulations were specified in Surat Keputusan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Sementara Kota Besar Bandung, dated 8 June 1953, No. 9938/53, which makes it eligible for PD-IDNoCopyright. Additionally, since the flag consists of a simple design with three horizontal lines stacked on top of each other in different colors, it cannot be copyrighted as it does not meet the threshold of originality due to its simplicity. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per the comment above. Also, some flags in this category may actually be used in regional events or meeting, although it is difficult to ensure that there are regulations governing the use of provincial flags. Fazoffic (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Addition: Central Kalimantan has a flag that is actually used, and only you said that it is fake. Please see this picture: [8], [9], and [10]. At least it's better to have a less reliable reference, than to make a false claim without a source like "these [flag] fictional/completely fake", right? Fazoffic (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a false claim as far as flags without proof of existence are inherently fictional due to the nature of the thing. Just like Bigfoot is a mythical creature until someone can provide evidence that it's real. That's just how this, and life, works. If you don't have evidence that something exists then it's fake up until the point someone proves otherwise. If no one does that though, then something doesn't somehow magically become real just because a couple of rando IP editors in a DR on Commons say the thing exists. That's not how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Not to the closing admin. Someone editing my original nomination message to insert "sources" for the flags. But a lot of the "sources" just references to other files on Commons that are also user created and not sourced themselves. Either that or links are dead, go to random files on Google Drive, otherwise aren't authoritative, and/or are dead links. This whole thing seems to be circular and based on other user generated content that leads to either questionable files from Google Drive or dead links. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per clear consensus towards keep. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note in the main category there are no provincial flags of Indonesia. Making these fictional and/or completely fake. The status' of the flags are also extremely questionable since at least some of them come from websites with copyright notices. Whereas others are licensed as "own work" when in fact they are based on provincial shields. To make matters worse according to Template:PD-IDGov "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction of State emblems and national anthem in accordance with their original nature" and it's really clear if turning a State shield into a State flag would be in accordance with their original nature or not. I'd argue not since again, a lot of these are fake and/or based derivatives of derivatives that appear to be copyrighted to begin with. So the images should be deleted as OOS. As well as potentially COPYVIO. The main reason here being that it's pretty likely they are COPYVIO though. Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: COM:INUSE. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doch. Ich habe dieses Bild in Dez 2014 geommen, von einem Bild in der Versoehnungskapelle an der Bernauer Strasse. Brewer Bob (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewer Bob: Das ist kein eigenes Werk. Die Rechte liegen bei dem ursprünglichen Fotografen. Die Leute die das Bild dort aufgehängt haben, könnten Namen und Lebensdaten des Fotografen wissen. (Wird gemeinfrei 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod.) Dort könnte man vielleicht auch eine Version in besserer Qualität bekommen. (Und vielleicht noch ein paar andere.) Einfach mal nachfragen: https://gemeinde-versoehnung.de/impressum/ Wenn das Bild noch nicht gemeinfrei ist, könnte man es auf Wikipedia für den Artikel w:de:Versöhnungskirche (Berlin-Mitte) hochladen. --Watchduck (quack) 11:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination; photo of existing photo as stated by uploader above. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urheberrechtsverstoß. Offensichtlich kein eigenes Werk, sondern abfotografiert oder ähnliches. axel (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doch! Ich habe dieses Bild in Juni 1980 genommen. Brewer Bob (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 06:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Michelle Thomas photo.jpg is fair-use, "Google" cannot be creator of this photo WindEwriX (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata says screenshot, doubt this is users own work Mewhen123 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above, unlikely to be own work. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the PD release at source -- DaxServer (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no Freedom of panorama in Estonia Wkentaur (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, no COM:FOP Estonia. The building was completed in 2012 [11]. Consigned (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 06:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio. Image cropped from an instagram link, no indication the original photo was CC Anonimu (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: This appears to be a copyright violation, as there is no indication at the source that the original photographer has agreed to the specified license. —RP88 (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]