User talk:GRuban/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Clara Sosa on FarangDay.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Clara Sosa on FarangDay.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Paul_012 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Converted to deletion discussion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clara Sosa on FarangDay.jpg --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

More images

Hi! I'm back again! I need your help to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded today, also have a CC license. I have brightened those pictures as you gave the instructions to me before. Thank you.–Fandi89 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hafiz Hamidun
    Hafiz Hamidun
  • Amira Othman
    Amira Othman
✓ Done - and good job finding and uploading good free images! Thank you! --GRuban (talk)


License review needed - Lukewon

Hi GRuban! I saw this images uploaded by Dimma21 needs some verification on license review section, p.s. some of the images below just uploaded by me as well. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Please help us for the license review, Thank you before...--Lukewon (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, accepted all but the last one. Do you want to try again with File:Astrid Ellena.jpg, the crowning, though? It's a fuzzy and shaky video to start with, but first, it's only a 480px video (click on the gear Settings icon, then Quality) and you cropped it further for the image, yet you still uploaded an image at 1,388 × 1,889 pixels, so most of the pixels aren't actually in the image but just made up from interpolation, that only makes it fuzzier. I'd try to aim for resizing the video to closer to 480px in height (there are several free screen rulers out there to help you count pixels, https://www.arulerforwindows.com/ is just one) before taking the screenshot. (Many of your next ones like File:Karenina Sunny Halim.jpg have similar sizing problems.) Second, you got a moment where her eyes are basically closed, and the microphone is not adding anything. Maybe 10:04 would be better? --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to document the process - I thought a bit before accepting the images of photographs from the RCTI video like File:Karenina Sunny Halim - Miss Indonesia 2009.jpg; I'm normally suspicious of videos of photographs, as that often indicates the photographs were taken by someone other than the video maker, but in this case, RCTI seems to be a major Indonesian television network of over 30 years, that apparently was the official network filming all the Miss Indonesia contests at the time, so I'm willing to believe they had all kinds of images of the event. --GRuban (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GRuban for your info, Miss Indonesia owner Liliana Tanoesoedibjo is the wife of Hary Tanoesoedibjo, one of the richest Indonesian businessman and politician, also the founder and owner of MNC Group (Media Nusantara Citra) itself, which include RCTI TV channel, Miss Indonesia and many subsidiaries; Miss Indonesia is aired on RCTI since it's debut, the pageant itself was organized by MNC Group.--Lukewon (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Even better! --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, changing the shoot of File:Astrid Ellena.jpg at 10:04, once again Thank you so much GRuban!--Lukewon (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
You don't want to take the screenshot at a smaller resolution? --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok I will upload it on the smaller resolution... By the way, can I ask you about this image on flickr for our Putri Raemawasti, Is it this image allowed to be shared on wiki commons? cause it's appear on the All creative commons list of when I'm typing Putri Raemawasti on flickr--Lukewon (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

−

No, it's under a non-commercial license, the second icon there: Creative Commons Attribution iconCreative Commons Noncommercial icon. Even though Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons aren't commercial, we do allow everyone, including commercial companies, to use our content, so we can't allow non-commercial licensed content. More details at Commons:Where_is_the_license_on_various_sites?#Flickr. You want to use the "Commercial use & mods allowed" dropdown in that license list on Flickr to find images we can use. Meanwhile, you can try and send the Flickr user an email (by going to his user page then clicking on the letter icon, or directly at https://www.flickr.com/mail/write/?to=13677626@N00), where you would ask him to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike, then we'd be able to use the image. I do that occasionally and my success rate is 10%-20%, so not something that I count on, but sometimes successful. --GRuban (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah I see, Thanks for your detail information GRuban. By the way, down below I upload some new images that needs license verification (the details of reference already mentioned there on each page). Hope It's verified smoothly, Thanks before GRuban for your hardwork!👍 --Lukewon (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - same comments about image size apply though. File:Cinthia Kusuma Rani Miss Earth.jpg is 2,342 pixels in height, while the video you took it from is only 720p. That means that it's 3 times as big vertically and similarly horizontally as it should be. 8 out of 9 pixels are made up. And File:Belinda Pritasari Basaruddin Jacobsen.jpg - here there is an actual image that is 1080p in height, you don't gain anything by making it twice as large. Every time you increase the size of something and then decrease it again, you lose precision, if you did that a few hundred times you would eventually have a brownish grey blob. I'd recommend you upload the actual image (maybe someone will want a picture of the beauty queen with the government officials?), then use CropTool to make another version with just the subject you want. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will find a time for me to fix it. By the way I'm just find this image File:Miss USVI - Esonica Veira.jpg uploaded on 28 May 2018 but then I saw that image before on her instagram uploaded at November 13, 2017. I think this image should be nominated for deletion. But THANKS GRuban for your license check! You did a great job! --Lukewon (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree - go ahead! I mean, I can do it, but it's good practice. Click the "Nominate for deletion" link, in the window that pops up (you can drag the corner to make it larger, or just type something short, then go to the created request page and expand on what you wrote in a separate edit), write that you found this link, it's a professional, posed image, low resolution, no EXIF, and here it is on her Instagram page, several months earlier, so it's probably a copyright violation. When you, I'll support you, though it shouldn't be necessary, it's a pretty clear cut case. It will get almost certainly deleted in somewhere between a few days and a few months, probably a couple of weeks. --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done - Hi GRuban, finally I'm nominating the image for deletion, please check on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss USVI - Esonica Veira.jpg By the way, 👍 Thank you so much for your guidance, you really helped a lot...--Lukewon (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, I'm back with this images (both raw and cropped) from government websites (source stated in every images page). Please help me for the license review, Thank you before...--Lukewon (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - I have to say though, many seemed a bit redundant for our purposes. Beauty queens sitting behind a desk with government officials. Same beauty queens behind same desk with same government officials, 5 seconds later. Same beauty queens behind same desk with same government officials, 10 seconds later. I can't imagine an encyclopedia article, or any article, really, that wants more than one of those, can you? I personally would have picked one and let the others go.--GRuban (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

But I was uploading the images so I can use that in KPAI wikipedia in Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Jawa and some politician that appear on the image as their activities gallery. But You can nominated some image for deletion if it's looks similar. Thanks once again GRuban for helping me!--Lukewon (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, I'm uploading this images (both raw and cropped) from government websites (source stated in every images page). Please help me for the license review, Thank you before GRuban...--Lukewon (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow. She's a beauty pageant winner, a member of the royal family, a talk show host, has two children, is married to a prince, and is a COVID-19 researcher? --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban Thanks a lot for your hard work, so sorry for my late response, a bit busy in real life. But Thank You once again for always helping me! And about your question yes she is a beauty pageant titleholder, she won Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan 2010 (Miss International Indonesia 2011), then she married with a Prince from Surakarta Sunanate and that is how she become the royal member of the Surakarta Sunanate family, she has 2 children’s now. She is holding her master degree as a forensic doctor, she is also the former leader of IDI (Ikatan Dokter Indonesia or “Association of Indonesian Doctors”). She is known after doing some research together with government, especially about forensic studies on the victims that missing during SUKOI plane crash. Since 2013 she is having her own talkshow “Dr. Oz Indonesia” which inspired from the same American Talkshow “Dr. Oz” since then she receive a lot of popularity, she has been followed by million followers, and lastly she was chosen as the head of communication and researcher for Indonesian COVID-19 task force, chosen by the president Joko Widodo, she was appear everyday on national TV to speak about the daily cases and daily research that she is doing together with the government team from the Indonesian Ministry of Health. This all informations you can find it on the stated references on her wikipedia page. Once again Thank you so much GRuban for helping me! —Lukewon (User talk:Lukewon|talk]]) 01:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, I'm back with this images from the images (both raw and cropped) from government websites and Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed and source stated in every images page). Please help me for the license review, Thank you before...--Lukewon (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, User:Leoboudv did the last few, most OK, two nominated for deletion. --GRuban (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

public domain/CCA image:

  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • Done
    Done
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed
  • need reviewed
    need reviewed

"image with "Template:PD-IDGov/en conflict:"

Whoops, I was sure I marked that one. It was memorable, too, since it was rotated! Done now. I'm less sure about the second one, File:Alya Rohali Together With Alicia Machado Miss Universe 1996 and Indonesian First Lady Siti Hartinah.jpg. It's clearly a scanned newspaper photo (black and white and grainy), so I'm not sure it is necessarily a government work. I also found it at https://m.brilio.net/brilistyle/selebritis/10-potret-lawas-alya-rohali-ini-bukti-cantiknya-awet-hingga-kini-1905162.html where it is credited to "Instagram/@arohali". I looked for it at https://www.instagram.com/arohali/ (to see if there it has more details on where the image came from), but gave up after paging down a few times - that has a LOT of images. If you can find something that says it's a government image, maybe on that Instagram account, I'll mark it, but otherwise I think it's too doubtful. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated question about image sizes. First, File:Maria Selena Nurcahya as 2016 Pekan Olahraga Nasional Press Secretary.jpg - I found a larger version of the same image (from the province's Twitter feed), and uploaded it, as I thought you just didn't see that one. But then File:Ika Fionda Putri For Asian Games 2018 Torch Relay Ceremony.jpg, which is also from Twitter - I see you initially uploaded a larger version, then 4 minutes later uploaded a smaller version? Why? --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, on gallery above I tried to separate the free copyright images (from twitter, facebook and youtube only) with the others that having a Conflict with "Template:PD-IDGov/en", so you can review it easily and delete the unsorted one. Thank You before..--Lukewon (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

File:TrumpSC streaming.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:TrumpSC streaming.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: source does not hold copyright, therefore CC license does not apply
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : BriefEdits.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

License review needed - Fandi89

Hi GRuban, can you help verify the following images below. Its a screenshot also taken from MeleTOP on YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Thank you in advance.—Fandi89 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm back, hope you're not bored with me, can you help verify the license for the following images below. Thank you.–Fandi89 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done--GRuban (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping verify the license before. I need your help again to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded, which also have a CC license. Thank you.–Fandi89 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Shalma Eliana
    Shalma Eliana
  • Wani Kayrie
    Wani Kayrie
  • Shakilla Khoriri
    Shakilla Khoriri
✓ Done Note partly for myself; I was unsure about the last one, File:Shakilla Khoriri on Let's Du-it 2016.jpg, because it's a low-audience YouTube channel while this is clearly a professional video. But it is the only place I can find anything about the TV3 “Let's Du-it” Malaysian Financial reality show, and https://www.facebook.com/letsduitmy/ does link to it, and it does seem dedicated to that one, so I'll accept it. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, thanks for your explaination regarding this. And I'm back, can you verify these pictures below, also from MeleTOP and has a Creative Commons Attribution license (reused allowed). Hope you can brightened these pictures as well. Thank you in advance.–Fandi89 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. FYI, the co-host with Nabil is Sharifah Sakinah (her pictures is in below), who is a Malaysian actress and comedian, and has been involved in a lot of controversies as far as I know. There is her article on ms.wiki. I think there are also have her videos on MeleTOP which also have a CC license. Hope this satisfy you!.— Fandi89 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban!, can you help verify the following images below. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) from MeleTOP. Please help us for the license review, Thank you...–Fandi89 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fad Bocey
    Fad Bocey
  • Sharifah Sakinah
    Sharifah Sakinah

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban!, I'm back, can you help verify the following images below. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) from MeleTOP. Please help us for the license review, Thank you...–Fandi89 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - but for the Nabila Razali screenshot, do you want one just a few seconds before or after when she's looking forward instead of to the side? --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think for her screenshot, I want just a few seconds after she looking forward. But, can you help brightened these pictures because it seems a little bit darker when I upload them. Thank you in advance.–Fandi89 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Brightened Sufian Suhaimi and Aisyah Aziz images - am now thinking I may have overdone it on Aziz, what do you think? I use Microsoft Photos, which should be a free download or even already included on most Windows machines, maybe you want to try to adjust it to your preference? --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Seems better!.–Fandi89 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, can you help verify the following images below. Its a screenshot also taken from MeleTOP on YouTube with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Thank you in advance.–Fandi89 (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

License review needed - Dimma21

Hi GRuban!, can you help verify the following images below. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) from Netmediatama, RCTI Official and MNC Newsroom. Please help us for the license review, Thank you before... Dimma21 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban! Thank you for helping verify the license before. I need your help again to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded, which also have a CC license. Thank you. Dimma21 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban! Thank you for helping verify the license before. I need your help again to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded, which also have a CC license. Thank you. Dimma21 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I need to ask about this one, File:Revalina S. Temat Dikejar Brondong RCTI.jpg - this looks like a clip from a film - "Dikejar Brondong (Mega Sinema 8 Apr)"?. I can't find out very much about it, but that's possibly because I don't understand the language. RCTI is a television network. Is this a film that RCTI made? Or is this a film by an unrelated movie company that RCTI is just showing the clip for? Because television networks do sometimes show films, without having made them. If you could show a link to some article that says something like "Dikejar Brondong is a television movie made by RCTI" I can approve it. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"Dikejar Brondong" is a title for "Mega Sinema" (television film or FTV as in Indonesia) which is an in-house program aired on RCTI. One website explained about the program is in here (which is a show review), where it says that "Mega Sinema Dikejar Brondong ini adalah salah satu tayangan RCTI yang mempertemukan antara Revalina S Temat dengan Essa Sigit..." (translate: "Mega Sinema Dikejar Brondong is one of RCTI shows which brought together Revalina S Temat and Essa Sigit..."). The show is produced under PT. MNC Pictures (also written in that website on the below page), which produced all the drama, non-drama, soap opera and television film programs that aired on all television network under MNC Group (explained here on MNC Pictures website). Hope this satisfy your question. Dimma21 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It does, thank you; added to description, and accepted. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban!, can you help verify the following images below. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Please help for the license review, Thank you before... Dimma21 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban! Thank you for helping verify the license on the previous one. I need your help again to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded, which also have a CC license. Thank you. Dimma21 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban! Thank you for helping verify the license on the previous one. I need your help again to review and verify the license for the images below that I uploaded, which also have a CC license and PD-ID-Gov. Thank you. Dimma21 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
File:Didi Petet, Indonesian Actor on February 2015.jpg I'm not sure about. It's a low resolution image, and it seems to be on a background of something reading "THE PROJE..." and to have a watermark reading "a 700 pro..." (both possibly "project") in the upper right corner. I can't read the source page very well, but I don't see anything about a 700 project in it; the page is about an Indonesian actor in Milan, Italy, so why the photo would use English words isn't obvious. I suspect this of being a photo from some other source the government web page is just using. Can you read the page and check if that seems likely, or explain why that is, in fact, a government photo of the actor, probably in Milan? --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The page mainly informs about West Java Province to be presented in "Indonesian Pavilion" on Expo Milano 2015, and Didi Petet as the chairman/director of Indonesia Pavilion gives the statement regarding the matters. But, the image in the article, sadly, only to show Didi Petet (not related to the article). Didi, on the image, is in the gala premiere of Catatan (Harian) Si Boy, the movie in which Didi also acts. The movie is produced by 700 Pictures (the 700 in the background is written "a 700 Pictures Production"). I tried to find the similar image on Google but didn't find it so i presume that the image is only owned by West Java Provincial Government. But, if you find it doubtful, deleting that image would be okay for me. Thanks Dimma21 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Ony Syahrial Ini Talkshow Netmediatama.jpg also worries me, but for a different reason. This is a picture of a voice actor with Dwarfism and a puppet that he does the voice for? The picture of the actor is fine, but I can imagine someone could nitpick and say that the puppet is copyrighted. Unless it's a puppet owned by Netmediatama? There is some argument that the main focus of the image is the actor, and the puppet is Commons:De minimis, but it's very debatable, the puppet does take a big chunk of the image. I'll approve it for now, between that and not really knowing whether Mediatama owns the puppet, but it's possible that people who want to be strict (or who don't like you!) will ask that you blur or crop out the part of the image with the puppet. Or you could try to look for a different frame that just has the person. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done, I think. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The puppet is actually a character named "Enchan" (somewhat like Crayon Shin-chan) of the Netmediatama program Bukan Sekedar Wayang (prove from the show on Netmediatama Youtube) while Ony is the voice-actor of Indonesian dubbed Crayon Shin-chan anime for 20 years (you can read his Wikipedia article). The reason to put Ony and the puppet is to depict both on frame since Ony in Indonesia is well-known as voice-actor/dubber of Shin-chan (he even appears on Japanese television). Hope this clarify the matter – Dimma21 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's a great help. We should probably put as much on the image, so someone doesn't claim Netmediatama doesn't own the rights to the puppet. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban, please help for the license review of these images, from YouTube (CC-licensed) and government websites/official YouTube with PD-IDGov license (source stated in every images page). Thanks. – Dimma21 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimma21 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Stephanie Hill, whom we didn't have an image of!
✓ Done - also, let me show you a trick. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does. You got File:Miss World and Continental Queens 2017 with Miss Indonesia 2017 visited National Museum of Indonesia.jpg from https://kebudayaan.kemdikbud.go.id/munas/wp-content/uploads/sites/58/2018/02/UJG_4049-1024x678.jpg, right? Try removing the last numbers from that link and see if you can get a larger version, so: https://kebudayaan.kemdikbud.go.id/munas/wp-content/uploads/sites/58/2018/02/UJG_4049.jpg That is not such a big deal if you want to display the whole image in the article, but makes a big difference if you want to crop to just a small part of it, as in the image at right! --GRuban (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh great.. thanks for the tips, it really means a lot. I need your help again to verify these images, which from the Government websites. Thanks - Dimma21 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - most approved, the last one nominated for deletion (original is from a university), several renamed (they're from 2016, not 2019 - honestly, I personally usually don't put the date in the filename, but I don't know any specific rules about it either way). --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm agree on the deletion, sorry i didn't check further on the image. As for the date written on filename it's my mistake for writing it wrong but it's my habit to write year of the event on filename. Anyway, thanks for correcting my mistake. I need your help again to review these images, which has PD-IDGov license. Thanks. - Dimma21 (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi GRuban!, can you help verify the following images below. It's all a screenshots of the Youtube video with Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed). Please help for the license review, Thank you before... - Dimma21 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Cheryl Kerfeld and Markus Sutter at Berkeley Lab's Advanced Light Source.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Cheryl Kerfeld and Markus Sutter at Berkeley Lab's Advanced Light Source.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

MER-C 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Michele Fiore image

Hello! The changes which [suggested] on December 22, 2020 have been completed as of December 28, 2020. Please let me know if anything else is require to move forward. Thank you!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Michele_Fiore_by_Stealth_Reporter.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.120.204.66 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Image steal from google, pls delete!

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 180.247.36.115 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catriona Gray Miss Universe 2018.jpg. Technically the image is from US Magazine or Fox, Google is just a search engine. --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigation for Fake license image, nominated for deletion

Hi since you're license reviewer on your bio-page, I want you to review this image and nominated for deletion! File:Margarita_Margie_Moran_Floirendo_Miss_Universe_1973_EUTification_Photography_Philippines_18_September_2019_(3).jpg

This newly-created user was uploading the image in wiki after Margarita Moran-Floirendo upload it on her own instagram account (link: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2qf0BwHDJZ/) uploaded on date:2019-09-21 time:06:57:37.000Z UTC time (how to check the exact hour on instagram? I'm using the inspect method on my Computer browser, by blocking the date SEPTEMBER 21, 2019 that shown on the exact instagram post and then inspect the page, you can follow this instruction online->link: https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-see-the-exact-time-someone-posted-a-picture-on-Instagram) turns out, the instagram post was upload earlier than this wiki image uploaded on date:2019-09-21 time:07:59 UTC times.

If It's not enough, the more clear and HD resolution (2666 × 4000 pixels) was upload here->link: https://metro.style/culture/art-theatre/at-the-golden-age/17553 with Seven Barretto (link: https://www.studio7manila.com/) as the real photographer. Please delete this image.xxx — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 180.247.36.115 (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, thank you. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, GRuban (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm notifying myself. It happens! --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Relationship between Berita RTM and OneNews?

@Fandi89, Lukewon, Dimma21, and I Nyoman Gede Anila: - My Indonesian and Malaysian friends, I have a video copyright question for you for a change! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweA8U-ngc0 is a video on the OneNews YouTube channel about Francisca Luhong James. It includes some still photos, which I'm wary of, but from 0:28-1:10, it has an interview with her. The interview is pretty clearly by Berita RTM (from the logo on the wall and on the microphone), which we have an article about, and that article doesn't mention OneNews, so I thought it isn't really owned by OneNews. However! Our article Berita RTM says it is owned by Radio Televisyen Malaysia - and that RTM article, towards the bottom, mentions that RTM also owns OneNews, and displays the OneNews logo used on the YouTube channel. Can any of you please confirm or deny that OneNews and Berita RTM are very different companies, or very closely related companies? Ideally, can you point to a published news article somewhere that says so, one way or the other? Because if they're closely related, then maybe OneNews can release Berita RTM interview videos, but if they're not, then they probably can't. --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@GRuban: FYI, both OneNews (we have its Wikipedia page before, but was redirected to RTM page; read here) and Berita RTM (read here) are entities owned by Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM), a Malaysian public broadcaster (they have many of policies and restrictions). OneNews is an over-the-top TV services which its basic features are news, interest-based, interactive, exclusive, compact and compact news releases. One News also provides documentary, agriculture programming, info society and places to visit for tourists, while Berita RTM is a 24-hour news channel specialized on news and current affairs, just like OneNews, while it helps to combatting the so-called fake news. I assumed that both of these entities are under RTM.–Fandi89 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GRuban: Since i'm in Indonesia, i don't know much about relation between OneNews and RTM. But i find this article here (Web Archive from its original page), which mention that 1News (is it the same as OneNews?) is RTM alternative news channel that serve online on its website. But i have a doubt since the website mention in the article (http://1news.rtm.gov.my/, which inactive) is different from OneNews website (http://www.onenews.my/, are they moved?), and also the latter website it doesn't used RTM web domain as the other RTM subsidiary has. Another doubt is that on its Twitter account, the email address mention is GMail (which is odd because RTM is a state-owned media, so they should have their own email address rather than use free email services). So, in my opinion both entities may be under RTM (if 1News and OneNews is the same) or not (if not the same). But, i think it's better to have our Malaysian friends to confirm it. That is from me, hope it helps. – Dimma21 (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
As I have mentioned earlier, I confirmed that both OneNews and Berita RTM are under RTM (with news article provided at my first comment) patronage.–Fandi89 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi GRuban Its a BIG NO for me, there is no reliable references supporting that OneNews are subsidiary or company under RTM, I try to look for the article both in Bahasa Malay and English but sadly couldn't find anything, even article about RTM itself on Wikipedia was not covered with reliable references, they only linked their own blog page. But based on my research Onenews seems not to be a reliable and non-notable organization, it is more like a blog news that always re-use or stealing so many photos and videos without mentioning the copyright credits to the owner as their blog references. As you can see on their video here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdUesffR2P4 on 0:13, find it on other reference posted earlier under the name of the Creator:AGUNG SUPRIYANTO who work for AFP-Agence France-Presse a news agency from France (Copyright under AFP or licensors) as stated here which it's obvious copyrights violation and many other videos and photos they are upload it under Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) is totally fake and was not even the same way in reality. Some more if the content they uploaded is more like a blog that they created by mixing photos and videos, it might be hard to detect which one is the Creative Commons use, It's very impossible that all of those came from Creative Commons use. I suggest you to find another trusted Youtube channel or any other reference, rather than using untrusted and non-notable channel like this, It's too risky.--Lukewon (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

File:USAIBC2010 Medalist MG 5462-63.jpg

File:USAIBC2010 Medalist MG 5462-63.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

FASTILY 04:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THIS 3 IMAGES It's obvious Copyright violation!!!

PLEASE DELETE THIS 3 IMAGES It's obvious Copyright violation!!! and block this violator Sirika karipoon! this images was not a free commons images at all!! It was uploaded so many years/weeks before he uploaded on commons.wikimedia.org.

please delete all of this images and block the violator.--180.253.163.254 13:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't panic, please. (Writing with many CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points tends to give the impression of great excitement.) Those images actually seem to be the same resolution as the versions uploaded here, not greater resolution. I do agree they are sufficient evidence that we should probably nominate the images you have listed for deletion, so will do so. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sirika karipoon I won't be able to block the violator myself, not being an administrator. Though I see you also wrote this message to User:Gbawden, who, I guess could, though I don't know if he will - these are Sirika karipoon's only uploads. Thank you for your help. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Review request

Hi. Can you check these two? I will continue to new uploads from same source depending on it. Thanks in advance. --Facundofereyra (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done - Nice, thanks! This seems to be a fine source, the official channel of a large agency, I think we can trust they own these videos, and have the rights to release them. But especially if you want to use these as a model, could you include a bit more information than just the name of the subject, and an abbreviation of the source name? TBF could mean anything, and it would be nice if we had a description of the context of the image, so if we get several images of Melis Gulcan, we'll know something about each. Also, the "attribution" clause of Creative Commons Attribution normally includes a link when the copyright owner provides it; in this case there seem to be four or so, and we probably don't need to include them all, but we should include the first at least. You can use the Turkish language, with the tr description tag, English is not required. I know zero Turkish, but I can copy and paste from the YouTube video, to make things more clear, take a look at what I added in this diff. If there were more descriptions in the videos, or if you can describe it even better from what you understand of what is said in the videos (is this a speech, an interview, something else?), that would be good too. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in the second one I already wrote Turkish Basketball Federation instead of TBF. And I will add more details about the topics in the new ones. Thanks --Facundofereyra (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

Hello GRuban! Can you check this image? I will continue to new uploads from same source depending on it. File:Göksel Gümüşdağ.jpg. Thank you. Robingunes (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robingunes: I think this is probably good; it's a large channel, with associated website, so I can believe it can make a professional quality interview video. But especially if you want to upload other images from the same source, can you explain what the "İnanç" label that shows up at 0:04 means? It seems to be someone's name, but the channel is beIN SPORTS Türkiye, so that's not it, and the person they're interviewing is from İstanbul Başakşehir Futbol Kulübü, so that's not it, and I can't see that label in a few other videos from the same channel that I looked at. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your review @GRuban: . İnanç means "belief" or "faith". Robingunes (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Robingunes: Thank you - why would it be a label on the video, though? The other images that show up describe the video, there is the emblem of the Başakşehir football club, for example. I'm just trying to dispel any chance that this is actually a video filmed by some person or company named İnanç. Sometimes that happens on YouTube, videos filmed by one person are uploaded to another's channel; that doesn't seem to be the case here, but if you could explain the label, that would help. Is the interview talking a lot about someone's faith or belief, for example, or is that the motto of the football club or ... ? --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indonesian government copyright images deletion request

@Lukewon and Dimma21: Template:PD-IDGov says ... "There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: ...

Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made;"

A recent Deletion Request drew my attention to the bolded part of that sentence, and these two older deletion requests: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jusuf Kalla official.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joko Widodo official.jpg - confirmed that the simple copyright statement at the bottom of many, probably most, .go.id websites, qualifies as such a statement. That makes it different from the Template:PD-USGov that I have been used to, which doesn't have that bolded part, and we happily upload US Federal government images with copyright statements, because those copyright statements are invalid; not so for Indonesian government images. I haven't been looking for that statement, and really should be. My fault, and apologies.

I'm going to make a list of all the .go.id images that I Commons:License reviewed, and uploaded, that come from websites with such a statement, and nominate them in one large deletion request. This won't be quite all the PD-IDGov images, since at least some definitely come from Indonesian government Twitter and Facebook pages that don't have such a copyright notice, so should still be good, and maybe there are some .go.id websites that don't have a copyright statement. But this will be many of them.

The list will be User:GRuban/IdGov deletion request, and it will take me some time to make it. Again, very sorry. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

GRuban I saw you are tagging me here on the copyright discussion, so my question would be..

1. how if the image was posted on social media like instagram (without copyright watermark)? is it possible to upload it on commons? But like this one File:Elfin Pertiwi Rappa for Ministry of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia.jpg are from government instagram and but has watermark so is it okay?
2. How if the page wasn't following the current year (2021)? like this one for example Copyright @2015-2020 Pemerintah Provinsi Sumatera Selatan on https://www.sumselprov.go.id/web so is it okay too?
3. I don't get it why wikimedia just mentioning 3 points out of 5 original points on Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on copyrights as you can see here there is 5 points in detail, why not to mentioned all on wikimedia?--Lukewon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1 - should be OK according to my reading of the license. I'm less than 100% sure of that now, due to this mess! - but if that PD-IdGov template means anything, it should apply. According to Google translate, the watermark Pusat Humas Kemnaker just says "Ministry of Manpower's Public Relations Center", which is not a copyright claim, and the Instagram photo page has text on it, so it's not as if they were physically unable to put a copyright claim there.
2 - I don't really know what the date-span on the copyright statement means, but I wouldn't be so sure it means that it expired in 2020, unless you can find a statement that say so. I would think it may still be copyrighted.
3 - you'll have to ask the person who made the template. Maybe they think those 3 points are the only ones that apply for Commons purposes? --GRuban (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks for your explanation for point 1. But for point 2, I thought all the copyright of the website is the same, like this website https://bnpb.go.id/ (©2017-2021) means the copyright applies from the beginning (first publication) of the website created on 1 January 2017 until the last 31 December 2021 was protected by copyright, but it might be changed once they updated the copyright license for website to the end of this year (2021), so the image would not be permanent for Commons once they claim for copyright update. But some page even was not update their copyright license for almost 10 years like this one on http://djpen.kemendag.go.id/ (©2011). For point 3, I realized why not all 5 points can be applied in commons because some points like in no. 3 here states that "it is permissible to take actual news, either in whole or in part from news agencies, broadcasting institutions, and newspapers or other similar sources provided that the source must be fully stated"; and now I know why some of the pictures on the Indonesian Wikipedia like this can easily use images from all sources you can find online as long as the source is stated on the wiki and of course it does not work here in commons.--Lukewon (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, GRuban Thanks for giving me "The Tireless Barnstar Contributor", it really means a lot to me!--Lukewon (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
For 2, I found it. Copyright 2017-2021 means the range of dates that the content of the website was updated, so some of the content was created in 2017, some of it was in 2021. So the 2021 is marking the start of the copyright clock, not its end. Here is the exact question, here are some more authoritative sources: [1][2] --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
So what should we do now GRuban? "Copyright 2017-2021 means the range of dates that the content of the website was updated, so some of the content was created in 2017, some of it was in 2021. So the 2021 is marking the start of the copyright clock, not its end." so does it means that the content before 2021 is okay to be uploaded on commons? --Lukewon (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I think it means that content is copyrighted and not suitable for Template:PD-IDGov. Sorry. I think the actual year is mostly a technicality, I think the claim of copyright is sufficient. Thank you very much for your list, I'll turn it into a deletion request, probably today or tomorrow. In the end, the closing administrator will decide, of course. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

😭 Still wondering what is the image that can be uploaded with Template:PD-IDGov. is it just from government social media accounts and only website without copyright? how about if the image included some notable minister? since the Point 3 (Point C) from Article 43 of Law 28 of 2014 on template:PD-IDGov copyrights says ... “There shall be no infringement of Copyright for: Reproduction, Publication, and/or Distribution of Portraits of the President, Vice President, former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, National Heroes, heads of State institutions, heads of ministries/nonministerial government agencies, and/or the heads of regions by taking into account the dignity and appropriateness in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations...” Therefore if the image files are showing government members and There will be no Copyright infringement for this kind of image right??? Lukewon (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that applies just to pictures of the government officials, not pictures of the officials with other people. But yes, it looks like portraits of government officials should be OK even with a copyright notice. --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah I see.. How about this video on government YouTube channel like this one. can be screenshot as image and upload on commons? even the video doesn't have Fair Use - Copyright alert?--Lukewon (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for image retouched

Hi GRuban, can you help retouched/brightened these pictures below as it seems slightly darker. Thank you in advance.–Fandi89 (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done, also license reviewed the first two. However, they weren't that bad, some of the changes are quite minor. --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.–Fandi89 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, GRuban (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please review this file

Please review, Is the censorship that I did to the top part correct or do you want me to censor the bottom part as well? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kia_New_Year_in_Times_Square.jpg --Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Er ... can you explain what this is supposed to be a picture of? If the idea is that it's mainly a copyrighted image, which you then pixelated ... I guess it could be OK, but what's the point? --GRuban (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it was reviewed by User:Túrelio. The bottom is simple text, Template:PD-textlogo would apply if anyone questions. I'm still skeptical of how useful the image is for any useful illustrative purpose, but it's OK from a copyright point of view.--GRuban (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Image brightening needed

Hi GRuban, can you help brighten this image below. Thank you.–Fandi89 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

May take a while, I'll have bad computer time for a couple of weeks.--GRuban (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Sorry, nearly forgot about this. --GRuban (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Christine Bottomley Out of Darkness 2.jpg

File:Christine Bottomley Out of Darkness 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jack brown 1979 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Christine Bottomley Out of Darkness.jpg

File:Christine Bottomley Out of Darkness.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jack brown 1979 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

YouTube permission

Where do you see the permission for File:Kulwinder Billa.jpg? This file had been deleted as a copyright violation/missing permission at least two times already. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting - edit history doesn't show my name at all. Let me look a little more ... --GRuban (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Good grief, they're now faking it as well. I almost new it when you replied... Anyway, I tagged the file as missing permission and removed it from the Wikipedia article again for now. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Also sorry, I should have looked into the edit history before posting here. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry about that, thank you for finding it. Brought to Administrators noticeboard. This is now the second time someone has used my name for a fake Commons:License review in the ... I don't even know how many years I have been doing this. I will look through the rest of the user's uploads over the next day or so if you or one of the admins don't do it first, and I would be surprised if we don't find other issues. --GRuban (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I commented there. I have also nominated one of their files for speedy deletion as a copyright violation already. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Peabody Conversations Katie Morag.jpg

Copyright status: File:Peabody Conversations Katie Morag.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Peabody Conversations Katie Morag.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, AntiCompositeBot. Fixed. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for watermark removal

Hi GRuban, I need your help to remove watermark from this image that I uploaded today:

Thank you.–Fandi89 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That's going to be tough, because the text is over fingers, so a lot of details. I could probably smudge or clone the icon over the pink cloth all right, but the fingers will look messy, they're beyond my limited abilities. The legendary User:Adam Cuerden could probably do it, but probably won't want to, he normally restores important historical images, not screenshots of modern actresses from videos. Pick an option:
  1. Just crop off the bottom part of the image with CropTool - maybe 1 minute work
  2. Smudge the icon, leave the text - maybe 5 minutes work
  3. Pick another part of the video for a screenshot: somewhere between 10:30-10:50, the text is also over cloth, that might be easier - maybe half hour work between screenshotting and editing
  4. Explain to Adam why this is an important historical image - several days of convincing then several hours of Adam's work
  5. Do nothing - it's not that bad after all - zero work

--GRuban (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As warned, the middle finger is a bit unnatural. Good enough? --GRuban (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Hello GRuban. Can I upload https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/229348051?keyword=Alan%20Moore this image to Commons? If I can with which licence? Thank you. Robingunes (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes: it's an Australian gov web page, it says "Copyright expired - public domain Public Domain Mark This item is in the Public Domain", and we tend to trust government pages on this sort of thing unless we have really strong evidence otherwise. Licence {{PD-Australia}}. That's a list of clauses, but the relevant clause is "B Photographs (except A): taken prior to 1 January 1955". There isn't a specific date on the image, but he was born in 1914, so he'd be 41 by 1955, I can believe he was younger than that in the photo; most important is that the gov web site says so. --GRuban (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Robingunes (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello again GRuban. I have a question again. Which licence should I use for these (https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1009635 & https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/229145965?keyword=atat%C3%BCrk&l-rights=Free) images? These are part of Australian War Memorial Photograph Collection so I should use PD-Australia, aren't I? Robingunes (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Er; maybe. Unlike the first, which said it was taken in Melbourne, these say they were taken in Turkey. The key point is where they were published. For a 1915 publication image with anonymous author, {{PD-Turkey}} should apply though. You may want to apply both {{PD-Turkey}} and {{PD-Australia}} to be safe, as these would qualify under both rules sets. Now this is just slightly risky, since we the web site doesn't say it was published in 1915, just taken - but, again, an Australian government web site thinks it's public domain, so we're likely good. You'd have to have someone who really, really dislikes you to try to pick nits here. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
"Now this is just slightly risky" what risk? 🤔 Robingunes (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
As always, the risk is that someone might nominate it for deletion and might find an administrator who interprets the Commons:Precautionary principle extremely, and demand a shrubbery. We're all human here, and humans can make mistakes. I'd upload it, the fact that the AU gov web site says it's pubic domain is a strong argument. But it's only an argument, in the end a human will make the final deletion decision. --GRuban (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
They (government) won't sue for using the wrong license, right? Robingunes (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, no; the government specifically say it's public domain, anyone can use it. The risk is only that a Commons admin will think the govt don't know what they're talking about and delete it, and I think that risk is small. We're not tremendously afraid of lawsuits as such around here, we observe copyright out of principle, not out of legal danger. --GRuban (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah nice to hear that thank you. Robingunes (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Amjad Khan Niazi.jpg

Hi! Can you please image the license for this image quickly. Thanking You in advance.Wallu2 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done thank you--GRuban (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Isabella Boylston on Vogue Taiwan.jpg

File:Isabella Boylston on Vogue Taiwan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Iranian news agencies

Hello. We should be more cautious with Iranian news agencies images, especially if they don't give credit to any in-house photographers. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:اعضای جدید هیات مدیره باشگاه سپاهان اصفهان معرفی شدند.jpg. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: File:Goryeosa,_Samseonghyeon_History_Culture_Park.jpg wrong source link

I've tried to find the correct link, with no results. I think the photo has been removed from the website and has to be deleted. --ChoHyeri (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're not wrong about PD-old-70, it really didn't cross my mind. The only doubt I have is about the source: both leaving the photo with a wrong link, or removing the source entirely, don't sound right to me. --ChoHyeri (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Suzanne Stephens 1990.jpg

I noticed you created File:Suzanne Stephens 1990.jpg, presumably from File:Suzanne Stephens 1990.tif. While the cropping is probably an improvement, I'm not so sure the change in contrast is for the better. Importantly, your version introduced a large number of speckles that weren't in the original. Could you please redo the crop without the speckles? Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Better? --GRuban (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, much better. Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

License Review Request

Hi! Can you please review the following files as soon as possible. Thanking you in advance!

Will look at, but why "as soon as possible"? Even deletion requests usually take a week if not more, and many files can sit around for months. Are these for featured article review or something? --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@GRuban: I'm sorry I know there is a lots of load work in our life, the reason behind using it is to avoid the future copyright issues. To avoid these frustrations of copyight, I used "as soon as possible" so that the matter could be settled more quickly. I know every persons life is pretty busier nowadays and I am again apologizing if this might hurt you. I will be very careful about using this phrase again in future. Have a blessed day!.Wallu2 (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
All done, thank you for your contributions! --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Charity Kase before makeup.jpg

Copyright status: File:Charity Kase before makeup.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Charity Kase before makeup.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 01:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bot. Fixed. --GRuban (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Olympia of Greece with camera.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Olympia of Greece with camera.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Posted to source as All Rights Reserved. Only free files are allowed on Commons.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : DrKay.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Olympia of Greece with camera.jpg

File:Olympia of Greece with camera.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Memorandum Nobilis (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GRuban/Archive_5&oldid=671889400"