The file is bigger than 2.41Mb advertised. This is the case for all media published — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.112.208.41 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:UNESCO headquarters from the Eiffel Tower.jpg

File:UNESCO headquarters from the Eiffel Tower.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:UNESCO headquarters from the Eiffel Tower.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Elisfkc (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Ruby_shoots_Oswald.jpg

Sorry, but where do you get that this is PD? EEng (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: The reason is there in the licensing section: copyright was not renewed. Toohool (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And how do you know that? EEng (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: By searching the copyright database. There is a very handy step-by-step guide here for clearing copyright of works from periodicals, including images, if you're interested. Toohool (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, so what exactly did you search? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I have some recollection that we've been through this before with this particular image, and the reason it wasn't in the article already is precisely because it's still under copyright. EEng (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: The photographer's name, the newspaper's name, the subjects' names, and variations on them. I also searched for previous deletion discussions on Commons about this photo and didn't find any. Toohool (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat that I'm not trying to be difficult but, among other issues, the search page says front and center that "Works registered prior to 1978 may be found only in the Copyright Public Records Reading Room". I'm not sure a negative result on your personal searches is enough. Can you point me somewhere supporting this? EEng (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: A work published in 1963 would have to have been renewed in 1990 or 1991, so the renewal would be in the database. I would refer you to the step-by-step guide I linked above. Toohool (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: what I was asking for is a project guideline or policy making a negative result on unspecified database queries sufficient support for a PD determination. Here's the problem: The article you linked from the file description page recites that as of 2002:

[Jackson] estimates having made "tens of thousands of dollars" off the reprint rights, which the Times Herald gave him almost immediately. He charges publications anywhere from $250 to $2,500 to print the picture, processed from the original negative. ... There's even a doctored Internet version, which shows Ruby playing an electric guitar, Oswald holding a microphone and the police detective cuffed to his wrist playing a keyboard. Mr. Jackson and the graphic artist who designed it "share the profits, and that's been going on four to five years," says Mr. Jackson, $3,000 richer from that version.

This is inconsistent with the idea that the copyright wasn't renewed. EEng (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm not sure there are any policies about what is or isn't sufficient support for any PD determination. Practically speaking, if an editor has doubts about a file, the burden is on them to open a deletion request and make an argument that rebuts the stated justification on the file, or at least raises enough doubt for the precautionary principle to prevail.

The fact that some people pay for a license for the image is not at all inconsistent with the idea that it is public domain. Most people simply don't have the knowledge or the time to research copyright renewals, and it's easier and safer just to pay. Toohool (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what, exactly, were the searches you did? A name search for Jackson Robert at https://cocatalog.loc.gov/ returns 851 results; I don't see how you could have reviewed all of those. This is one of the most famous photos in history and if it's actually in PD one would expect that to be a well-established fact easily found. EEng (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm happy to explain things, but could you dial back the confrontational tone? 851 results is not that many to deal with. You can sort the list by date and see that there are only a handful of works from around 1963. You can also sort by name and skip any Robert Jackson's with a middle initial other than "H", which only leaves about 150. It's also faster to work through the results if you increase it to 100 rows per page.

If you find it hard to believe that this photo is PD, then you wildly overestimate how big a thing copyright was in the newspaper industry back then. Only a handful of newspapers ever renewed copyrights, and virtually no newspaper photographs were ever renewed. Most newspapers were in the public domain from the day of publication because they didn't even bother to include a copyright notice. It would be much more suprising if this photo *were* under copyright. Toohool (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel confronted, but I've been asking straightforward questions in the hopes of getting clear evidence of PD, and in return getting piecemeal answers. Your talk of original newspaper copyright is irrelevant, because (as seen in the article from which you took the crop) a copyright notice was indeed present at original publication; and your talk of newspaper renewal practices is also irrelevant, because (as seen in the same article) rights to the photo were apparently transferred by the newspaper to Jackson personally -- and one can certainly imagine that the owner of a Pulitzer-winning photo might take the trouble to renew its copyright, particularly since it had already been providing a stream of income.

At Help:Public_domain#endnote_renewal we're told that The United States Copyright renewal records search engine is a useful tool for determining renewal status but "useful for determining" isn't much of a guide to what exactly you're supposed to do with it. I can't tell exactly what that database is supposed to cover, or what a negative result represents -- do you, definitively? Based on what? What defines all the various names and titles you need to search in any given case? In this case, specifically?

LC holds a copy of this image which it tags "Publication may be restricted" ; again, this being one of the most famous photos in history, one would expect that if it's actually PD then LC would go to the trouble of identifying it as such. Just sayin'. EEng (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Right, not confrontational at all. :eyeroll: If we're talking about what's irrelevant, your ability to imagine the copyright being renewed, and whether the Library of Congress knows whether the photo is copyrighted is not relevant either. They have millions of works on their site, they can't do freelance clearance work for everyone. Whether there was a copyright notice at the time of publication is irrelevant. All that's relevant is whether it was renewed. There's either a renewal in the database or there isn't. I've already told you what I looked for in the database. If you think it's in there somewhere, feel free to search yourself. Toohool (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, you're the one who made assertions about newspaper copyright practices; I simply pointed out that other narratives are more than plausible in this exceptional case. And yeah, the LC's apparent position on one of the most famous photos in history (though, admittedly, this particular entry may be a database default) is certainly relevant. It's not my job to find a renewal; it was your job to demonstrate the lack of one. You leave me no choice but to nominate for deletion. EEng (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg

File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

EEng (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Campus Guns.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Campus Guns.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Patrick Rogel (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Campus Guns.jpg

File:Campus Guns.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Campus Guns.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Aid from the Padre.jpg was recently deleted

File:Aid from the Padre.jpg was recently deleted by Magog the Ogre for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: Copyright violation: d:Q3788130

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg was recently deleted

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg was recently deleted by Magog the Ogre for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: Copyright violation: w:Toshio Sakai

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Flee to Safety.jpg was recently deleted

File:Flee to Safety.jpg was recently deleted by Magog the Ogre for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: Copyright violation: w:Kyōichi Sawada

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MOTD Notification

⭐ A file you uploaded is on the main page! ⭐ File:The Freshman.webm, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Wikiacc (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ready-mades by Marcel Duchamp This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

• File:50 cc of Paris Air.jpg

And also:

• File:Bicycle Wheel.jpg
• File:Bottle Rack - Marcel Duchamp.jpg
• File:Comb by Marcel Duchamp.jpg
• File:Hat Rack.jpg

Yours sincerely, — Racconish ^💬 15:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

LATimes UCLA

Hey, do you want to make a similar template for the LA Daily News? I uploaded a whole bunch of photos from that collection as well. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 20:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Howcheng: Sure, good idea, I created {{Daily News UCLA}}. Toohool (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pepper No. 30.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pepper No. 30.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Jross baughman rhodesia pulitzer02.jpg

File:Jross baughman rhodesia pulitzer02.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jross baughman rhodesia pulitzer02.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

2A02:C7C:5303:2500:AC42:F940:FA60:5519 21:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg

File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Taivo (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Nautilus by Edward Weston.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nautilus by Edward Weston.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Las Vegas sportsbook.jpg

File:Las Vegas sportsbook.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Las Vegas sportsbook.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Itscyp (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

re: Felix works

Thank you for just biting the bullet and uploading more images of works by Felix Gonzalez-Torres - I asked at the Copyright Village Pump looooooong ago about the threshold of originality for his works but never got a firm answer. But I agree the candy works/mirrors/blank paper stacks are all 100% uploadable here, will probably add quite a few of my own images of different versions I've seen in exhibitions.

Have a good weekend! 19h00s (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait actually before I go... What do you think about this work? I have my own photos but I was on the fence about ToO here; it's really just two large, shallow holes in the floor with water, but also that's not nothing. 19h00s (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s: Thanks, I think a lot of his works are well below the threshold of originality, not to mention questions of whether they meet the fixation requirement. The one you linked is Untitled (Sagitario), which looks below the threshold to me. One can't copyright the concept of "two identically sized circular pools of water, just barely touching". Theoretically, there could be some more subtle details present in the artwork that aren't apparent at a casual glance, that might contribute to originality, but I don't see anything to suggest that.

One thing I like to do is read through the Copyright Review Board decisions. The decisions tagged as "originality" give a pretty good idea of the quantity and type of creative choices an artist needs to make to reach the threshold of originality. A couple that seem fairly comparable to the work are EN Set Design and Geometrica Fountain - both involve works composing a small number of common geometric shapes, both refused registration. Toohool (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Great resources to look back at, thanks for the links!

And here's a related deletion discussion you might be interested in. I found another Felix work in a few photos (a static list billboard), not totally sure if it rises above the ToO. Asked at the Village Pump and the consensus was to start a DR. 19h00s (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Toohool Relatedly, would love a second set of eyes on all my uploads/additions to the cat you created for his works. Didn't realize until I started digging just how many of these works were on Flickr or YouTube, unlabeled but freely licensed (turns out you can just search "bead curtain" or "light bulb strand" and you will eventually scroll by a picture of one of the works in a museum). Just want to be sure I didn't go overboard. Hope you're having a good weekend! 19h00s (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Ugh I'm sorry for all the replies lol, but would love to hear if you have a thought on this work and ToO, I'm really on the fence. ty 19h00s (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s: No worries! Nice work on finding all these works and gathering them together.

I think "Supreme Majority" would be pretty safe to upload (asssuming you find a freely licensed photo). It consists of common geometric shapes in a simple arrangement, without any artistic flourishes. There are not many choices involved in arranging 7 cones of various heights.

I looked through all the other works. The only one that gives me some pause is "Untitled" (Water), because it includes strands of various colors, and the curator apparently has the freedom to arrange them in any sequence. A curtain with 500 strands gives the curator a lot of choices, which could well reach the threshold of originality. In the particular photos that you uploaded, however, there is not that much apparent originality, as it seems they used repeated sequences of about 12 strands.

The date portrait photos present some interesting questions around the copyright protection of short phrases. The full text of any one of those works likely has enough originality to be copyrighted. But what about short excerpts of them? A phrase like "E.T. phone home" is surely not copyrightable on its own, but quoting it can be a copyright infringement of the larger work to which it belongs. It depends on the amount of creativity and the level of recognition such that a casual observer would associate the phrase with the larger work. So these photos are probably fine, but theoretically if one of those works became so famous that, for example, the phrase "Ross 1983" instantly brought Felix Gonzalez-Torres to mind, then the photo could become an infringement. Toohool (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you thank you!! Just uploaded a pic of Supreme Majority, I snapped a photo a few years back when it was on view in New York.

Re: the beaded works, I had a similar thought at first but I went back and reread the preface in Gonzalez-Torres's catalogue raisonné (OCLC 37629775), which defines the conceptual outlines of the artist's manifestable works, citing the artist-written certificates that came with each work. For the beaded curtains (there are 5 in total), Elger writes that "The certificate specifies the precise type of beads, their dimensions, their color and the order in which they appear"; then, quoting the certificates: "'If (...) the exact same beads are no longer available, any one of the types may be replaced by a similar type of beads of the same color.'; 'A part of the intention of this work is that it may be installed and displayed in any entranceway of the owner's choice.'; 'It is necessary that the beads hang from the top of the entranceway to the ground.'; 'It is also necessary that the beads fill the entranceway completely from side to side.'" (all vol. 2 at p. 15). So it seems like the order/pattern is set, but the placement/width of the work is up to the curator/owner/exhibitor. I think, given the simplicity of the patterns, that falls below ToO; widening the work to fit a different entrance doesn't really involve much authorship. But correct me if I'm wrong there!

And that is super helpful insight on the date portraits, I was trying to be conscious of the ongoing deletion discussion about the billboard work, figured singular entries from the portraits were probably OK. Honestly the "Ross 1983" one might actually be the most likely to fail the "does it bring to mind x" test.

Related, but I noticed in this picture that a lot of the date portrait from the NPG installation is visible; the text most visible is an excerpt of a PD poem by Walt Whitman so it might be a non-issue. Do you think it's worth adding a de minimis tag?

Thanks again for this conversation and all your insights (I've been thinking about ToO/the fixation requirement and his work for quite a long time, so it's great to see someone have the same/more advanced analysis!) 19h00s (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, that context about the certificates for the beaded works is helpful. It sounds like the curator doesn't have much room to inject originality of their own. So if one installation doesn't reach the ToO (which I don't think it does, based on the bead sequences in those photos), then we can safely say that any installation of that work will be uncopyrightable.

Good point about the text on the wall in that photo, I'll add a de minimis tag. Toohool (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg

File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dreams of Better Times (Toshio Sakai).jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! 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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)