Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/23

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

September 23

[edit]

probable copyvio, no PD US rationale TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio - no PD US rationale TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio - no PD US rationale TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep PD-1996 they were public domain because created prior to the 1 January 1974 cutoff which is prior to the 1996 URAA date. --RAN (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they have to be public domain on 1 January 1996, not just published before. 1965+50 = PD NZ 1/1/2016 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NZ public domain license reads "For photographs, manuscripts, archives, music scores, maps, paintings, and drawings published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: photo taken or work published prior to 1 January 1974 (50 years ago)" and the USA license reads: "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)." I think you are reading it as "50 years after 1965" not "50 years ago from 2024". --RAN (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the photo wasn't PD in NZ on the URAA date since 1996 isn't 50 years after 1965. Anonymous works are PD 50 years after publishing TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio - no PD US rationale TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader appears to credit the file to "Courtesy of Evan Ciampaglia", but I'm not able to find evidence of the free license at the listed source. The flag is going to be above COM:TOO in any relevant jurisdiction, with a fairly complex rendering of St. George and the Dragon. As such, I propose that this be deleted for lack of evidence of a free license, in line with COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawkThis particular version comes from Reddit (although a similar flag is used in reality), Evan Ciampaglia is the author of the file who consented to my publishing it.Betelgeuse2003 (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Betelgeuse2003, in that case, it is required that the copyright holder release the rights of the file via COM:VRT. Ratekreel (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

own work? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PERSONAL It's not REALISTICALLY of educational use. Family album contents. Graywalls (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The photographed was published by James McCreery & Co. Photographic Studio (New York) and features Alexander D. Henderson Sr., his wife, and Girard B. Henderson. According to Notability, the image includes at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The image is of Alexander D. Henderson, Sr. (1865–1925) the Vice President of the California Perfume Company. It also represents the work of James McCreery photographic studio. It also represents Suffern, New York and Adirondack style furniture in situ. --RAN (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Kevin Feige (48462887397) (cropped).jpg erroneously tagged as self-published. Currently not used in any wiki namespace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة ليست لها أهمية  Mohammed Qays  🗣 03:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

شعار له حقوق  Mohammed Qays  🗣 03:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

صورة ليست لها أهمية  Mohammed Qays  🗣 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyvio: image is based on a commonly used press photo of w:Earl Nightingale (not "Nightingle"!), e.g. [1]. Unclear that the source web site would have had rights to license it as CC-BY-SA; unable to confirm as it's no longer online and isn't available in the Wayback Machine. Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused globe icon with an inexplicable filename and description; plenty of others like it (Category:SVG sphere wireframes, Category:SVG globe icons, etc). Omphalographer (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. This is her Spotify display photo and it was posted on Instagram on 24 April 2024. Dxneo (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


duplicate of File:Longcheng Institute of Natural Sciences administration.jpg Trz1118 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building is new media building of People's Daily , not administrative building of the Longcheng Natural Sciences Institute in Beijing Trz1118 (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building contains several institutions, and only one of them is the media, although this may not be indicated on the tag location. Crnizmaj (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The building primarily serves as the head office of the People's Daily (see this).
2. Additionally, according to publicly available information, the institute is located at "北京市朝阳区高碑店乡半壁店村惠河南街1002号7栋1层101 (Building 7, Room 101, No. 1002 Huihe South Street, Banbi Village, Gaobeidian Township, Chaoyang District, Beijing)", which is a separate location approximately 4 kilometers away (see this).
3. At least, even if this particular institute does have an office in this building, it should be described as an "office location" rather than an "administrative building", as the latter term could be misleading.
--Trz1118 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Without looking into what building it is and which institutions it houses) I got to vote  Keep, though, because an incorrect file name/description is not a reason for deletion. The file can just be renamed and the description changed. Am I getting this right? The issue is just with the file name/description, not with any copyright or COM:FOP concerns? Nakonana (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by ZioNicco as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without author, the date of publication is unclear, it is therefore not possible to understand when it expired, it is not 120 years given that it is unknown.
On it.wiki it was deleted (where it came from) because it lacked information. ZioNicco (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Gusama Romero as no permission (No permission since) Krd 04:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image cannot be posted without permission. In the file description, the uploader of the image states that it was photographed in 1995 (and that he cropped himself out of the photo), but does not state who took the photo. It is therefore unclear who owns the rights to the image, as owning a physical photo does not make you the owner of the rights. --Gusama Romero </talk> 01:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


de minimis Zenwort (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


de minimis Zenwort (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW issue, unknown copyright status of each image A1Cafel (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


de mininimis Zenwort (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing visible Qualitätssicherung (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://agencjaforum.pl/0458062877 95.160.119.11 08:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All copyrights and property rights belong to the Polish Photographers Agency FORUM - www.forum.com.pl 95.160.119.11 08:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well - this copyright claim should be somehow proved by the agency, as it was originally claimed by Andrzej Iwański as his own work and published there: https://fbc.pionier.net.pl/zbiorki/dlibra/publication/25/edition/25/content under CC By-SA 3.0 PL license. Polimerek (talk)
Yes, and this is disputable who really is the real author of this picture. Actually these pictures were scanned during the action which was organized with Europeana, and the people who donated pictures were asked to sign paper licence agreement (CC-By SA 3.0 PL) with the statement that they are authors or their heirs, and then we were uploading them to Commons and they also landed in Europeana collection. So, Europeana has at least paper documentation of the authorships claims. Does it FORUM? Polimerek (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same picture used in school's official page, so I doubt this is Uploader's original creation. Not so sure whether this can be Speedy deleted. Aspere (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Mohamed Muizzu meets Ranil Wickremesinghe in November 2023 (6).jpg A1Cafel (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted poster in Dhaka metro station. Possible copyvio Wasiul Bahar (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer and the source is unknown, and it looks like it was reprinted from somewhere else. Thyj (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FpaCL-baEAAgW9k.jpg Thyj (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Materials: Book covers Michel Bakni (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo: out of the scope of the project + Reupload after deletion Michel Bakni (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook 186.173.225.155 11:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Póster?.. 186.173.225.155 11:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diario La Hora 186.173.225.155 11:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Póster?.. 186.173.225.155 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:PACUSA and COM:FOP. See https://www.cfennell.com/work/2010/canoe-wave. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Adrianberti (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Old photos, not own work as claimed

Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the photos listed above came from Sandra Rivera and her theater company's -La Comedia Puertorriqueña- Private files. They cover her entire career in Theater, Film and Television. Please explain the problem. Most of these photos were commissioned by Mrs. Rivera herself to create a record of hers and her company's achievements in the arts. Do not hesitate to contact me again if you need further information pertaining to each photo listed above. 198.245.107.163 17:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide information on the photographer. Right now the files say that Adrianberti is the photographer. Is that correct? If so, can Adrianberti send a permission to COM:VRT?
Though, I'm also not quite sure why exactly Gbawden thinks that those photos aren't own work. The photos aren't old enough to be obviously not own work, e.g. if I'd upload a photo from 1878 as own work, then that would be an obvious case of a false claim because I definitely wasn't yet born in 1878, and even if I was, then I couldn't upload the photos because I'd already be dead by now. But photos from the 1970s-2000s are recent enough to be claimed own work. Though, tbh, I didn't go through all photos to check exif data etc., so I might just be missing something obvious that sparked Gbawden suspicion. Nakonana (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please identify the used music and if it's nonfree audio remove the audio Prototyperspective (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image now represents a service ribbon image that doesn't (or cannot) exist. There are basically two ways in which clasps that have been awarded can be show represented by stars on the service ribbon: (1) by adding a star for each clasp (2) by adding a star for the first clasp and adding a numeral (2, 3) to the star for a second or third clasp. Since the decree only mentions 'star' in singular, it can be deducted that (2) was meant, hence a service ribbon image with 2 stars representing clasps doesn't exist. Decree Muumi (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio https://www.latamarte.com/en/galleries/QuJU/ Golikom (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The painter was born in 1964 and is still alive (judging by the wiki page on him). Also worth going through the whole Category:Paintings by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau because it would all be copyrighted unless there are VRT tickets or the painter regularly releases his works under a cc license. Nakonana (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image now represents a service ribbon image that doesn't (or cannot) exist. There are basically two ways in which clasps that have been awarded can be show represented by stars on the service ribbon: (1) by adding a star for each clasp (2) by adding a star for the first clasp and adding a numeral (2, 3) to the star for a second or third clasp. Since the decree only mentions 'star' in singular, it can be deducted that (2) was meant, hence a service ribbon image with 3 stars representing clasps doesn't exist. Decree Muumi (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creí que esta imagen era PNG, pero tiene un fondo negro. Rocky god (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No information, no educational context. Also unlikely to have permission from the underage players in this team for their photo to be posted online. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No information, no educational context. Also unlikely to have permission from the underage players in this team for their photo to be posted online. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving their look at the camera they all consented to be photographed, thus no privacy invasion. No reason for deletion. Zenwort (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt they gave permission for it to be used in all contexts. Still, no information. -- Deadstar (msg) 22:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

unclear what who where this is. Image size looks like it is not self-made. Uploader has a history of uploading copyrighted images. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a street artist pointing to something during his performance. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete COM:Scope --Zenwort (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Name and description with ©CD57. Doesnt looks like CC-BY-SA-4.0 Rwzi (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Name and description with ©CD57. Doesn't look like CC-BY-SA-4.0. Rwzi (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Redundant. These images are too small and low-quality. Also, SVG version of these images are available on Category:SVG Icon Materials by the Digital Agency. Therefore, when you need PNG version of these images, generating them from SVG images is sufficient and I consider these PNG images redundant. I uploaded these images because they are included in the source. Initially, I thought about requesting COM:GCSD G7, but since that's not possible, I request COM:Redundant.

Momiji-Penguin (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Momiji-Penguin (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Momiji-Penguin (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep SVGs are preferred and just better in every way, but PNGs can still be useful, so if these link to the SVG and vice versa, problem solved. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blurry version of File:Egyptian Museum (009).jpg. פעמי-עליון (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pornagraph 59.127.98.116 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete com:penis Dronebogus (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep deleting ethnic images leads to selection bias in the category. --RAN (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t need to apply affirmative action to the male genitalia. The only thing that matters in regards to penises (or any other body part really) is if it’s a good image for illustrating anatomy. This isn’t— the man’s hand is blocking most of the shaft and the penis is a very small part of the very large image. No respectable publication would ever use this; it was clearly uploaded for personal amusement or gratification by a non-contributor. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete We still have a lot of "Asian penis"--A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


photo has a CC-NC-ND license: https://digitaltmuseum.org/021046898511/johan-sverdrup-byste Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This foto ist not from digitaltmuseum.org but from another source, as specified in picture description:
https://snl.no/Oscar_Castberg
where the license is specified as
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.no
WMS.Nemo (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WMS.Nemo Yes, I see that the source you cited has a CC-BY license. But your source is an encyclopedia site that re-uses third party content, and if you click on the image, it shows the source as digitalmuseum.org. And the EXIF data also shows STORTINGET as the source, with the digitalmuseum.org reference number. It looks like whoever uploaded it to snl.no made an error when applying the license. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file promotes nudity and does not adhere to Wikimedia Commons' policies regarding inappropriate or explicit content. It is not suitable for a public platform like Wikimedia Commons, which should remain accessible and respectful to all audiences, including minors. Additionally, this image does not have any educational, historical, or artistic value that justifies its inclusion. Arijit Kisku (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Naturism is the promotion of nudity as a natural state. This content is appropriate and it doesn't disrespect anyone. This image has the following values: artistic (professional photography), referential (naturism and female anatomy), educational (female anatomy). Wikimedia is an objective platform that is not dictated by cultural or religious beliefs. BikiniCollection (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably not created by "SuperNascar 1991" in 2014, but by Fidget in 2001 (as stated in the watermark). bozz (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as a derivative work of copyrighted material and due to evidence that it is not own work. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The license says the image is from before 1929 but the date on the photo is 2024. I don't think either is correct, and this appears to be COM:FLICKRWASH. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The link on flicker is now a error 404, make of that what you will. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nom, All the Best -- Chuck Talk 04:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright? This is a photo of a photo. Daniel Rossing died in 2010. Wouter (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Architect is Max Dudler, how is still alive. Up today we don't have a permission from Max Dudler. Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. See also previous discussions.

Lukas Beck (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. The proposal to accept photos inside train stations in Germany has not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . It was finalized after this DR was started. So regrettably, these photos have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright protection! German freedom of panorama does not apply for interior shots. The architect is Max Dudler, who is still alive.

Lukas Beck (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination, I revised my desicion, per this discussion on my talk page. , the ceiling it is not simple blue, it is a starry sky based on creative design. Ping User:IronGargoyle for courtesy. -- Ellywa (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo's of this starry ceiling are uploaded again and again. This is not allowed, the design is still copyrighted, and there is no FOP in Germany. Photos inside train stations in Germany have in addition not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . Therefore these images should be deleted imho.

Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no FOP in Germany". Wrong. 100% wrong. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not willing to understand? "there is no FOP in Germany" was written. This is definetly wrong. Untrue. And again, also for you: We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness! Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the wording makes buildings the exception, not the rule? Like: the rule is you can photograph everything that is in public space. The only thing that you can not photograph despite it being a permanent public space are interiors of buildings. But anything other than buildings can be photographed even if it's the interiors of that "something". Are train (or metro) stations/platforms "buildings"? They don't have a façade — does that mean that they are not buildings? They are also permanently publicly accessible and they serve (at least occasionally) as underpasses (or overpasses) and thus are "paths"? So, do they fall under the "rule" or do they fall under the "exception" that specifically only applies to "buildings"? I would call a metro station a "building". It's rather a "tunnel". And in Germany, metro stations usually aren't accessed through a building-like structure either. There are just stairs on the street that lead downstairs like to an underpass. The stations also often have an exit on both sides — just like "tunnels". The stations are also just platforms within a metro tunnel. It's like an underground road for a metro, where the station is not a "building" of its own but just a "pit stop" / parking space for metros. It's just a niche within a tunnel. And tunnel interiors would fall under FoP I'd think because they are basically just roads with a ceiling; they are not buildings. Nakonana (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the building regulations (Musterbauordung) train stations are buildings through the permission process is different to other buildings. In the fee schedule (HOAI) they are not in the building category as they have their own category. But they are not public places like streets as they are owned by a public company and not directly by a public authority and they are not declared as public streets. GPSLeo (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The reversal above is clearly wrong. Sometimes we adhere too much to consistent decisions even when the past decisions were clearly wrong. Just having pinpoint lights in a ceiling is not sufficiently creative. Note that there is nothing artistic about their placement. It is a simple repeating pattern. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete -- I don't think it has to be a complex painting or the like. Sometimes it's also a simple but creative idea what counts, and in case of a "starry sky"-like ceiling of an underground station it's definitely a creative idea. And yes, according to German law interior shots, including public interiors, are not FoP-covered. @Marcus Cyron: does Wikimedia Deutschland do any effort to get German FoP laws amended in more liberal direction for us? --A.Savin 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are definitely efforts in the background. There was also the idea that we need to bring this question to the court in some way but in the past there was not a singe known case where the architect of a train or underground station tried to enforce the copyright on the building. GPSLeo (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How should I know? I don't have any ties to this club anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There I see only a {{PD-textlogo}}. Yes definitely, architectural design is more complex anyway. --A.Savin 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.Savin perhaps Rosenzweig is still a member of Wikimedia Deutschland? I have to admit, while Germany is the birthplace of FoP and an antithesis of France which is against commercial FoP, the FoP law does seem outdated and only applicable to the era before the prevalence of information technology and digital media. In particular, German courts tend to not give FoP rights to photographers who use drones or helicopters to photograph works from air. The German FoP, by its essence, is almost the same as its incarnation during much of the 20th century (and was originally giving rights to painters who reproduce buildings and sculptures in their paintings and then to sell those paintings without permissions from architects or sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a Wikimedia member. --Rosenzweig τ 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't say that the ceiling is star-like. Those just round LED lamps in a blue-painted ceiling. They don't have a star-shape (in the way that stars are often represented in art 🌟 ). It's also not a starry sky because you can't see stars when the sky is blue; you can only see them at night when the star is nearly black; and stars have "random" placement, they don't come in lines and rows like here. Would you still say that it is a starry sky or a creative ceiling if the ceiling was painted light blue (like during day time) or even red/orange to represent sunset? Nakonana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A blue ceiling with small white dots in pretty much the most square/generic pattern possible, and as such far below the TOO. Weather the (obvious) intent is to depict a night sky or anything else is irrelevant, what matters is the work itself and that is too simple. If the copyright paranoia vigilance is too stong, we can also crop out the sky. ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per COM:UA, Germany has a higher threshold of originality for applied art, and this remains a VERY simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as all other deletion requests before. There is no FoP for interior views in Germany.

Lukas Beck (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verstehe ich nicht. Author von diesen Design braucht Geld um solche Fotos zu posten? Ich dachte es ist Ehre und Reklame für ihm.
Also, es gilt für alle U-Bahn Stationen in Deutschland? Penguin9 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Deutschland haben wir diese Einschränkung betreffend Innenaufnahmen und, wie auch anderswo, wenn seit dem Tod des Autors (hier: des Architekten) noch keine 70 Jahre vergangen sind. Bedeutet: beispielsweise dieses U-Bahn-Foto ist für Commons unbedenklich, da es eine Außenaufnahme ist und für solche hierzulande in jedem Fall Panoramafreiheit gilt. Und bei Fotos von U-Bahnstationen, die von Alfred Grenander (gestorben 1931) entworfen sind, sind sowohl Außen- als auch Innenaufnahmen unbedenklich. --A.Savin 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commons:Deletion requests/File:150507 BDAlogoWikiPediaMay2015.png was withdrawn because Ixfd64 thought that the uploader's username was evidence that they was the copyright holder. On w:User talk:Bookandcoffee/Archive 6#BDA logo however, the user reveils that they don't have the rights and hence is not the copyright holder. Hence delete as above COM:TOO UK without permission.

Jonteemil (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user meant that they do not have permission to upload the file to wikis, not that they don't own the copyrights. Any registered user can upload a file, but my understanding is only autoconfirmed users can overwrite existing files (which I believe is what I believe this user was trying to do). Ixfd64 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I am the Digital Manager at the BDA, can confirm we own the copyright to this, no need to delete. Many thanks. 2A02:C7C:948C:6200:5091:B6B2:D998:1CBD 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, would you please go through the process of COM:CONSENT. Jonteemil (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droit d'auteur requis NalKy (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression immédiate NalKy (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped duplicate of File:Thunderbolts* logo.jpg erroneously tagged as own work. Not currently used in any wiki namespace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droit d'auteur requis NalKy (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The copyright holder in the Exif metadata is "Malishev Andrey" in File:TardifEV.jpg and File:FilippovVZ1.jpg. File:FilippovVZ3.jpg was also grabbed from Google also per its Exif metadata. The other images were all photographed from different cameras, so "own work" claims seem dubious. Uploader also seems to be the subject in the "TardifEV" images (per username)

Nutshinou Talk! 16:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droit d'auteur requis NalKy (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No use and i want to delete this file that connected to my nickname Bublickson (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Arkansas State Red Wolves at Michigan Wolverines football (September 14, 2024)

[edit]

All of the files in Category:Arkansas State Red Wolves at Michigan Wolverines football (September 14, 2024) were duplicated in a mass upload by User:SecretName101 three days after the original upload. For example, File:UM vs AS 001.jpg was duplicated as File:UM vs AS 001 (53997005428).jpg. Half of them (presumably the half that were uploaded later) will need to be deleted. My only question is whether I'm really expected to go back through and tag 130+ files individually with the pending nomination template. --Denniscabrams (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image resolution is so low, that it is not educationally useful and doesn't have a realistic use. Conan Wolff (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by DMacks as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Seen in [2], which is all-rights-reserved and several years prior to upload here PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if this web item is the original source. It was just the first place I found it by google-image search, after realizing how many of this uploader's "own-work" were from diverse uncited sources. I'm not sure if it's PD-ineligible. It's a specific experimental result (whose details are unstated) and novel representation of certain facts of nature. But regardless uploader should not be taking full credit for it (citing it is the only real way to make this have an EDUSE, by having information about what it represents and the experimental details). DMacks (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The data can't be under a copyright, only the representation. And I think that a simple representation of the data can't be much different than this. Yann (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak  Delete, very low quality diagram, which is unused, and pretty useless too without a more detailed description on what is depicted. From Copyright prespective, I am sure that this is PD-ineligible however. ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10/G10}}=={{int:filedesc Yann (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this file not F10/G10? All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not copyrightable in the US but likely copyrightable in its country of origin China. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Genshin Impact logo.svg. Aasim (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright washing. Lots of derivative work. User:TaronjaSatsuma 2024-09-23T18:44:24

Copyrighted logo. IOIOI (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by User:Tneleg

[edit]

These files were marked as „own work“, though both of them appear to be taken from afromoths.net website ([3] & [4]), where the authors stated are Grobler Q. and De Prins W., respectively. --Microvipera (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remplacé par un fichier PNG 1 Tan Khaerr (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I asked this deletion to the creator of this image. Borvan53 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remplacé par un fichier PNG 1 Tan Khaerr (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I asked this deletion to the creator of this image. Borvan53 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remplacé par un fichier PNG 1 Tan Khaerr (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I asked this deletion to the creator of this image. Borvan53 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remplacé par un fichier PNG 1 Tan Khaerr (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I asked this deletion to the creator of this image. Borvan53 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata states the photo was taken in 2022 yet the author claims in the filename that it's from 1998. It looks to me to be a photo of a still image on a screen. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

повторяющийся Vaija (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a design made in traditional Hawaiian cloth. It's not a utilitarian object, and is more like artwork, so I think we would need a free license release from the creator of the textile. holly {chat} 21:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an own work. No scope. 186.175.210.172 21:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was previously published on a National Weather Service website, but the link is now dead and the two Internet Archive snapshots of the page to which it's cited do not contain this image (or anything at all)[5]

The vast majority of photos of damage caused by severe weather events that are published on NWS websites come from their own damage surveys. However, a significant number are provided by third parties, mostly county Emergency Management Agencies, but also county sheriffs' offices, and state-level agencies such as police or departments of transportation. Some are also provided by private citizens sharing their images with the NWS.

We therefore rely heavily on image captions as evidence of ownership of an image, and without this context, we cannot simply assume that a weather damage photo sourced from an NWS website was created by the NWS.

In the absence of any context, we need to approach the NWS regional office that published the image and ask who created it.

In this case they confirmed for me:

  • they still have this image on file
  • it was not created by the NWS
  • they have no record of who created it.

I forwarded this advice to the VRT. (ticket:2024092310011302)

With no evidence that its creator released it into the public domain, and no way to contact them, we need to delete this as a precaution under COM:PRP, at least until a creator can be identified and contacted to negotiate a release into the public domain or under a free license.

If no creator is ever identified, it will pass into the public domain as an orphan work in 2128.

Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for 104 years per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 22:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


possible copyvio © Monika Rittershaus - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo M2k~dewiki, ich habe die Fotografin mit der Bitte um eine Lizenzfreigabe kontaktiert. Die sollte in den nächsten Tagen ausgestellt werden, da ich die Freigabe für das Bild vorab von ihr für diese Verwendung erhalten habe. Pacsolis (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Monika Rittershaus - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo M2k~dewiki, ich habe die Fotografin mit der Bitte um eine Lizenzfreigabe kontaktiert. Die sollte in den nächsten Tagen ausgestellt werden, da ich die Freigabe für das Bild vorab von ihr für diese Verwendung erhalten habe. Pacsolis (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio © Stephan Brückler - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo M2k~dewiki, ich habe den Fotografen mit der Bitte um eine Lizenzfreigabe kontaktiert. Die sollte in den nächsten Tagen ausgestellt werden, da ich das Bild von ihm für diese Verwendung erhalten habe. Pacsolis (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is credited to Patrick Massabo on WP:FR, uploader is not the author of this picture Culex (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file is copyrighted. Compare for instance against https://in.bookmyshow.com/ahmedabad/movies/parampara/ET00395179 Super nabla (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was previously published on a National Weather Service website, but the link is now dead and it was never archived by the Internet Archive.[6]

However, the uploader to the Commons noted that the file was credited "Sedgwick County Emergency Management". Agencies of the Kansas state government can hold copyrights over their materials,[7] so I contacted them.

In this case they confirmed for me:

  • they supplied this image to the NWS
  • it was not taken by a County employee, it was supplied to EM by one of their volunteers (whom they did not name)

I forwarded this advice to the VRT. (ticket:2024092110008687)

With no evidence that its creator released it into the public domain, and no way to contact them, we need to delete this as a precaution under COM:PRP, at least until a creator can be identified and contacted to negotiate a release into the public domain or under a free license.

If no creator is ever identified, it will pass into the public domain as an orphan work in 2124. (It isn't clear to me whether the EM knows the name of the volunteer; "identified" here means identified at all, not just by us).


Rlandmann (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

likely spam, but need arabic reader to confirm Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]