Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/07

6 August 2024

8 August 2024

Deletion requests on 7 August 2024

August 7

File:Harvesting of cinchona barks.jpg

Photograph not at source. Extremely doubtful it is even from 1948. Unlikely to have correct licensing info. Mbdfar (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not used png icons (Under construction)

Icons was used in w:pl:Wikipedia:Sprzątanie Wikipedii. I was replace with File:UnderCon_icon_black.svg with size param. Now not used.

Architekt1024 (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am canceling my request. Architekt1024 (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notturno for Violoncello and Piano, Opus 4 (1902).wav

No evidence of free license at source Johnj1995 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obere Hauptstraße Freising um 1920-25 v Westen.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Didym as Dw no source since (dw no source since). It looks like a photo from the 1920s or 1930s. The photographer of the original photo is unknown. Please check de:Portal_Diskussion:Auto_und_Motorrad#wie_alt...? for a detailed discussion. NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alaa Wardi.jpg

Taken by Sinem Güneş, Alaa Wardi's wife. Permission needed. HeminKurdistan (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Veracious

Kenapa gambar yang saya unggah malah dimasukkan ke kategori usulan penghapusan? Padahal foto yang saya unggah itu hasil potret saya sendiri, bukan hasil orang lain. Saya sebagai pemilik foto mengizinkan foto tersebut digunakan orang lain secara bebas menggunakan lisensi CC-BY-SA-4.0. Astrinko (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jika foto tersebut harusnya dihapus karena foto panorama gerai minimarket Alfamart mengandung unsur hak cipta, coba tunjukkan kepada saya mana bagian objek dari foto gerai minimarket Alfamart yang mengandung unsur hak ciptanya? Astrinko (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veracious

Halo, apa kamu bisa balas? Astrinko (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Astrinko Halo, alasan penghapusan foto sudah saya sertakan sejak di atas. Sesuai aturan yang ada di Commons, kebebasan foto/gambar bangunan di Indonesia tidaklah jelas, sekalipun diijinkan oleh sang fotografer; maka dari itu, sejatinya gambar atau foto bangunan/rumah/kantor/gedung di Indonesia harus dihapus (kecuali kalau arsiteknya telah meninggal seabad yang lalu, atau anda punya ijin tertulis dari arsitek atau perusahaan terkait)

Contoh lainnya anda dapat lihat di halaman penghapusan foto-foto Tugu Monas Jakarta. Semoga itu membantu. Salam. Veracious (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pegadaian Kantor Pusat - panoramio.jpg

NoFoP-Indonesia Veracious (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags With Bars

Out of scope: incomplete gallery of unclear purpose. I think this is effectively a gallery version of Category:Flags by color, but it's so incomplete that I can't even tell what was intended. Omphalographer (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms Conyers School.png

While the original grant might have been from 1590, the specific rendering here is obviously significantly newer. Each rendering will have it's own copyright (See COM:COA). To me it looks to be digital, but either way I would be very surprised if this was old enough to be PD, and without the who and when info of this rendering, and keeping in mind COM:PCP, I think it can't be kept on commons. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 08:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Sülchenkirche interior

copyright violation, artist of statue Sproll by Franz Kasper (Bildhauer), who died in 1967; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dora Moutot.jpg

Uploader claims to be in the photo, professional studio photo, we need VRT from the photographer Gbawden (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the delition request of MY picture. I’m Dora Moutot. The person in this picture. The photographer Capucine gave me the right to post it here. I bought this picture. It’s MINE and i decided to post it here for my Wikipedia. Why ask to delete it? It’s not ok. I have the right to have my picture here. It Sounds like someone is trying to harass me. I have been harassed online for a LONG time and it seems it’s again one of the techniques. Doramoutot (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doramoutot: please contact COM:VRT. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 06:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doramoutot, it's not harassment but a very common deletion reason. You own the photo, but did you purchase unlimited rights to share it with people who might use it for profit? You will have to prove to COM:VRT that you did or have the photographer state that you did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Brooklyn315 (talk · contribs)

Gbawden (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks. I didn't realize they belonged to Disney and I was only changing the name of the file bc it wasn't accepting the other file names and not giving me a reason why. I have contacts at Disney that can help me prove it's of authorized use. Who would I email about this at Wikipedia? And if I don't get the rights can I use any photos I find of Nic and Lucy online? Brooklyn315 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions are available at Commons:Volunteer Response Team Gbawden (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket:2024082010018714 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 21:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just accepted permission for “File:NicHeadshot1-2024.jpg” under ticket:2024082010018714. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 12:14, 21 August 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.

Files in Category:Gbtemptosort

This uploader has been active on Commons for a long time so I tried to AGF but they also have a record of copyvio. None of these images have meaningful exif. The following have FBMD File:HughGrundy2015.jpg File:Lindsay Mitchell.jpg File:MarilynMartin2016.jpg File:Neil Jason.jpg

This one is probably from Insta File:Luke Daniels2.jpg

I think PCP is called for as this claim of own work is dubious

Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Gbtemptosort 2

Two different uploaders claiming the same photo as own work, albeit with a different crop. Needs VRT

Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not the same photograph. They're taken from a slight different angle. Just take a closer look at the position of the red and green circles. Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his position on the ice is different in the two photos. They are obviously not the same, once you see the differences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ольга Пикколо.jpg

Copyright violation? Автор (Author) - Светлана Аввакум. Drakosh (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Bredstedt

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are (collaborative) works of de:Ingwer Paulsen and Hans Philipp. Philipp died in 1961. So the files are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2032.

Rosenzweig τ 13:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Crivitz

Per his EB signature, these German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of de:Erich Bentrup, who died in 1968. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2039.

Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marines' Hymn (1944), by the Boston Pops.ogg

As a sound recording fixed in 1944, this had a copyright restored to it under the Music Modernization Act of 2018. Undelete in 2045. SDudley (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Guislin (talk · contribs)

Does Commons:Freedom of panorama in source country allow this?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argenteuil, in France.

in a public domain, street Guislin (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those are photographs of 2D works. And the depicted 2D works all have "© Musée d'Argenteuil" written at the bottom of the black circles. Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CH 015610.jpg

This is a lower-quality version of identical image - File:A Focke Wulf Fw 190 and Junkers Ju 88S of No. 1426 (Enemy Aircraft) Flight RAF at Collyweston, Northamptonshire, 22 February 1945. CH15610.jpg Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/"with an active link required"

Useful stock photos of topical and social media subjects which all say in their descriptions that an "active link" is required, to one of a few "...catalog.com" URLs, e.g.:-

Credit s.quotecatalog.com/quotes/inspirational with an active link required. Images are free for usage on websites (even websites with ads) if you credit "source" with an active link to s.quotecatalog.com/quotes/inspirational.

Saying that an image cannot be used if it lacks an "active link" (which I assume is meant to mean that the credited URL can be clicked to be taken to that website) would preclude use in print and some video contexts, or on websites that don't support active linking, so this seems to go against COM:LICENSING.

Belbury (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on VP. Even if it weren't for the outright impossibility of fulfilling this request in print media, any conditions on reuse beyond the requirements of the Creative Commons license render a work non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, do these exaggerated conditions make null and void the terms of the more free license? I am not sure that is the case. Bedivere (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. We must close the door to Copyleft Trolling. SV1XV (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not really convinced by this, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CC licensing "with an active link required" Enhancing999 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the text in question does not form part of the CC licence (the images are, in effect, dual licensed). Or are we going to delete all CC 2.0 licensed images, which say "You must provide a link to the license..."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't form part of the licence but could it not be argued that the Flickr user was trying to craft their own homebrew licence when filling out Flickr's submission process? The "required" wording would suggest that they expected it to apply and be compulsory (or, I suppose, that they cynically knew that it didn't but hoped that some downstream users of the image might not know any better). Belbury (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly could be so argued, as that is what, in effect, you did in your nomination. It is my argument (and that of others, below) that you were wrong to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as @Pigsonthewing says, any condition provided for outside of the license is not part of the license and does not constitute an additional restriction. This is explicitly provided for in the license text: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here.". D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per D. Benjamin Miller. Any conditions in addition to the terms of the CC license are not enforceable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Pigsonthewing, @D. Benjamin Miller, @King of Hearts illumination of @Bedivere's question. -- Ooligan (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commons has files that require links beyond a link to the CC license and that can be used in print media, but such files might get a watermark-banner smacked on them. File:Mellencamp 354.jpg for example. Nakonana (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make that URL into the attribution in the CC license. E.g. {{cc-by-2.0|attribution=https://s.quotecatalog.com/quotes/inspirational}}. I would only see a need to go further than that if there were evidence that they were threatening legal action or demanding royalties when this was not an "active" link. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although weakly since I feel like the files are questionably educational. It at least doesn't seem like the licensing thing is an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commemoration of Gruszka massacre (2024-07-05), Tarnawa p.jpg

No proof that uploader made this historical photos from XX. century. Also, since a cork board is used, it does not look like a permanent display, which is required for recognition as public domain (freedom of panorama) in Poland 159.205.179.12 17:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are people who were killed in 1940 in these photos. So they were taken before 1939. Lowdown (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword: taken, while Template:PD-Poland says:

1) "All photographs by Polish photographers (...) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed to be in the public domain in Poland."

2) "To uploader: Please provide where and when the image was first published."

Per U. S. Copyright Office: "publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public". As above, you have to prove it where and when it was made available to the public. You don't.

But my objection was related to the lack of possibility to use "freedom of panorama" according to Polish law: Art. 33(1) of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights “it is permissible to disseminate works permanently displayed in generally accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens, but not for the same use.” 159.205.179.12 15:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One could argue that neither of the depicted images is the center of the photo that was uploaded here, so that every individual one of them falls under De Minimis as mere "part" of a "series" Commons:De_minimis#Examples. See other examples where a similar rationale was used: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A Photo of Toys Donated by State Department Employees (46212820822).jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Art for sale. The Peak Hong Kong. (11376547505).jpg, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lolicon comicbooks sold in Japan 002.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA 92nd brigade T-64BM2.jpg

No explicit license is mentioned on this particular page. RajatonRakkaus (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose : Ukrainian copyright law regarding photos taken by the Ukrainian army takes precedence over Facebook's regulations. A simple reverse search on Google shows that this photo was indeed published on an official account of the Ukrainian army. A simple viewing of the photo shows that 1) it depicts a military vehicle, here a tank; 2) this photo does not have any artistic character that would allow it to be attributed any copyright; 3) this photo bears a watermark of the Ukrainian army, here the 92nd Assault Brigade (92 OShBR), unequivocally indicating that it is a photo taken by the Ukrainian army.

A simple viewing of the page on Commons shows that the correct license was attributed when the file was uploaded, namely {{mil.gov.ua}}.

Even if later, a forger reused this photo taken by the Ukrainian army and illegally claimed authorship, this photo would still be under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, and the author of this photo would still be the 92nd Kish Otaman Ivan Sirko Mechanized Brigade (in Ukrainian: 92-га окрема штурмова бригада « Ivan Sirko »).

It is not necessary for the mention "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license" to be stated on Facebook as long as Ukrainian law stipulates it, and it is the law that takes precedence, not the mention on Facebook.

In conclusion, this photo is correctly uploaded to Commons with the correct author (92-га окрема штурмова бригада « Ivan Sirko ») and the correct license ({{mil.gov.ua}}), there is no reason to delete it from Commons.Christian28TMA (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Familiewapen Ruetter.jpg

Diese Grafik wurde erst 2015 angefertigt (Signatur). Unabhängig vom Status des Wappens an sich bzw. dessen Blasonierung ist die hier präsentierte Darstellung individuell genug, um Schöpfungshöhe zu haben GerritR (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofiankatu.jpg

A poor quality rip of a Flickr-copyrighted file: https://www.flickr.com/photos/helsingin_kaupunginmuseo/6909421015 . Works from the museum are sometimes CC-licensed, but I see no reason to keep this; should be properly imported if so. Onsilla (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim Sheehy and a Superscooper.jpg

This appears to be taken from a Magazine article about Tim Sheehy. link here Article credit is to a "Ryan Mason." There doesn't appear to be a separate photographer. User:Mountainsgalore may be Ryan Mason or own the image credit, but no proof of it as yet. Thesavagenorwegian (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ryan Mason from Aerial Fire did write and publish the article, however, photos are mine. If there is a mechanism to show ownership on Wiki, I am happy to work to provide it. Mountainsgalore (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice! I see now on the magazine website that the photo credit is to Bridger Aerospace. I am unsure whether your attestation is sufficient, since the image was previously published in another medium, credited to another party, and your account is pretty new. I would follow the guide here to contact the Volunteer Response Team. Thesavagenorwegian (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy. Thanks for the pointer. I will look into it. Mountainsgalore (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Organization of the Scout Movement Flag (2024).png

Copyrighted logo of WOSM, see https://support.scout.org/hc/en-gb/articles/10382769051151-How-are-the-new-brand-elements-protected Jergen (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Simple logo. Trademark is not a copyright restriction. Yann (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest part of the logo is a Fleur-de-lis. The National Football League already tried to send out cease-and-desist letters based on a claimed copyright for the French Lily symbol, and they had to abandon their claims (see https://legalnewsline.com/stories/510522308-louisiana-ag-brokers-end-to-who-dat-spat).

Well, and anything aside from the French Lily is just De Minimis or COM:TOO. Nakonana (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seif El-Deraa.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Stepro as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: inappropriate out-of-focus crop from the background; does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image itself is properly licenced and attributed as per the license. I am not sue whether the author has any rights to limit such crops if all the conditions are met (and they are), but I would just like to stress out that the only point of this image was to put a focus on the specific player, so that we can illustrate his article properly, without inserting an image that is actually focused on a German player (the original). There were no ill intentions on my side and I honestly think that the image is great; it is a bit blurrier than the player in focus, but you can see it properly, you can properly identify the player in detail (e.g. eye color, the bruises on his knees - all very specific details that you wouldn't see on an out-of-focus image) and I wouldn't call it a background detail, just a second plan detail (the backgroud would be the crowd). As said, if the author insists, I will not fight this request, but I would like for the picture to remain if all copyright-related issues are settled as it is a great way to identify a player whose PD images are hard to find. Thank you for understanding. Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no (copyright) legal concerns, nobody has claimed that. My point is that people who are out of focus in the background are not suddenly placed in the foreground. Because, as you rightly write, the person is not in the focus of the photo. Stepro (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro: I am not sure how to reply to this properly, as I don't follow the logic, despite the fact that we agree on the basics. The image is a cropped photo that is clearly described as such and everyone can view the original image. In light of that, the background crop per se is good, the player is recognizable and while it is a bit blurrier than the German player in focus, it is still good enough (great, in fact!) and it can be used to portray the player. As you can assume, finding photos of Egyptian handball players is very difficult, which is why I decided to make this crop, as the overall quality is still good enough (heck, I've seen much much worse crops here on Commons which were still widely used). Now, as I've said, I respect your artistic integrity and the fact that you are attached to your work as such, which is why I will not "fight" this (although, the administrators will probably decide whether this claim is valid or not, based on everything), but I would like to ask you kindly to allow this photo to stay until a better alternative is found, as it is a truly valuable photograph that elevates the overall quality of the article, and I think that every Wikipedia editor and reader will be grateful to you if you give your consent for its usage. I can also promise you, if that is going to be of any help, that I won't be doing this with any other future photographs, so it won't start an avalanche; if that is in any way reassuring and will help you give your consent. Thank you in advance! :) Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Edgar Allan Poe. Valid crop. That's something we agree to when we offer our photos with a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]