Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
10 August 2024
12 August 2024
Deletion requests on 11 August 2024

August 11

[edit]

File:Kentro-texnis-politismou.jpg

[edit]

Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 06:44, 11 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.

File:Lamine Yamal.jpg

[edit]

Non-free image, per here. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Tagged as "no permission" since September 4. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamine Yamal.jpg

[edit]

No evidence of free license -- YouTube video license does not necessarily extend to thumbnail. Uploader notes that other thumbnails on this channel are indeed copyright violations – we must assume this may also be a copyright violation per COM:PCP. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Художньо-меморіальна дошка на будинку, в якому жив С.П. Людкевич.jpg

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1991. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yaohnanen qəbiləsinin kişiləri Fillip şahzadənin fotoşəkilləri ilə.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Atakhanli as Copyvio (copyvio) Yann (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alessio Cigliano con Ken il Guerriero nel 2023.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:FOP Italy. This photo was probably taken in Italy. Although the main subject is the actor, the Fist of the North Star illustration also takes up a large part of the photo. IDCM (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Rose window in St. Roch Church in Białystok (interior view)

[edit]

Stained glass project by w:pl:Placyda Bukowska, died in 1974. No FoP in Poland.

ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:FC Torpedo Moscow

[edit]

Possibly above COM:TOO Russia#Logos which is unclear. Two of these files are licensed as {{PD-art}} but I think that license too needs to be verified.

Jonteemil (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an archived page[1] of the given source in File:Logo torpedo.png, but all it seems to say is that the club took on the name "Torpedo" in 1936, but not that it's the time that the logo came to exist or that Вячеслав Орлов (Vyacheslav Orlov) was the author of the logo. This website does state that the logo was created in 1936. And this site names Orlov as the author (however, this source might not qualify as a reliable source). Orlov died in 1995 according to Russian Wikipedia[2]. This doesn't sound like the PD-art license is justified. Nakonana (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Tux_icons based on Tux-G2.png

[edit]

The license for Tux-G2, which these images are based on, is non-commercial only as indicated in this previous deletion request. A similar request was also filed in 2017. --Anwon (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franciscus-Geneva-2018-r.jpg

[edit]

And File:Franciscus-Geneva-2018-v.jpg.

Missing evidence that the uploader is the coin sculptor Daniela Longo. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kate bush 1978 1 (cropped).png

[edit]

Is a screenshot from a TV interview. Which was released with permission from the interviewers estate but it is unknown who the copyright holder is, and whether they consent to the video being released under Creative Commons Mewhen123 (talk) 20:52, 11 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.

File:Dieter Matthes 2023.jpg

[edit]

Nicht eigenes Werk. 186.172.231.218 20:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no reason for allegation offered by anon. Looks consistent with other uploads by user. (No prejudging relisting if specific evidence of false license is shown.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dieter Matthes 2023.jpg

[edit]

Photo of a photo. COM:PCP 186.173.86.199 22:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file description says that the photo was taken in the Beyond Reality Galerie, which is located at Schlüterstraße 70 in Berlin [3]. The Exif data of the file give the coordinate location of Schlüterstraße 12-16 in Berlin. According to Google Maps the distance between Schlüterstraße 70 and Schlüterstraße 12-16 is six meters (or 19-20 ft)[4]. Why should one take a photo of a photo when the subject of the photo is standing right next to you..?
 Keep The reason for deletion does not sound plausible. Nakonana (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wolfgang Petrick in seinem Atelier 2022.jpg

[edit]

DW. Painting needs permission from the painter. 186.173.86.199 22:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...da ich der Urheber dieser Fotografie bin, kann es ja eigentlich nur an irgendeiner Richtlinie liegen. Welche Richtlinie habe ich hier denn nicht eingehalten? Der Künstler sitzt vor seinem Werk, muß ich das dazu schreiben? CS Photo Artist (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich kann nicht Deutsch sprechen. The Ol'Achim kann. 186.173.86.199 12:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CS Photo Artist: Wir brauchen eine Genehmigung des Künstlers (von ihm selbst, per E-Mail), dass sein sehr prominent im Foto zu sehendes Gemälde unter eine freie Lizenz (wie die des Fotos) gestellt werden darf. Details, Adresse, zu verwendender Text siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Während des Fototermins war das sogar auch Thema, Petrick meinte: Wenn ich als Künstler davor sitze und mich fotografieren lasse, ist automatisch die Freigabe erteilt, dieses auch zu nutzen.
Verzeihen Sie bitte die späte Antwort... CS Photo Artist (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CS Photo Artist: Unsere Richtlinien sehen vor, dass wir das explizit schriftlich (bzw. per E-Mail) vom Urheber selbst wollen. Konkludentes Einverständnis und dergleichen reichen nicht. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang Petrick ist zur Zeit sehr beschäftigt, ich werde ihn damit jetzt nicht belästigen. Der Künstler sitzt vor seinem Werk, wenn es tatsächlich gegen die Richtlinien von Wikipedia verstößt, löschen Sie es einfach. Das letzte was ich möchte ist, gegen irgendwelche Richtlinien zu verstoßen, vielen lieben Dank. CS Photo Artist (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reinhard Stangl 2014.jpg

[edit]

Kunsthaus Koldenhof. Google Lens will help you. 186.173.86.199 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrtes Kunsthaus Koldenhof
Ich wollte nur kurz fragen, was an der Fotografie von Reinhard Stangl nicht in Ordnung ist? Ich bin der Urheber dieser Fotografie...
Über eine Antwort würde ich mich sehr freuen.
Mit freundlichem Gruß
Christian Schneegaß CS Photo Artist (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das Problem ist, wie auch beim Foto von Wolfgang Petrick, der im Foto zu sehende Teil der urheberrechtlich geschützten Werke der jeweiligen Künstler. Ein solches Foto braucht zwei unabhängig erteilte Lizenzen, um hier veröffentlicht werden zu können: Eine vom Fotografen (die du als Urheber beim Hochladen erteilst) und dazu eine zweite Lizenz der jeweiligen Künstler als Rechteinhaber der Werke für deren Abbildung im Foto. Das Vorgehen zur Erteilung der Erlaubnis durch die Künstler hat dir Rosenzweig oben verlinkt. Vor einem neutralen Hintergrund wären beide Fotos mit nur deiner Lizenzierung als Urheber verwendbar in Wikipedia, so sind sie dies leider nicht. Uschoen (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background is arguably de minimis, as there isn't very much of it and it's deliberately blurred. It could be blurred a bit more if that's really necessary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neon Genesis Evangelion.png

[edit]

Japanese logo, likely exceeds COM:TOO Japan. The styling to me has "artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation". Consigned (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

幾何学的な図形や文字のみで構成されているので、創作性の基準は満たしていないと私は思います。 バケラッタ (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is composed only of geometric shapes and letters, I believe it does not meet the criteria for creativity.
translator: Google Translate Consigned (talk) 09:34, 12 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.

File:Fog_Bowl_1988.jpg

[edit]

"Image courtesy of NFL.com" Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the licensing template, which specifically addresses "courtesy of" images hosted on National Weather Service servers, stating in part:
“ "However, the NWS sites also host non-NWS images which have been submitted by individuals: these are generally shown as "Courtesy of ...". Such images have explicitly been released to the public domain by the copyright owner as part of the upload process...The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise..." ”
Thus, this image became public domain once it was hosted on National Weather Service servers without a specific copyright notice. An example of images hosted on National Weather Service servers that have their copyright held can be found here, with the annotation shown. The page hosting this image has no specific copyright annotation, only the "courtesy of" tag referred to in the licensing template. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Ks0stm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fog Bowl 1988.jpg

[edit]

The last deletion request of this file in December 2010 was withdrawn on the basis of the wording of the {{PD-NWS}} template, which we now know to be flawed. (See this recent DR for details.)

But this image in particular is credited by the NWS to NFL.com. The original image can be found here (you might need to click/swipe through to image 20/20 to find it.)

Unsurprisingly, the NFL's copyright policy is long, detailed, and restrictive. The version in force at the time this file was uploaded to Commons is archived here and says (among very many other things):

"We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so." (emphasis mine)

Without any evidence of permission where the NFL transferred their copyright of this photo into the public domain, we can't keep this file. Rlandmann (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
 Neutral I’m acknowledging WeatherWriter’s argument, but the NFL is real touchy about there copyrights, so I can’t give a support to keep or delete. ChessEric (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted by user:Yann for meeting F1 and F6 speedy deletion criteria. Non admin closure. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my closure. Yann (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should assume that this discussion has been reopened. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment When was this photo published? Did it include a copyright notice or was the copyright renewed? If it was published in 1988 without notice or renewal it could be PD per COM:HIRTLE (specifically {{PD-US-1978-89}}). If published after 1 March 1989 it would still be copyrighted (I agree with commenters above that material from AP or NFL hosted by NWS is not automatically PD). Consigned (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger question first would be whether it was registered with the copyright office within five years. Even if it was published prior to March 1, 1989; it would still be non-free if registered by March 1, 1994. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment — NOTE: The NWS general disclaimer may be enough to keep the file. A recently closed deletion request for a file under the PD-NWS template was closed as keep with the main keep rational being the NWS general disclaimer. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking about the lawsuit-happy NFL though. Just saying. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, that shouldn't be relevant. The principle at play is whether we can be sure, beyond significant doubt, that the copyright owner surrendered their rights to the image, not "what can we get away with?"
    That's probably the part that has dismayed me the most about these discussions. Even before I decided to take a close look at this chaos, a doctrine had emerged that "Getty might get mad with us, we'd better respect their copyrights" while at the same time, being quite happy to ignore the rights of less powerful and less aggressive people and organisations, whose images the NWS captioned exactly the same way for the most part.
    It's even more problematic when some of them are small professional or semi-professional photographers trying to make some kind of income out of their images and whom a false public domain assertion here has far greater capacity to harm than the likes of Getty. Legal arguments aside, "can we get away with it?" is a wholly unethical position. (Not directed at you, Hurricane Clyde, but at a way of thinking that has emerged around these images). --Rlandmann (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it shouldn’t be relevant. But I decided to put that statement about the “lawsuit-happy NFL” because WeatherWriter continues to claim that the general disclaimer is enough; which is clearly and unambiguously not the case. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore @WeatherWriter; they renominated the file. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/08/11&oldid=918828914"