Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/22

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

August 22

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Namibia A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In 2005, I took several photos in Windhoek with the intention of using them as illustrations for Wikipedia articles about Namibia. It is a pleasure to see that this image has been featured on various pages in multiple languages for 19 years. However, if this informative photo does not meet the legal requirements for display on Wikipedia, so be it. Bries (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bries, Wikipedia is not the same as Commons. Read Wikipedia's fair use policy and consider uploading the relevant photos locally to en.wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, note that COM:FAIRUSE does not exist on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Namibia A1Cafel (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In 2005, I took several photos in Windhoek with the intention of using them as illustrations for Wikipedia articles about Namibia. It is a pleasure to see that this image has been featured on various pages in multiple languages for 19 years. However, if this informative photo does not meet the legal requirements for display on Wikipedia, so be it. Bries (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in Namibia A1Cafel (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In 2005, I took several photos in Windhoek with the intention of using them as illustrations for Wikipedia articles about Namibia. It is a pleasure to see that this image has been featured on various pages in multiple languages for 19 years. However, if this informative photo does not meet the legal requirements for display on Wikipedia, so be it. Bries (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in USA for non-architectural works

A1Cafel (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The publisher's name and publication date of the newspaper are missing, the copyright status of the license is still questionable. Astrinko (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. It was in Courier Express newspaper (Buffalo, NY) on December 10, 1973. I have added a citation to the Wikipedia article. Here is the link to the newspaper.
https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=coe19731210-01.1.53&srpos=16&e=------197-en-20-coe-1--txt-txIN-robert+heisner-------Cattaraugus%2cChautauqua%2cErie%2cGenesee%2cMonroe%2cNiagara%2cOrleans%2cWyoming-- Bushido77 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After I traced the newspaper publishing company, it turned out that the Courier Express newspaper company was from the United States.

Oh yes, did the Courier Express newspaper warn of copyright infringement regarding newspapers produced around the 1970s? If the publisher does not provide a copyright notice, then the newspaper excerpt enters the public domain license using the license tag <<PD-US-pre1978>>, because the work was published in the United States between 1929 - 1977 without a copyright notice. Astrinko (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Werner Zagrebbi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Dubious own work claim: No metadata, strange resolutions, strange crops, one has a giant white border below it that indicates it's a screen capture from somewhere else.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way would be to produce the the original, uncropped images with metadata (embedded data from the camera). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No metadata because I purposely omitted it. Furthermore, the two images of Jeremy Carl were both a mistake on my part, not somebody else's screen capture. All of these are, in fact, my own work and have been taken in a public setting with the full consent of the people in them. If all this needs to be verified, I will publicly do so on my eponymous X account, although I have already done that on multiple occasions (e.g. [1]). I would second a speedy delete of these two images and reupload an adequately cropped version later if possible. Werner Zagrebbi (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't think any of these are sufficient reasons to doubt that they are original works and they mostly appear to be in public/outside. 12.74.213.114 16:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP in France, architect I. M. Pei died in 2019, still within the 70 p.m.a. of the country A1Cafel (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is an invalid request; it was already discussed at:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid
Same for: File:Courtyard @ Louvre @ Paris (29078996892).jpg , File:Paris Louvre Pyramid Entrance (9811771575).jpg
A1Cafel is breaking the community protocols and abusing the deletion request.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This likely copyrighted art was photographed inside "Iguapop Gallery" in Barcelona, Spain. So it is not covered by COM:FOP SPAIN = "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes."

See Gallaery description in 2010 here: https://albaper.com/2010/05/19/iguapop/ Ooligan (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This likely copyrighted art was photographed inside "Iguapop Gallery" in Barcelona, Spain. So it is not covered by COM:FOP SPAIN = "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes."

See Gallery description in 2010 here: https://albaper.com/2010/05/19/iguapop/ Ooligan (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original Flickr uploader is on the "bad authors" list TaurusEmerald (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and author are given, but there is no indication at the source that the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license was given by the author. Files must be explicitly licensed by the author for us to keep them, either by putting the license on the source site, or emailing (direct from author) using the COM:VRT process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An original, creative composite of multiple CC-BY sources is only CC-BY itself if the creator of the composite explicitly chooses to release the result under that licence. https://x.com/emoji_remix does not appear to have done this. Belbury (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Not enough creative input imo to become property of the creator (compositor?). Emdosis (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indoors, there is no freedom of panorama in the Federal Republic of Germany. The artist Leon Zack passed away in 1980. Therefore, the photograph of the artwork (mosaic) will not enter the public domain until 2050. File:MahnmalBittermark 2014 2.JPG 79.140.189.154 08:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, there is no freedom of panorama for interiors. The artist Leon Zack passed away in 1980. Therefore, the photograph of the artwork (mosaic) will not achieve public domain status until 2050. File:MahnmalBittermark 2014 5.JPG 79.140.189.154 08:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, there is no freedom of panorama for interiors. The artist Leon Zack passed away in 1980. Therefore, the photograph of the artwork (mosaic) will not achieve public domain status until 2050.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.140.189.154 (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) File:MahnmalBittermark 2014 7.JPG 79.140.189.154 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Jlwoodwa as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|just remembered that images of presumably-copyrighted architecture require freedom of panorama, which Greece doesn't have Yann (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User globally locked, uncertain copyright. Unlikely to be OK. Yann (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rafaeltrivella (talk · contribs)

[edit]

2 are credited to a photographer in the exif. PCP for the other 2

Gbawden (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown provenance, no evidence of {{PD-old}}. It should be moved to Wikipedia under Fair Use guidelines. 0x0a (talk) 09:50, 22 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.

per COM:WEBHOST

A09090091 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for copyvios twice, unlikely to be own works or under a free license.

Yann (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Jardin22 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All of these look like they are not the uploader's own work as claimed, but taken from somewhere else. Some of them might be ok as older Argentinian photographs per COM:Argentina and might have even escaped the URAA (possibly, but not certain); but we'd need proper dates, sources, authors etc. to determine that. Else the files should be deleted per the precautionary principle.

Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FoP of 2D works in China メイド理世 (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not convinced that {{PD-UA-exempt}} applies here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art and medals by Rikke Raben

[edit]

The content of Category:Rikke Raben:

Copyright violation for artworks of living artist. Note that is no Freedom of panorama for public art in Denmark.. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cpmment As for the Jørgen Jensen medal, it is a medal issued by theNational Museum of Denmark and the file was released by the museum with a license that allowed it to0 be used (although the link is dead now, so ). Epiædm't the museum have the right to do so?Ramblersen2 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramblersen2: You are right. I found the National Museum of Denmark's now defunct source page for File:Medalje over Jørgen Jensen 2002.jpg archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20220526231305/https://samlinger.natmus.dk/kmm/asset/437 The museum released the file under CC BY-SA 4.0. Assuming they had the right to do so, that file should be kept. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - In den Metadatan wird aber als Urheber angegeben: "Kajomedia Music" - aber auch das ist falsch, denn Urheber kann nur eine natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a derivative work of Viesti, a 2005 sculpture by Anni Rapinoja (b. 1949, Q771223), located in Oulu, Finland. The author of the original work (the sculpture) is still living, so it is still under copyright and thus not in public domain. Freedom of panorama is for buildings only in Finland. Apalsola tc 14:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Rudo Bischoff, who died in 1964. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2035.

Rosenzweig τ 14:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Claimed as author's life plus 70 years or fewer but no author is specified, only a website domain. Photographer would have had to have died two years after this photo was taken. Belbury (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author is unknown, there is no credit of any photographer in the newspaper where it is taken from. => But-Club et le Miroir des sports - Guide du Tour (1952-06-23) https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bd6t513143184?rk=1137344;4#
Maybe I should use this one instead {{PD-anon-70-EU}} ? Penastal (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a dictatorial country, with no access to information, isolated from the world, a group of people risk their lives to protest and you think they are going to care about defending their copyright with an improvised "banner"? Deleting this image will only help to make this type of protest invisible. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, this is not the only image of the protest. --A1Cafel (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, You have been deliberately asking for deletion the banners in this category, slowly: File:Banner at demonstrations and protests against Chavismo and Nicolas Maduro government 24.jpg, File:Banner at demonstrations and protests against Chavismo and Nicolas Maduro government 35.jpg. Wilfredor (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia and the photo violates architect's copyright. Architect et:Alar Kotli died in 1963 and the photo can be restored after copyright expiration in 2034 (70+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auch wenn diese Grafik noch so oft verwendet wird: Es handelt sich um eine unbelegte Kombination des Ordens mit einem Wappen, das nur als heraldischer Vorschlag für Leute mit dem Namen "Scheel" erdacht wurde. Es ist nicht belegt, dass Walter Scheel dieses Wappen verwendet hat. Die Grafik ist somit als Fantasiegebilde zu werten und somit out of scope. GerritR (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe dazu insbesondere: https://wiki.genealogy.net/Scheel%28e%29_%28Familienname%29 GerritR (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE is supposed to settle questions of COM:SCOPE on Commons. Of course, what the closing admin might do is anyone's guess, but it would be wrong and kind of arrogant to delete a file that is in use on 8 Wikipedias just because it's inaccurate in the opinion of some Commons users. Instead, the Wikipedias should decide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the file is in use many times: The combination of the order and the coat of arms is unproven. The COA itself might be ok as a funny, but useless idea of a german heraldist (everyone called "Scheel" should use this COA from now), but both together are nonsense. Nonsense and fantasy is out of scope and should be deleted. It's a waste of time to discuss this in eight Wikipedias. BTW, also affected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Walter_Scheel_(Order_of_the_Seraphim).svg GerritR (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image wrongly depicts upperside and underside of two different species. There already are separate files of the upperside and underside. See discussion page Exonie (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: But they are different species which is exactly the issue. --Exonie (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the author, Archaeodontosaurus, says above. Yann (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]