Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/23

22 August 2024

24 August 2024

Deletion requests on 23 August 2024

August 23

File:Japan Cosplay 2017, Geneva; November 2017 (22).jpg

COM:COSPLAY ジューヤパイセン (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:COSPLAY states that 'Present consensus is that "files that merely show people cosplaying" are acceptable.' So how are you using that as a deletion reason? Please explain for all of these deletion requests. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nude seated Asian woman.jpg

Not at all sure why this essentially random, not terribly well-photographed female nude would be in scope. Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is not. Delete. 181.203.105.33 03:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks edu value. Delete File:Nude (3675799660).jpg too. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it’s perfectly acceptable quality, been on Commons for 10+ years and is a relatively uncommon depiction of a nonwhite person in nude photography on Commons. I don’t see why we suddenly need to delete it— it’s been here roughly half the age of the website with zero deletion requests until now, which means far more users than the two delete voters (and the driveby IP with like 12 edits) have looked at it and found it within scope. The only problem I see is the image size, which is relatively small but excusable given the age. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while this is "in use" after a fashion, it is entirely on user pages. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mediocre quality, only being used in userpage namespace. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Snowball fight in France, 1896 - Lumiere brothers.webm

Bataille de neige (1896) is a black-and-white film. The digital colorization in this video would be copyrighted. hinnk (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Billboard of Xi Jinping in Xiangtan, Hunan, China 20211024.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be okay considering this is a government work? (I'm not entirely sure.) Jonashtand (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:27 September Memorial Day billboard in Baku, September 2023 (1).jpg

No freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan A1Cafel (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't part of the restrictions given by Freedom of Panorama though. It's a uncopyrightable text with a public domain logo. Solavirum (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Абакиров Малик-Айдар Барктабасович.jpg

The file is not free, has no source and author. The user uploaded the file without the author's permission. The file is from here Nurtenge (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your opinion. This file has permission from the author. I guess I couldn't specify it correctly. By the way, this photo is not only authored by the photographer, but the subject himself can also give permission for its use. Isn't that right? Элдин беги (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a permission from the photographer, not the subject. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taco Bell Billboards at Honkai Impact 3rd Summer Carnival 2023 (20230715160249).jpg

Per COM:FOP China, This HI 3rd character as copyrighted. メイド理世 (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patriarchia.ru

Unused template created by a new user. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Nicolae Carpathia (talk · contribs)

User with bad history, small files without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Power-Seeking Image.png

Image is using a mix of not-quite-free icon sources, eg. https://www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/14485779-line-icon-for-pretend (the vecteezy.com pro licence has restrictions on how many copies or views can be made), https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/manipulation_1066339 (the flaticon.com terms of use disallow prominent use of their images on anything "aimed to be resold"). These licences aren't compatible with COM:LICENSING. Belbury (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a question of debate. However, instead of deleting one could replace these images. The images should probably be improved further because it intermingles scifi-ish mid-far future hypothetical artificial superintelligence risks which is the main focus of this image with a few of many known current and near-term issues. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2003-05-08 OKC tornado.jpg

This image is part of a set published at https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-20030508 with an explicit and proximate copyright notice: "Photos © Dan Olson" Rlandmann (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Delete — Confirmed. Copyright notice/symbol (©) is present with the photo. Copyrighted photo that needs deleted. WeatherWriter (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per @WeatherWriter. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joplin tornado photo.jpg

This file is a low-res screenshot from a video by Jeff and Kathryn Piotrowski ("twisterchasers.com"). An account of how the Piotrowskis shot this video was published in The Atlantic here -- https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/stormchaser-jeff-piotrowski-joplin-tornado/351096/

This screenshot corresponds to timestamp 2:39 of the version currently on YouTube -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfdK6H9d6J0&t=159s

The version currently on YouTube is watermarked "2011 ©TwisterChasers.Com" Rlandmann (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep The image is located on this archived National Weather Service webpage. At the bottom of that webpage, there is a disclaimer button. Per that archived disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” This image is captioned “Joplin Tornado”. There is no evidence of it being “specifically annotated otherwise”. Per that National Weather Service statement, this image is in the public domain.

To as further evidence for this, several media outlets use the photograph, citing the National Weather Service/NOAA/U.S. government as the source. For instance, Accuweather uses it, citing NWS in an unforgettable weather photos article. Other uses include WDRB, The Weather Network, Yahoo, KNUE, IWeatherNet, TornadoTalk. Reverse images searches show this image has been used hundreds of times. All of this is clear evidence that this image is in the public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to repeat this for every deletion request? The presence of a link to a generic disclaimer is obviously not sufficient to prove public domain status. It would be convenient if that were the case, but it isn't. We have heard this from NWS offices, the NWS legal team, and individual photographers. It is going to get tedious to have the same argument on so many deletion request pages when it should probably occur in one place, at one time, and be settled thereafter. — Penitentes (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as (1) that disclaimer still exists on the National Weather Service webpage and (2) given it existed before those emails, I will continue to state it. Having RS media backing up my claims as well helps. For instance, this image obviously isn’t actually copyrighted and I know that. For that reason, I am voting to prevent a copyright deletion. I would be disappointed (but not really upset) if the closing administrator thinks it qualifies for the precautionary principle and deletes on that ground. But any true copyright deletions that have RS media backing up the claim of the photograph being in the public domain are ones I will continue to say (basically the same thing)…that it is in the PD. Precautionary principle deletions are one thing as that is Wikimedia policy. Saying it is copyrighted is not ok in my books, when the U.S. government and media say it isn’t. With that said, this image has several news articles which say this is a PD image, so I do not think the precautionary principle applies here, especially since I have seen this image used in literal academic papers written by the NWS. Just saying. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any person or organisation (including the NWS) publishes somebody else's material and omits (for whatever reason) to acknowledge the creator of that material, it does not take away the creator's rights, even if the publisher promised that they would provide such an acknowledgement. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you don’t have evidence of that goes miles as well. I highly doubt RS media, including AccuWeather would break copyright rules for a low-resolution tornado photograph. In theory, a user could upload this photograph under the PD-Gov template using the AccuWeather news article as their source, since AccuWeather states NWS Springfield is the source of the image. Your entire argument rests on the the YouTube video being watermarked. However, this image (the one used by NWS & Accuweather) is not watermarked. For your argument, you would more or less be saying the U.S. Government and AccuWeather removed a copyright watermark just to use the image? Yeah no. The NWS disclaimer seems clear and this further provides evidence communication with the creator occurred, given this image does not have any watermark. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of what, exactly? I'm not following you here...

I'm not proposing that Accuweather or anyone else removed a watermark; I'm saying that the watermark is prima facie evidence that the Piotrowskis have never abandoned their copyright to their video.

The screencap published by the NWS (and subsequently re-used by media outlets) clearly originates with a separate publication of the video, not the version currently on YouTube. But it is, to a very high degree of certainty, from the Piotrowskis' video. And we have no evidence that they ever relinquished their rights or published their video or any part of it under a free license.

I have far less knowledge and experience of the extreme weather community and industry than you do. If you're aware of another photographer or videographer who was shooting from this precise time and location, please say so. That would definitely lower the certainty that this is the Piotrowskis' work. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That copyright watermark clearly indicates the video is copyrighted. This specific frame is not copyrighted, as indicated by the U.S. government and AccuWeather. There is no evidence to say that specific frame is copyrighted, while there is evidence to say it is not copyrighted. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a video is protected by copyright, then every frame of that video is also protected. This is really fundamental to any understanding of copyright and licensing and why, for example, folks can't go printing their favourite Star Wars moment on a poster or T-shirt and go selling it (and not expect a C&D from Disney...)

That said, it is certainly possible for a creator to release a particular frame into the public domain or license it under a free licence. If that's the case here, then the COM:ONUS is on anyone who wants to keep this image to reach out to the Piotrowskis and ask them whether they ever released this frame into the Public Domain, and if they didn't, whether they'd be willing to release it. Their contact page for licensing is here, and they're even willing to offer licensing over the phone, via a number published on the same page. You never know unless you try! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reasoning above, I believe COM:ONUS has been satisfied using the National Weather Service & Accuweather (along with other RS media) as sources and evidence. Someone else is free to reach out if they desire to. However, I believe it has been satisfied and reaching out is not necessary. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Rlandmann — Penitentes (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can’t say I didn’t see this coming with one of my photos eventually. As the person who found and added this photo, I want this photo to stay and my reasoning aligns with WeatherWriter. As long as the NWS disclaimer exists, I see no problem with using that argument. In fact, that will probably be my argument for most future photo deletion discussions that come up unless the tag changes.

There is also the licensing of “Non-free video screenshot,” which I believe can be applied here. This image of the tornado provides a real-time look of this horrific event that can’t be conveyed by aftermath damage photos. Any reader who opens this article will immediately see that image in the infobox, and have a better understanding of what caused the catastrophic damage that is seen in the damage photos further down in the article. As far as I know, there are no other photos of this tornado in the Commons and I believe this is a major problem in the severe weather project. I believe that that should be in consideration when these discussions come up because if it doesn’t, we may lose a substantial number of tornado pics. We would have to rely on “own work” photos, which is not going to be the most ideal thing. As a result, my vote is keep. ChessEric (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-free video screenshot" is not an argument to keep something on the Commons, but would definitely be grounds to publish this image on English Wikipedia under US fair use provisions (especially at this low resolution), with exactly the same rationale you've expressed here -- an irreplacable image of a historical event. There's literally no problem using it on English Wikipedia, just not here. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that (I was wondering it wouldn't link to the commons). My vote is not going to change here, but if the photo gets deleted, can you show me how to do that? ChessEric (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Happy to help! It's easy, and applies for probably any of the images of tornado events that we find to be unfree here on the Commons. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think that is actually the simple solution to this problem. ChessEric (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: On that note, could you take a look at w:File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg to see if the NFF rational was filled out correctly? A lot of information was linked to it, to help indicate that it may or may not be free-to-use (based on the evidence presented by you and myself). Since you said this process would be ok, I just wanted to make sure the layout I made would probably be acceptable for this image & any other images we would delete from here to reupload as NFF. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: Thank you; That rationale is more than sufficient for that image to be used on the en:WP page about that specific tornado. A few other clarifications:

You can use the same non-free image on multiple en:WP pages, as long as you fill out a separate rationale for why it's needed on each of those pages. For example, I imagine that its use on the page about the 2011 outbreak sequence on en:WP could also be justified. The key is that the image can't just be decorative; it should be used to add information about some aspect of the tornado. I don't have your level of subject-area expertise to know what this image tells us about this tornado, but perhaps the image illustrates its size, its proximity to the settlement, or maybe the proximity of the videographers makes it an unusual and rare image.
Different language Wikipedias are governed by different local laws about how people can use copyrighted materials. US "fair use" doctrine which governs en:WP is one of the most generous in the world. Wikimedia has a summary table here with a global perspective. You mentioned Hungarian Wikipedia elsewhere, and from that table, it looks like screenshots are specifically OK there. Conversely, for example, French IP law (which operates fundamentally differently from copyright in the English-speaking world) is notoriously restrictive. It will be up to editors on other-language Wikipedias to work out whether and how they can use a non-free image.
One of the things that makes this particular image perfect for non-free use on en:WP is that it's already very low-res. If other images from the Commons go down a similar route, they will need to be scaled down (but, there's actually a bot on en:WP that does that automatically, as I recently discovered when I uploaded a scaled-down film poster which it wanted to scale down even further!) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very obvious keep Hogurt 19:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard keep per WeatherWriter. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 01:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revote with simple solution

@Rlandmann, WeatherWriter, Penitentes, Hogurt, and Sir MemeGod: Rlandmann and I have come up with the solution of putting this image on English Wikipedia under the “Non-free video screenshot” license if it’s deleted from the commons since it’s a screenshot from a video. I encourage everyone who voted before to slash out their answers and vote based on this.

Conditional delete based on above reasoning. ChessEric (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, enact NFF. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod; which are you voting? Delete or “hard keep”? Don’t answer here. Just cross out whichever vote (of yours) does NOT apply. Please. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a revote for a reason. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is still a good idea to cross out your previous vote when you change it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have already uploaded the image on Wikipedia under NFF rational. ~~However, per NFF, it can only be used on one article~~. So, I have replaced it on the w:2011 Joplin tornado article. This image is in use on other Wikipedia articles (such as w: Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011 or hu:Tornádó). Reasoning explained above why I believe this image is indeed public domain. In the event of this image being kept on the Commons, the NFF version on EN-Wiki can simply be deleted and replaced once again with the public domain/free to use image. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precautionary principle. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Well…the fact that this photo is already in the NFF AND can only be used in one article changes things. That makes deleting this photo more of a detriment than a benefit. I hate to say this, but I’m flipping my vote again. ChessEric (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Apologies ChessEric, Hurricane Clyde, and Sir MemeGod for misleading. I just read through the entire Non-Free File (NFF) rules on EN-Wikipedia. I was mistaken. An NFF photo can be used on multiple articles. The key is historical context. For instance, this specific photo as an NFF can be used on the w:2011 Joplin tornado article as well as the subsequent outbreak article, specifically the section dedicated to the 2011 Joplin tornado in its entirety (w: Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011#Joplin, Missouri). Both would have solid arguments for a historical NFF and historical context rules to apply and be valid. That said, it could not be used on articles like w:List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes for instance. Also, per NFF, if any free-to-use images exist, NFF cannot be used. So for instance, File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG, a photo taken by a Wikipedia user and released as a CC 3.0, prevents any NFF tornadic photos from being used in the context of the w:2013 Moore tornado. It wouldn’t matter if or how much better an NFF is than a free-to-use photo. Per the EN-Wiki NFF, if a free-to-use photo could be used, any NFF would automatically fail the NFF guidelines. That free photo of the 2013 Moore tornado, however, can be used anywhere appropriate on Wikipeida (like a list of F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes, for example). Hopefully that explains the NFF rules a little better. I struck my misleading statement above and I’m sorry for leading y’all wrong on that. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where you got confused was this. A non-free photo must be used in at least one article; but in as few as possible. Not that it can only be used in one. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — From what I can make of the NFF rules (which seems to be a solid understanding per Rlandmann agreeing with it above), if the article and/or section is about the historical event in its entirety & there is no free photos to use, then the NFF guidelines should apply ok. Damage photos most likely won’t qualify under the NFF guidelines, unless there is a lot of info on that specific location [i.e. a “historic” damage location]…(2011 Joplin’s hospital, 2013 Moore two elementary schools, ect…). Tornado photos almost certainly qualify under it as it is a historical event which cannot physically repeat and if there is no free photos available, all derivations or uses of that specific tornado in film (photos, videos, ect…) are copyrighted and cannot be legally reproduced. Lots of words, but hopefully that spells out the NFF for tornadoes a little better. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with @WeatherWriter's summary -- I think this captures it really well. And yes, the same image can be used in multiple articles, as long as it's specifically relevant to each of them. (It just needs a separate justification for each use, which is where some of the confusion here might be coming from). --Rlandmann (talk) 03:14, 29 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) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. Leaning slightly towards delete; but officially staying neutral. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Setubal DJI 0327 Lisnave.jpg

One of many aerial photos at https://megaconstrucciones.net/en/port-setubal. Every other upload from this user has been deleted as lacking permission or being a misrepresented copyvio. Belbury (talk) 11:09, 23 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:Johannes Schreiter

The artist is still alive, there is no FOP because the photos were taken inside German churches, and the images are not de minimis because they focus on the artistic glass windows.

Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I uploaded a cropped version of File:Limburg-Dom4.JPG showing the statue, see File:Limburg-Dom Statue Madonna and Child.jpg.--Havang(nl) (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That one should probably be

OK, as the statue seems to be quite old enough and the window is de minimis in this crop IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 12:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they're looking pretty simple for Germany--Sanandros (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? --Rosenzweig τ 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems for me to be more handcraft rather than art.--Sanandros (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, I don't have any doubt that this is fine art. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't c that, where is the complexity? To order some colors to one of two sides and cut some round shape is too easy.--Sanandros (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of fine art that doesn't matter, fine art is not applied art (where it would matter). The Red square by Malevich is also quite simple, but still fine art. --Rosenzweig τ 13:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's copyrighed?--Sanandros (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more, since Malevich (Category:Kazimir Malevich) died in 1935 and the painting is from 1915, but until a few years ago, it was. --Rosenzweig τ 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And who said that?--Sanandros (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just said so. But if you don't want to believe me, I can't stop you. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no legel comparison like the walking eye?--Sanandros (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de:Schöpfungshöhe#Schöpfungshöhe unterschiedlicher Werkarten and de:Kleine Münze (in German law). Also de:Schöpfungshöhe#Besondere Fälle. --Rosenzweig τ 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kleine Münze gives us only the walking eye as example. And windows are not part of architecure.--Sanandros (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an e-Mail to someone who is possibly able to gain permission from the author. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, und ist es beabsichtigt dass du nur deine Zeit angibst?--Sanandros (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nein. Das war es nicht. Bis heute ist leider keine weitere Antwort eingetroffen. Ich werde einmal nachhaken. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:38, 15 September 2012 (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:Johannes Schreiter

copyright violation; works by living artist; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2021 (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:Johannes Schreiter

copyright violation; works by living artist; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Johannes Schreiter

copyrigth violation; stained glass windows by living artist, no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, da hast Du unzweifelhaft recht. Allerdings: Das Maria-vom-Frieden-Bild würde ich behalten, da ist doch quasi nichts davon zu sehen. Gruß, --Subbass1 (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seitenschifffenster.jpg

copyrigth violation; stained glass window by living artist, no freedom of panorama. Martin Sg. (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ugohonjo-Station Honjo-Oiwake bronze statue.jpg

COM:FOP Japan. the statue was established in 1985 ( https://ono.akita.jp/blog/2063/ ). eien20 (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

これは私が作成したファイルです須田拓樹 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaudun-94.JPG

Identique à file:Route de Chaudun-94.JPG ; non utilisée Fr.Latreille (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MohammadHossain01.jpg

Also:

The author and the subject have the same name. They are common names, so it is certainly possible that they are two people, but these are not selfies, so they needs further examination.

There is also the question of scope -- we are not told who this is and why images of him serve our educational purpose. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 23 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 uploaded by Kırmızı süleyman (talk · contribs)

COM:DW of Bangladeshi bank notes - no allowance for banknotes in Commons:Currency and government works are publish+60 per COM:BANGLADESH.

Эlcobbola _talk 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kırmızı süleyman (talk · contribs)

Official portraits of military and other personalities. Unlikely to be under a free license.

Yann (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OF-(D) KKTC Asteğmen.png

Ansiklopedik açıdan değersiz dosya Yusufziyabey (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You say "Encyclopedically worthless file"; I say COM:INUSE in 5 Wikipedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Rashid Abrar Roktim (talk · contribs)

Spam support, F10, G10.

— 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NITYA.jpg

Powinien zostać usunięty ponieważ strona strona o osobie na zdjęciu nie została ukończona i upubliczniona i osoba na zdjęciu nie życzy sobie aby w takiej sytuacji jej wizerunek był na tym zdjęciu udostępniany. Grzegorz Sochań (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:شاهيناز.jpg

Source doesn't exist any more. Probable license washing. Yann (talk) 16:52, 23 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 uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

Enrico Prampolini is dead in 1956. Copyright violation.

82.124.156.116 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Italian 1917 films are in public domain. I'll fix the licenses. Taivo (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2015 (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 uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

No COM:FOP in Italy. Permission of the sculptors' heirs needed via COM:OTRS.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick, what you write is vail only if the sculptor died less than 70 year ago. Oberdan monument is anonymous, and if you can find what year Italo Amerigo Passani died I will pay you a beer ;) --Sailko (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is with the uploader so it's up to him/her provide evidence that sculptor died more than 70 years ago. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody know when that author died. His younger brothyer died in 1952, so he is likely to have died before (possibly during the war). And the statue is only attribuited to him ([1]), there is no signature or document. We should not delete an image is there is no evidence of infraction. Please do not propose deletion randomly. --Sailko (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you are confident in you please add a license template on file descriptions such as {{PD-old-70}}. However and according to Aunction he died 1963. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I've been searching for a death date since last August as I made this wikipedia page of this sculptor. Seems I owe you a beer! Anyway now that I know I will not upload more from this author. For admins please remeber to leave the Undelete in 2044 category. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --rubin16 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

Uploader has said of these paintings by Konstantinos Parthenis on their talk page that the author now I see is not in PD and has requested that the images be deleted in a way that would allow them to be listed for restoring in future.

Belbury (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Rossla

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Georg Schleinitz, who died in 1969. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2040.

Rosenzweig τ 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fadiga el hadj.jpg

If it's really an ID photo then it's at least questionnable about whether it's really own work as stated in the copyrights section. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 19:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DR KURT BALL.jpg

no source, wrong author Goesseln (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like everything is now fixed on this postcard. --RAN (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1953 Vicksburg Tornado Memorial.jpg

Image contains the entirety of an inscription. Unless we have evidence that the author transferred their rights into the public domain or made the text available under a free license, the text of the inscription is presumably protected by copyright. Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Are you talking about the plaque or the photo? ChessEric (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have no evidence that the photo itself is in the public domain, but even if it were, the words on the plaque are protected by copyright. It's why nobody can just go to the library, take photos of the pages of a book, then publish the text from those pages. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That...sounds complicated. I did upload the photo, but I also can't deny your reasoning. I'm going to go neutral. ChessEric (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This image came from this National Weather Service webpage. At the bottom of the webpage is a disclaimer button. Per that disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” The caption of the image is: “On the 50th anniversary of the tornado, the Vicksburg-Warren Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Vicksburg class dedicated plaques - the one seen above and another with a copy of the December 6th edition of Vicksburg's Sunday Post-Herald. These plaques are on display at the River City Plaza at the corner of Washington and Crawford streets.” There is no copyright statements or indicators of a clear “specifically annotated otherwise”.

For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark. For that reason, I support keeping this image as it is in the public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – as it is unclear whether or not the text is PD. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s in a public place; especially if the rules of de minimus are followed; it might still be protected under freedom of panorama, but even then, better safe than sorry. So I still support (albeit slightly) deleting this under precautionary principle. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not with the photo per se, it's with the text captured in the photo. Even if the photo were in the PD, we have no basis for thinking that the text captured in it (which is indeed the subject of the photo) is. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then delete; especially if de minimus doesn’t apply. (Which I’m 99.99999999% sure it doesn’t) Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1953 Vicksburg tornado damage Flood Wall Mural.jpg

Per the source, this mural was painted in 2006. We have no evidence that the artist has abandoned their copyright or licensed it under a free license. Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.

Keep — This image came from this National Weather Service webpage. At the bottom of the webpage is a disclaimer button. Per that disclaimer, “The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public.” The caption of the image is: “Several panels of the flood wall along the Yazoo River at downtown Vicksburg are decorated with historical scenes from Vicksburg's past. One of these panels is themed "The 1953 Vicksburg Tornado" and was sponsored by the Pat Cashman family and dedicated in April 2006. The mural depicts the devastation in the downtown area and commemorates the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of the Vicksburg Sunday Post-Herald. The Vicksburg floodwall murals can be seen along Levee Street between Clay Street and Grove Street on the Vicksburg riverfront.” There is no copyright statements or indicators of a clear “specifically annotated otherwise”.

For the clause of “specifically annotated otherwise”, NWS either allows the user to add a copyright “©” watermark to the image {as seen in this image, hosted on this NWS webpage} or by directly adding a copyright statement using “©” {as seen on this NWS webpage: difference between the “Tornado Photos” and “Damage” tabs}. That disclaimer is linked at the bottom of all three of the NWS webpages linked above (this image’s webpage + 2 I used as examples). To me, “specifically annotated otherwise” indicates a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark. For that reason, I support keeping this image as it is in the public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the image were in the Public Domain (which we have no evidence for; a general disclaimer does not and cannot furnish such evidence), then the mural inside the image certainly is not (unless we can find evidence to the contrary.) This is reallyfundamental to any understanding of copyright and licensing and why, for example, nobody can take a photo of a film poster in a cinema lobby, then publish it on posters or T-shirts. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...so you're talking about the mural. ChessEric (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the photo or the mural? ChessEric (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct distinction; the image itself and the mural inside the image are subject to separate copyright considerations. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, just to make sure I'm understanding, you're saying that the problem is not necessarily the photo, but the mural in the photo. ChessEric (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's correct. The photo itself might or might not be in the Public Domain, but for the purposes of the Commons, that's irrelevant because it's a photograph of a piece of art that's protected by copyright. This particular question has come up often enough that there's an FAQ entry about it at COM:MURALS. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I hate to say this as the uploader of this file, but

Delete. ChessEric (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as murals do not qualify under freedom of panorama. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter whether or not the photo itself is in the public domain. The mural likely is not. Here is an example of the principle here: let’s say that I take a picture of a poster of the recent Twisters movie; and I release that picture into the public domain. The picture I took might be in the public domain; but the poster in the picture is still copyrighted. And for our purposes, would not be suitable for inclusion here. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Meinel Literaturhaus Leipzig (c)Carmen Laux.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung: Keine Personenidentität zwischen Hochlader oder angegebenem Urheber und der als Coyrightinhaberin genannten Carmen Laux festzustellen Lutheraner (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wild Cherry Pepsi.jpg

This picture depicts a can that has a copyrighted design RandomKatze (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ensign of Royal Cork YC.svg

Unused on any actual articles, and is also an inaccurate depiction of what the RCYC ensign should look like, with "File:Royal Cork Yacht Club Ensign.svg" being a more accurate depiction. Snow Lion Fenian (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr.Pepper2022.jpg

This image contains a soda can with a copyrighted design. RandomKatze (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Pepper - Cherry.jpg

This image of a soda can contains a copyrighted design. RandomKatze (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Деки для скейтборда.jpg

мое фото, хочу удалить его Boundlessend (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice photo and could be useful. I'm reluctant to support a request for a courtesy deletion after 3 years. Also, how can you demonstrate that you are the same user as User:Abobus bakar 2008? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moses Isserles.jpg

Certainly not own work as claimed. The combination of "own work" and a claim that the author has been dead 70 years is absurd. Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rabbi-Caro.jpg

"This image is a colorized version of a 19th century B&W drawing by an unknown artist." But unless we know the colorization is also PD, the copyright claim here is bogus. Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warren-entsch-mp-comp2.png

Uploader has not provided any evidence that they are the copyright holder. The same photo was used in media before the alleged creation date of this file, and appears on the Liberal Party website which states "All pages... graphics, audio and video that appear on this website are protected by copyright law. The copyright is, and remains at all times, the property of The Liberal Party of Australia." Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Island sunset.jpg

Failed human verification by me. Flickr link gives an image of a sunset scenery in the town of w:en:Baligoan, whereas this import claims to show the sunset scenery of w:en:White Island (Philippines), located in w:en:Mambajao which is a different town. It is unsure why the bot treated this as license verified. Perhaps the Flickr uploader overwritten the original image, but due to limited scope of Wayback Machine for this Flickr import (earliest archived copy of Flickr link was from 2016), we can't be sure if overwriting by Flickr uploader did occur. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julian Hill MP 2022 CURRENT.jpg

Uploader has provided no evidence that they are the copyright holder. If this photo is "as per parliamentary page" as the description claims, please note that the APH website uploads under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed licence which is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nebojša Mitrić - Stari lov (1959).jpg

This is a derivative work (a photo) that depicts a work by w:Nebojša Mitrić. Copyright belongs to Nebojša Mitrić, and there is no permission from the authour to use his work. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luke Howarth MP.jpg

Uploader has provided no evidence that they are the copyright holder. A version of this same photo is used on: the Liberal Party website (which states "All pages... graphics, audio and video that appear on this website are protected by copyright law. The copyright is, and remains at all times, the property of The Liberal Party of Australia"); the Department of Education website (which states "Except... any images and/or photographs, the Department has applied the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence to content on this website"); and Howarth's personal website (which does not specify any copyright or licencing of images) Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth Cathedral 07.jpg

Looks like a photo of a copyrighted photo, but not sure. The text is probably copyright too. TimSC (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portsmouth Cathedral 30.jpg

Suspected photo of a copyrighted photo. TimSC (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Llew O'Brien.jpg

Uploader has not provided evidence that they are the copyright holder. Photo is of high quality, and the uploader has only ever uploaded two files (both of the same person), suggesting they may have taken it from a copyrighted source Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Senator Alex Antic 8 March 2021.png

While this is a still from a YouTube video with a Creative Commons licence, the description of the video on YouTube includes this text "DISCLAIMER: This channel is NOT the official channel of the Australian Parliament... REAL SOURCE: http://parlview.aph.gov.au/browse.php". The APH website, invoked as the "real source", uploads under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Deed licence, which is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons Neegzistuoja (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/23

August 23

Files uploaded by Nicolae Carpathia (talk · contribs)

Revote with simple solution

Files in Category:Johannes Schreiter

Files in Category:Johannes Schreiter

Files in Category:Johannes Schreiter

Files in Category:Johannes Schreiter

Files uploaded by Kırmızı süleyman (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Kırmızı süleyman (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Rashid Abrar Roktim (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Sailko (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Rossla

Navigation menu

Search