Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
12 August 2024
14 August 2024
Deletion requests on 13 August 2024

August 13

[edit]

File:Logo Jabatan Penerangan Malaysia.png

[edit]

The license tag is only valid if the logo is >50 years old. The logo appears to be relatively modern, and no date of origin is given. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LEGAL GRAFFITI 1.JPG

[edit]

Legal graffiti is subject to copyright, not sure whether FOP applies to the source country or not A1Cafel (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment it appears adjacent to w:es:Usuario:GarciaLopezLuisGaspar#Tipos de Graffiti, which seems to discuss street art Mexico. Is this perhaps located in Mexico, which does have Freedom of Panorama? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lodhi Art District Apr 2019 1.jpg

[edit]

Similar to UK, there is no FoP for "graphic works" in India A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sometimes law allows public viewing of copyrighted materials for non paying audiences (ie non-commercial limited usage) under section 52 of the copyright act 1957. section 1(l), (n),(o). Online source mentions. Pradipta.S (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-commercial COM:FOP is unfortunately not acceptable on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machado Mural in Chula Vista, CA.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If I am able to get the artists' permission, can the mural remain? I would request their permission and update the image through Wikimedia Commons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission. Please let me know if this is possible or if another form of update is preferred. I'm learning the process. Thank you. Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and Commons have different standards. Please read COM:VRT. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:5pointz BIG.jpg

[edit]

There's no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art such a murals in the US per COM:FOP United States which means the copyright of photgraphed mural needs to be given consideration and Commons can only keep this image if the mural itself is either within the public domain or can be shown to have been released under a free license by its copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biggie billboard.jpg

[edit]

There's no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art such a murals in the US per COM:FOP United States which means the copyright of photgraphed mural needs to be given consideration and Commons can only keep this image if the mural itself is either within the public domain or can be shown to have been released under a free license by its copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:The Notorious B.I.G. stencil.jpg

[edit]

There's no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art such in Japan per COM:FOP Japan which means the copyright of photgraphed stencil needs to be given consideration and Commons can only keep this image if the stencil itself is either within the public domain or can be shown to have been released under a free license by its copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aeroportul Zürich.jpg

[edit]

There seems to be a problem with attribution, compare with File:LSZH 001.jpg. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The upload of Aeroportul Zürich at rowiki (2005) is before the upload of LSZH 001 at dewiki (2006). Enhancing999 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Knowledgework69 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Can't verify OGL license. https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/ says (C)

Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader pointed out that OGL is mentioned at https://www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk/privacy-policy but it leaves me even more confused. LCRCA material may only be used for own non commercial use - then goes on to say content is available under OGL.
Unless expressly stated the copyright and other intellectual property rights (such as design rights, trademarks, patents etc.) in any material provided on this website remains the property of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) (or as, the case may be, another rightful owner). LCRCA-owned material on the website, including text and images, may not be printed, copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, displayed, modified, re-used, broadcast or transmitted in any way, except for the user’s own personal non-commercial use.
All content is available under the Open Government Licence, except where otherwise stated

@Knowledgework69: Please comment here instead of my talk page

I take this to read that it is only available for non commercial use as it was explicitly stated. The last line only would apply if no copyright claim was made. Gbawden (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gbawden which part of the OGL waiver are you confused about? thanks Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding and interpretation of the OGL these images can be used an distributed on Wikipedia as it does not count as commercial use, exemptions for the OGL not applying to government released files and imagery can be found at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons cannot host files with a non commercial restriction. You may be able to upload them to WP as Non free files but we cannot host them here. I don't believe that the OGL applies to these files but I think we need a 2nd opinion Gbawden (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree a second opinion would be good, however as it is government entity which states it adheres to the OGL for content on their website, and it does not fall under the OGL exemption which are outlined on the national archives website linked above. I believe it will be covered under OGL .
exemtions of the OGL are as follows:
---------------
personal data in the Information;
Information that has not been accessed by way of publication or disclosure under information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information Provider;
departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset;
military insignia;
third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license;
other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
identity documents such as the British Passport
The King’s personal copyrights, and those of previous monarchs – these fall outside the scope of The Keeper’s authority under Letters Patent Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
due to this information being accessed by publication, appearing on a news post posted by the LCRCA, I believe it would fall under OGL Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to acknowledge that the Combined Authorities copyright waiver is poorly worded however them stating as a government entity that they adhere to the OGL states they will follow the rules and exemptions of the OGL which allows for information such as this to be distributed. Knowledgework69 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AZARIN STANISLAVSKY BIRMAN 1935-m.jpg

[edit]

Taken from the book published in 1972, bogus PD rationale (70pma for an unknown author), no evidence of first publication 70 or more years ago to meet COM:Russia requirements. Quick1984 (talk) 11:53, 13 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:Woltersdorf-Gut & Springeberg.png

[edit]

Siehe verlinkten Artikel, für den gerade ein Löschantrag läuft: Out of scope (Eigengewächs eines Vereins, keineswegs offiziell) und zudem urheberrechtlich problematisch. GerritR (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Wappen wurde vom Verschönerungsverein erstellt und ist laut diesem gemeinfrei. (Siehe: Hohe Wappenrolle von Woltersdorf, 2021, S. 32) Ich habe eine Version dieser Wappen für Wikipedia erstellt. Das Wappen wird in der Nachbarschaft verwendet und ist im Heimatmuseum einsehbar. Mehlitz (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/1._Mai_2024#Liste_der_Wappen_von_Woltersdorf_an_der_Schleuse_(gel%C3%B6scht) zur Kenntnis.--GerritR (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion of this file. According to the Deletion policy a supposedly incorrect, original researched or not-neutral file is not a reason for deletion. This aspect should be addressed on the projects. The file is currently in use on the projects (article de:Springeberg), so it has to be maintained. @GerritR: you could consider to add {{Fact disputed}} to the file page, or one of the other more applicable warning templates listed on the template description. If more appropriate you may ask for renaming of the file or add a correct description. --Ellywa (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woltersdorf-Gut & Springeberg.png

[edit]

Reopened DR, as the file has been removed from German Wikipedia by GerritR, Citing his comment on my talk page:

"I removed the coat of arms from the disputed article, because the use of this non-official COA was original research. Now the file is no longer in use. Many other coats of arms of this kind (invented from a club in Woltersdorf for self-promotion ore something like that) have already been deleted. Few are left, but all are out of scope. This one should still be deleted, too. GerritR (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

Ellywa (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jörg Overmann.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio © Marek Kruszewski - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we hired Marek Kruszewski to take this photo, so we have the licence. Do you need proof? How can we do that? Pokemonas kadabra (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokemonas kadabra: Please see COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Pedro Fire near Coulterville.jpg

[edit]

AlertCalifornia images not public domain — see Terms of Use Penitentes (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if seen on fire.ca.gov, which is PD? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 15:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cal Fire-produced content may be PD, but if I am not mistaken the hosting (with credit) of non-PD content on their website does not make that content PD. I'd like to see someone else weigh in so that I can be sure I'm interpreting it correctly. — Penitentes (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re right @Penitentes; there is a similar discussion going on right now about National Weather Service images and as @Rlandmann has pointed out there; the NWS a federal government agency has hosted copyrighted stuff without unambiguously declaring it so. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NWS and the California Government have different policies. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question What makes you think that material on fire.ca.gov is PD? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-CAGov}}. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is not one of the agencies listed which can claim copyright. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PD-USGov? It's a government website, since obviously the ".gov" didn't say. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WeatherWriter's comment above. Unlike the NWS hassle, USGov material is 100% PD, no "oh, we actually meant this when we posted the disclaimer". Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 19:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquito Fire 2022-09-07 PM.jpg

[edit]

AlertCalifornia images are not in the public domain—the organization has now published their Terms of Use, which establish direct copyright (as opposed to images belonging to partners such as PG&E or the U.S. Forest Service) and forbid commercial use. Penitentes (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mosquito Fire 2022-09-07 AM.jpg

[edit]

AlertCalifornia images are not in the public domain—the organization has now published their Terms of Use, which establish direct copyright (as opposed to images belonging to partners such as PG&E or the U.S. Forest Service) and forbid commercial use. Penitentes (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcin Tybura.png

[edit]

The footage in this promotional video is clearly the UFC's own, therefore ATV-Networks Suriname don't have the ability to re-licence it on a free licence. 2A0A:EF40:D91:2601:DC28:A65E:99F5:7DEF 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flaccid penis of a human.jpg

[edit]

Bad deletion request? Or good deletion request? 186.172.193.153 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Com:Penis 186.172.193.153 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep this is by far one of the highest quality images of a human penis I’ve seen on Commons recently. Dronebogus (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Tushka, Oklahoma tornado April 14, 2011.jpg

[edit]

The NWS credits this image to Gabe Garfield and Marc Austin -- https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-20110414 (multimedia tab) and identifies it as originally published on w:Reed Trimmer's YouTube channel here.

There is no indication at the original source that the footage this image is captured from is in the public domain, and we have no evidence that its creators ever relinquished their rights in permitting the NWS to use it.

At different times, various regional offices of the National Weather Service have held contests or other public outreach exercises that have made release into the public domain a condition of participation. However, there is no evidence that connects this particular image with any one of those initiatives. Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Closing admins should familiarise themselves with the evidence and discussions at this RfC when closing this request.
  •  Keep — According to the National Weather Service disclaimer linked at the bottom of the webpage, “The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose.” This webpage was made by the National Weather Service of Norman, Oklahoma (NWS Norman). NWS Norman has previously published webpages which show what “unless specifically noted otherwise” indicates, which is a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark. For example, see the difference between the “Tornado Photos” and the “Damage” tabs of this NWS Norman webpage. In those, the images which are copyrighted contain a statement with “©”, while those on the “damage” tab do not, but rather contain “courtesy of …” statements. That is exactly what this image is tagged as: “Photo courtesy of Gabe Garfield and Marc Austin”. Based on NWS Norman’s track records along with the NWS disclaimer, this image is in the public domain. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The strange notion that "a direct copyright (©) statement or watermark" is the one and only valid form of a specific notation is something that User:Runningonbrains simply made up all by themselves. There is no reason why an attribution needs to be in this specific form in the US (post 1989 anyway). --Rlandmann (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should probably mention that “Courtesy” means, “ behavior marked by polished manners or respect for others” Your entire part of “we don’t need any attribution for PD images” goes against what NWS is doing: showing respect to others. Just saying. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I ever said that? But it's irrelevant from a copyright and licensing standpoint anyway. The effect of "Courtesy..." is a specific notation that attributes authorship of the image to someone outside the NWS. So although we can reasonably presume public domain status for practically every unattributed image we find on weather.gov, as soon as we see those words, that reasonable presumption disappears and we need to look for evidence that the named author released their work into the public domain. Indeed, for any image created in the US for just over the last century, the presumption shifts to "under copyright" unless we can find proof to the contrary. No such proof has been produced in this case. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Delete per @Rlandmann. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PRP. Anyone who wishes to reach out to the photographers themselves to obtain explicit permission (to VRT) should feel free to, as always. The NWS is not the definitive source on whether an image is copyrighted or not and the mere fact they did not mark it as copyrighted does not mean we can "take their word for it". Berchanhimez (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete - This can be uploaded on English Wikipedia under the “Non-free video screenshot” license since it’s a screenshot from a video. ChessEric (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fotografía Jorge Alor.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5 Yann (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:REMY EN UNIFORME DE LA FL.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5 Yann (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudo Calaveras de Abajo.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5 Yann (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/08/13&oldid=923029897"