Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/16

15 August 2024

17 August 2024

Deletion requests on 16 August 2024

August 16

File:NewportCenter-satellite.jpg

This file was initially tagged by TheImaCow as no source (No source since) Krd 01:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Couldn't find it using USGS Earth Explorer, where all USGS imagery can be found normally (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vulva of a darker-skinned 30 year old woman.jpg

Appears to be taken from a porn site, not uploader's work A1Cafel (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue, will add attestation later today Phallus Editor (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Ukraine (1991–1992).png

False historical flag, Ukraine stopped using its SSR flag in 1991. Adinar0012 (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leeds Rail Network 2.png

Multiple errors and omissions (see discussion and map on www.lostrailwayswestyorkshire.co.uk). Move file back to user space for corrections. Schlosser67 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megumi Yokota with her father.jpg

Image still copyrighted in USA due to COM:URAA A1Cafel (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genalguacil KunstImÖffRaum 20201102 25 301dpi.jpg

This file was initially tagged byCorrected AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Zenwort (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, the initial FoP-Spain ouhgt to have been enough! --Zenwort (talk) 08: 10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Sette danze serpentine 1897 1907.webm

The authorship information appears incorrect, showing the Vimeo uploader and not whoever made the compilation or the authors of the films used in it. The music used would be copyrightable. And not having gone through all of the source films, I know at least Danse du papillon (1897) is not {{PD-old-1923}}. hinnk (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FFCH.png

Este archivo no es un archivo definitivo y contiene errores de diseño Cybhernan (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudoffch1895.png

Este archivo no es un archivo definitivo y contiene errores de diseño Cybhernan (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia Asian Month Postcard.jpg

Japanese stamps are copyrighted. I guess the ones in this image could be blurred out, but then there wouldn't be much of the postcard left at that point. So I think the image should just be deleted as COPYVIO. Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg

I do not know, is the US license valid or not, but the photo is copyrighted in source country Japan until 2060 (50+1 years from author's death). For that time US copyright is expired anyway (more than 95 years from publication). Taivo (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say for sure what the country of origin is under the Berne Convention, since this is a news photo that was published simultaneously in multiple countries. Whichever Berne country had the shortest term of protection would be the country of origin. The photo is public domain in, for example, China (50 years from publication for photographic works) and India (60 years from publication for photographic works). So if anyone can show it was published in either of those countries within the first 30 days, then that is the country of origin and the photo should be kept on Commons. I don't have access to any newspaper archives from those countries to make that showing, which is why I uploaded this on English Wikipedia instead of Commons. (Someone else imported it over here.) Toohool (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapidcreek1972flood.jpg

This file originates on this page of the US National Weather Service. However, the creator of the image is unknown and the photo is simply credited to the collection of w:The Journey Museum and Learning Center. The photo was taken at Rapid Creek, South Dakota in June 1972.

Without knowing who took this photo, we cannot know its copyright status. And if it were ever under copyright, we have no evidence of permission that this copyright was ever transferred away to put the image in the public domain.

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 image with any one of those initiatives.

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." No particular form for such a notation is specified or required in the disclaimer, and a wide range of attribution styles is observed on past and present weather.gov pages. These range from very explicit, formal notices with the copyright (©) symbol, through to "Courtesy of ..." and "Photo by ..." notations.

Given that weather.gov pages have hosted thousands of third-party images over a period of more than 20 years and across over 100 regional offices, no special significance can be attached to the fact that not all of these notations share the same wording or format. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if they did.

Taken together, all of the above creates significant doubt under the precautionary principle as to whether this image is in the public domain.

I am not suggesting that it is necessarily protected by copyright; I'm saying that considering all the evidence together, we simply do not know whether it is or isn't, which means we must delete it. Rlandmann (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as precautionary principle seems to apply here. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As stated in the nomination, the image comes from this archived NWS webpage. At the bottom of the webpage is this archived NWS disclaimer, which states, “The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public”. 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 a public domain image. This ideology is also confirmed with the image being used on this live NWS webpage. Directly under the image and image caption, the NWS webpage says, “Media use of NWS Web News Stories is encouraged! Please acknowledge the NWS as the source of any news information accessed from this site.” Seems clear NWS wants people to use the image, otherwise they would not have said using information is “encouraged” and that you should cite “the NWS as the source”. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: , that disclaimer is at the bottom of every NWS webpage. Including ones with copyrighted unfree content. WestVirginiaWX (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeatherWriter ChessEric (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeatherWriter Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — NOTE: The NWS general disclaimer can 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) 11:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tote-zone.jpg

Fantasy stuff without any educational purpose. This thing isn‘t used anyway either on any wikimedia project. BTW: is the base map from Google Maps? It looks so, as such it is a copyvio 2A02:810D:4ABF:ED10:3D2A:922C:F43B:9AFE 11:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Requester didn't understand "Tote Zone auf 50,313 MHz am 23.5.2019 nach Sporadic-E Bandöffnung". --Achim55 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wikified the German text and added a rough English translation with links to the relevant English terminology. I don't have any knowledge of "fantasy stuff" (also known as "radio waves / transmission", I guess), so my translation might be quite the mess, but hopefully it's good enough with the provided links to enable someone more knowledgeable about "fantasy stuff" to fix my translation if / as needed.

Also, the Google Maps image I get when I look at the depicted area looks different from the depicted map -- Google Maps doesn't have those lines in the ocean. This may or may not be a matter of my settings, I don't know. The depicted map rather resembles the map on OpenStreetMap than Google Maps. Nakonana (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/198772063@N04

Flickrwashing, 0 followers etc and only photos of Johnel

Gbawden (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author doesn't have 0 followers and they have uploaded many other images aside this subject. Plus, the author has been on Flickr since 2023. NewDaye (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 followers, 1 following, new account - all the hallmarks of flickrwashing Gbawden (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you expect, a million followers? And a 1 year old account isn't new, jeez!. This is how I see it; Any copyright holder or photographer could decide to start uploading their work and you'll consider that flickrwashing if they put it out on wikimedia? Because they don't have a million followers? Or they haven't been in the platform for a decade? Wow! NewDaye (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, multiple instances of copyvios: File:JOHNEL NG PHOTOGRAPH PORTRAIT.jpg from [1], File:Johnel NG in backstage at Lagos.jpg, File:Johnel NG Performing in 2024.jpg, and File:Johnel NG Performing 'Wavy' live in 2024.jpg from [2]. Other images probably from elsewhere. reppop^talk 04:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anaheim P.D. bodycam footage of Vincent Valenzuela Jr.'s death, July 2016.ogv

This file was initially tagged by Illegitimate Barrister as duplicate (duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Anaheim P.D. bodycam footage of Vincent Valenzuela Jr.'s death, July 2016.webm; .ogv vs .webm, different file type so not exact duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodycam Footage of Fatal Police Shooting In Pittsburgh, California.ogv

This file was initially tagged by Illegitimate Barrister as duplicate (Duplicate) and the most recent rationale was: Bodycam Footage of Fatal Police Shooting In Pittsburgh, California.webm; .ogv vs .webm, different file type so not exact duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georg Emmerich A. Filho.jpg

Nicht eigenes Werk. 186.175.170.153 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emil Marquardt Oktober 1914.jpg

Nicht eigenes Werk. 186.175.170.153 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might just need proper source information and a different license tag since it's an old photo. Also noting that the uploader uploaded three photos of three different members of the Marquardt family and some letters that are addressed to Emil Marquardt and the certificate of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany that Emil Marquardt received. So, it seems that the uploader has some connection to the Marquardt family to the point that they can access the above documents. This might be a case for COM:VRT. Nakonana (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nakonana,

as mentioned in my reply to Hans Marquardt.jpg, I am a family member of the Marquardt family. The Photo Emil Marquardt 1914.jpg is in my possession. The source is unknown. As it was published before 1928, it is in the public domain (Commons:International copyright quick reference guide).

To upload the picture I took a photo with my iPhone camera.

Kind regards

Christoph 2003:DE:E73B:6260:B1EA:A1F0:A5BC:25A0 17:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sukumar Thekkepat.jpg

Eigenes Werk? 186.175.170.153 16:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commemoration of Gruszka massacre (2022-07-05)a.jpg

Same as in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Commemoration_of_Gruszka_massacre_(2024-07-05),_Tarnawa_p.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Szopena_Street_in_Rzesz%C3%B3w_(2022)d.jpg 159.205.179.12 18:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Voro-uts-ummamuudu-liin.JPG

There is no freedom of panorama in Estonia and the logo surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tere! Ma ei saa aru, mis selle minu tehtud Võru linna tunnuslauset esitava plakati fotoga valesti on. "Eestis pole panoraamivabadust ja logo ületab originaalsuselävendi?" – ma ei saa neist põhjendustest aru. On see ikka täiesti kindel, et selle pildi, mis illustreerib mõnesid võro-teemalisi artikleid, ära peab kustutama? Ma palun küll seda mitte teha. --10:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Võrok (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Võrok: See foto rikub logo autori autoriõigust. Pildi säilitamiseks Commonsis on vaja VRT-luba (mitte sinult, vaid logo autorilt). Panoraamivabadus tähendab seda, et mõnes riigis ei pea kunstiteose autorilt pildistamiseks luba küsima, Eestis peab. Originaalsuse künnis tähendab seda, et väga lihtsaid kujundeid ei loeta õieti kunstiks ja luba pole küsida vaja – need kujundid siin pole väga lihtsad. Taivo (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]