Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/28

27 August 2024

29 August 2024

Deletion requests on 28 August 2024

August 28

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:Penis on the earth.jpg

one of hundreds of images of human penis... out of scope Threecharlie (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie But does the context make it interesting? It does indeed show a penis resting on vegetation. Someone obviously finds that interesting. Brianjd (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone...who?--Threecharlie (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Threecharlie Whoever uploaded this. Also, if penises in artwork are notable, then surely real penises in different contexts are useful too. Brianjd (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where you see an artistic message I see the usual narcissist who wants to display his reproductive apparatus for anything but such purposes. These are opinions, but as long as there are only two of us it's a nice 50/50, let's wait for other opinions. Good luck.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope, as per Threecharlie. --Marcok (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have also struggled to whether nominated this file to DR or not. As Brianjd mentioned there is no image of penis on the vegetation (Maybe yes, but I think there is not much). I also think that this may be distinctive enough to be kept on Commons, but I won't be upset if this image ended up deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Krd 11:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penis on the earth.jpg

Unnecessary ugly dick. Replace any use and delete. 186.172.152.104 03:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Was previously kept. PaterMcFly (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to keep all the penis images you want in your personal collection, let's see what the people who care more about Commons will say about this request. 186.172.152.104 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penis on grass? Is that a Chinese dish? Tiger penis I suppose... 186.172.152.104 13:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COMMONS:Commons is not censored PaterMcFly (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 20:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Penis on the earth.jpg Taylor 49 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see how this isn’t a violation of COM:PENIS— it’s a nondescript, recently uploaded image of a nondescript penis only made distinct by the oddball setting which has nothing to do with educational value. Does anyone seriously think a penis surrounded by grass is somehow an important niche we need to illustrate? And if so, does that mean we should keep any and all new images of penises as long they’re in an unusual setting? user:Threecharlie made good points in their original nomination and user:Marcok seconded them. The two keep voters just seemed convinced of the intrinsic value of penises in random, but unique, contexts, which was apparently good enough for the closing admin. But it’s not good enough for me and probably wouldn’t be good enough for a majority of people who saw this image Dronebogus (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruth van Crevel in her office at the Rijksherbarium Leiden, 1975.jpg

1975 self portrait? Not own work Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is in my possession, the subject of the photo left it to me in her inheritance, and I know for a fact that she made it herself (she often did this) with the use of a self-timer and tripod.

Thank you for your mindfulness! GksEOauJAn (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact COM:VRT so that this photo is not unnecessarily deleted, and thank you for uploading it! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Double MetaCat

Going by this and OmegaFallons talk page, as well as my own experiences dealing with it there seems to be a lot of problems with this template. Just to name a few it leads to a bunch of overcategorization. As well as the addition of pointless and obtuse dublicate categories to category structures that are already complex enough without the template being involved. There is also no way what-so-ever to deal with that because the template makes it impossible to remove or otherwise delete the problematic categories it created and added.

It doesn't help that OmegaFallon seems unable or unwilling to deal with most, if not all, of the issues it's causing. There was also no discussion about it or approval by the wider before it was implemented. Which there really should have been considering the massive number of categories it involves. Apparently the template isn't super intuitive or easy to edit either and it doesn't help that there's no documentation. So it should just be deleted. There's no reason we need a template like this one for this particular thing anyway. Nor is there a valid reason to make it impossible to edit or remove categories from thousands of subcategories just because a single user thinks their way of categorizing things is the best way to do it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is well possible, including 6 stupid redirects, after removing ca 7'000 transclusions. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly how they work but apparently there's also like 9 subtempletes that will have to be dealt with as well. So its certainly going to be a hassle to deal with, but that's just all the more reason to delete it IMO. Clearly the things way to complex. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the main template is deleted, the 9 subpages probably can be deleted as well, unless it turns out that they are used by some other template. I discourage overcomplex poorly working or poorly documented templates. Still, the 7'000 transclusions should be removed before deletion. Immediate deletion would not ruin Commons, still it would show ugly red links on 7'000 pages. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. You think I should nominate them for deletion now or it be better to just let an admin deal with them after this is closed depending on how it goes? (I think you could argue they should probably be deleted regardless of what ends up being the outcome of this, but I don't want to screw anything up by nominating for them for deletion in the meantime if there's some wierd dependency thing involved in it or something). --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? You should probably explicitly nominate them in a separate request. The risk with the task is that some categories become uncategorized. Category:Geography by country by continent uses Template:Double MetaCat whereas Category:Topography by country by continent uses Template:MetaCat, and there are probably other types. Do you want to eliminate all meta categories with double criteria? This is a major principal question. Alternatively, the templates Template:Double MetaCat and Template:MetaCat could be simplified and merged. It's undeniably a mess now. Not sure whether all meta categories with double criteria deserve deletion. On the User_talk:OmegaFallon#Template:Country_by_year_by_topic user page there is some discussion, but not a consensus for deletion. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to delete those ca 7'000 categories? No. I want to delete however many it takes to cleanup the mess. If that's three, cool. If it's all 7000, that's cool to. I didn't look at every single category before I started this though because it's really a separate issue IMO to the overall issues caused by the template. I did decide to take this particular route instead of just nominating the 7000 categories for deletion in separate individual deletion requests though because the categories will just recreated or added back to other ones if they are deleted without template being dealt with in the meantime.

But the fact is that most, if not, all "meta categories with double criteria" are either just totally pointless, duplicate existing categories, make no sense, clearly go against the guidelines or have some combination of those issues. So say I have 5 of those 7000 categories deleted. Then all it takes is someone adding this template to something and we're right back where we started. That's fine, but I do think that we as users should have the say in how and when this template is used and it's pretty clear we don't have the say in either one.

In a perfect world that could probably be solved by pairing it down and documenting it. I don't really see that happening though and I rather live in reality then let it continue causing problems for no other reason then...What exactly? "Someone created it so it must be worth having"? It seems like you at least agree with me that it's a mess. It's fine if you don't think deleting the template is the way to clean it up. But realistically what actual alternative to deal with it beyond that is there at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, it certainly has some inappropriate results, e.g. it gives Category:Buildings by function by condition a non-existent parent Category:Countries by function by condition. Fayenatic london (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that category makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nobody wants to fix it. ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template causes problems at Category:Music by genre, please at least fix it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept is good, but the execution can be hard to work with and most people probably wouldn't know how to fix it. In addition, there are probably more special cases for "double meta cats" than there are for "single meta cats", and to accommodate them all would make the code very complex. I came across this discussion because I found the template populating Category:Countries by city by year (which isn't defined) with several kinds of things, none of which were countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also just found the template populating Category:Countries by color by country with things that aren't countries. I think this and the one I mentioned above were supposed to be "Categories by" instead of "Countries by". --Auntof6 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would keep the template, as it also has advantages. A uniform, precise categorization. The template is used in an almost four-digit number. If it were simply deleted, it would lead to chaos, tear huge gaps in the existing category system and lead to uncontrolled growth with different sorting for similar structures. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 07:18, 5 November 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:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Architect is Max Dudler, how is still alive. Up today we don't have a permission from Max Dudler. Freedom of panorama does not apply to interior shots in Germany. See also previous discussions.

Lukas Beck (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep copyright extremism see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama & Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_in_Germany. I do believe these photos are covered by freedom of panorama. Multichill (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama does clearly not apply to interior shots in Germany. This is clearly stated in this section. How do you come to the conclusion that this should suddenly no longer be true? You even link to the right article. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picture * File:Eröffnungszug U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg was shot during an offical press ceremony by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), including an accreditation process. Only selected persons had access. The owner (BVG) permited photograph shots. In this case, freedom of panorama does not exist at all. Further, the train is here the main topic of the picture. So whats the problem? Trouper3000 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
owner and copyright holder are two different thinks! Lukas Beck (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The architect designed the station in behalf of the BVG so they should have the rights. Otherwise they could not make such an event. I think normally we trust accreditations, especially if they are from public institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. The proposal to accept photos inside train stations in Germany has not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . It was finalized after this DR was started. So regrettably, these photos have to be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2023 (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:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Copyright protection! German freedom of panorama does not apply for interior shots. The architect is Max Dudler, who is still alive.

Lukas Beck (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing sufficiently creative to copyright. It's a simple granite stone wall and a blue ceiling. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per IronGargoyle. --Ellywa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, I revised my desicion, per this discussion on my talk page. , the ceiling it is not simple blue, it is a starry sky based on creative design. Ping User:IronGargoyle for courtesy. -- Ellywa (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Photo's of this starry ceiling are uploaded again and again. This is not allowed, the design is still copyrighted, and there is no FOP in Germany. Photos inside train stations in Germany have in addition not been accepted, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06#Allow_photos_taken_inside_of_train_stations_or_tunnels_in_Germany . Therefore these images should be deleted imho.

Ellywa (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no FOP in Germany". Wrong. 100% wrong. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP for building interiors!!! Lukas Beck (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not what you wrote! Be clear in what you write! We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus Cyron it seems clear in the law itself that German FoP does not apply to all interior architectures. From the law itself (in English translation): "(1) It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade." Only building exteriors can be freely photographed and shared commercially on the Internet stock archives like Commons, Flickr, Unsplash etc. with legality from German law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not willing to understand? "there is no FOP in Germany" was written. This is definetly wrong. Untrue. And again, also for you: We talk about difficoult problems here, so there's no space for unclearness! Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording makes buildings the exception, not the rule? Like: the rule is you can photograph everything that is in public space. The only thing that you can not photograph despite it being a permanent public space are interiors of buildings. But anything other than buildings can be photographed even if it's the interiors of that "something". Are train (or metro) stations/platforms "buildings"? They don't have a façade — does that mean that they are not buildings? They are also permanently publicly accessible and they serve (at least occasionally) as underpasses (or overpasses) and thus are "paths"? So, do they fall under the "rule" or do they fall under the "exception" that specifically only applies to "buildings"? I would call a metro station a "building". It's rather a "tunnel". And in Germany, metro stations usually aren't accessed through a building-like structure either. There are just stairs on the street that lead downstairs like to an underpass. The stations also often have an exit on both sides — just like "tunnels". The stations are also just platforms within a metro tunnel. It's like an underground road for a metro, where the station is not a "building" of its own but just a "pit stop" / parking space for metros. It's just a niche within a tunnel. And tunnel interiors would fall under FoP I'd think because they are basically just roads with a ceiling; they are not buildings. Nakonana (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the building regulations (Musterbauordung) train stations are buildings through the permission process is different to other buildings. In the fee schedule (HOAI) they are not in the building category as they have their own category. But they are not public places like streets as they are owned by a public company and not directly by a public authority and they are not declared as public streets. GPSLeo (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reversal above is clearly wrong. Sometimes we adhere too much to consistent decisions even when the past decisions were clearly wrong. Just having pinpoint lights in a ceiling is not sufficiently creative. Note that there is nothing artistic about their placement. It is a simple repeating pattern. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't think it has to be a complex painting or the like. Sometimes it's also a simple but creative idea what counts, and in case of a "starry sky"-like ceiling of an underground station it's definitely a creative idea. And yes, according to German law interior shots, including public interiors, are not FoP-covered. @Marcus Cyron: does Wikimedia Deutschland do any effort to get German FoP laws amended in more liberal direction for us? --A.Savin 08:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are definitely efforts in the background. There was also the idea that we need to bring this question to the court in some way but in the past there was not a singe known case where the architect of a train or underground station tried to enforce the copyright on the building. GPSLeo (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How should I know? I don't have any ties to this club anymore. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. --A.Savin 18:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this is over COM:TOO Germany. Is it more complex than this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There I see only a {{PD-textlogo}}. Yes definitely, architectural design is more complex anyway. --A.Savin 20:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin perhaps Rosenzweig is still a member of Wikimedia Deutschland? I have to admit, while Germany is the birthplace of FoP and an antithesis of France which is against commercial FoP, the FoP law does seem outdated and only applicable to the era before the prevalence of information technology and digital media. In particular, German courts tend to not give FoP rights to photographers who use drones or helicopters to photograph works from air. The German FoP, by its essence, is almost the same as its incarnation during much of the 20th century (and was originally giving rights to painters who reproduce buildings and sculptures in their paintings and then to sell those paintings without permissions from architects or sculptors). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a Wikimedia member. --Rosenzweig τ 08:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't say that the ceiling is star-like. Those just round LED lamps in a blue-painted ceiling. They don't have a star-shape (in the way that stars are often represented in art 🌟 ). It's also not a starry sky because you can't see stars when the sky is blue; you can only see them at night when the star is nearly black; and stars have "random" placement, they don't come in lines and rows like here. Would you still say that it is a starry sky or a creative ceiling if the ceiling was painted light blue (like during day time) or even red/orange to represent sunset? Nakonana (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A blue ceiling with small white dots in pretty much the most square/generic pattern possible, and as such far below the TOO. Weather the (obvious) intent is to depict a night sky or anything else is irrelevant, what matters is the work itself and that is too simple. If the copyright ~~paranoia~~ vigilance is too stong, we can also crop out the sky. ~TheImaCow (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping the ceiling won't help at all. It is the design as a whole which matters in term of possible copyright. Including: the ceiling, the lighting, the walls, the columns... etc.pp. --A.Savin 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:UA, Germany has a higher threshold of originality for applied art, and this remains a VERY simple design. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

For the same reason as all other deletion requests before. There is no FoP for interior views in Germany.

File:Berlin, BVG H95 5002 - U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel.jpg

Lukas Beck (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das verstehe ich nicht. Author von diesen Design braucht Geld um solche Fotos zu posten? Ich dachte es ist Ehre und Reklame für ihm.

Also, es gilt für alle U-Bahn Stationen in Deutschland? Penguin9 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Deutschland haben wir diese Einschränkung betreffend Innenaufnahmen und, wie auch anderswo, wenn seit dem Tod des Autors (hier: des Architekten) noch keine 70 Jahre vergangen sind. Bedeutet: beispielsweise dieses U-Bahn-Foto ist für Commons unbedenklich, da es eine Außenaufnahme ist und für solche hierzulande in jedem Fall Panoramafreiheit gilt. Und bei Fotos von U-Bahnstationen, die von Alfred Grenander (gestorben 1931) entworfen sind, sind sowohl Außen- als auch Innenaufnahmen unbedenklich. --A.Savin 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:《黑神话：悟空》手办热销设计者：中国IP海外输出扬眉吐气.webm

This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:03, 0:23-0:26, 1:22-1:28, 2:08-2:13, 3:34-3:51), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~It would also be difficult to argue de minimis when large parts of the video zooms in and focuses on copyrighted 3D artwork. --Cold Season (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not a reason to delete the file, those cutscenes can be blacked. About the 3D Artwork, why do we assume that the authors did'nt autorize the Chinese State News Agency to use those artworks?--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about assuming is irrelevant (and let's say that they did authorized them to use it, so what?). You need to provide evidence that the 3D artwork is free to be used, if that's the angle you are arguing. It is not free, per the copyright as stated by Game Science. The 3D artwork does not appear incidentally and is, in fact, the main focus of the video. --Cold Season (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Resolved by uploader. --Cold Season (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New blacked version uploaded. Working on the other video too.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:《黑神话：悟空》里的法宝现身上海闵行博物馆.webm

This video includes cutscenes of the game itself (0:00-0:12), which is obviously not free content. (本视频包含游戏画面，很明显并非自由版权内容) №.N (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete the file, those scenes can be blacked.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should black the scene before uploading the file.--№.N (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blacked, done.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:American corporate flag.jpg

The Adbusters corporate flag is the main subject of this file, and it is uploaded as fair use on English Wikipedia due to it being a derivative of multiple non-free logos. Xeroctic (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK? And that's bad? Or are you trying to say it should not be on commons, but should remain on the English Wikipedia? Mike Richardson (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the logos are below the threshold of originality in the US and the remainder are probably de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cliff Hanley.jpg

1972 photo, unlikely to be own work. Needs VRT Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why unlikely? User:Joburley could easily be someone in their 70s. Before what year do you consider it unlikely for it to be own work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma.Card.Sforza.JPG

the family crest of cardinal guido ascanio sforza shown on this page is wrong Giudice123 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goethe in der Campagna (Iphigenie).jpg

replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, relief).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goethe in der Campagna (Grabmal).jpg

replaced by File:Goethe in the Roman Campagna (SM 1157) (Detail, Mausoleum of Cecilia Metella).png Carl Ha (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schaller M6 Locking.jpg

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S-Locks-Box-Gold.jpg

Keine ordentliche Lizenzierung Lutheraner (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schaller GTC Hauser.jpg

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, als Urheber wird Schaller GmbH angegeben, Urheber kann aber nur einr natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just accepted permission for “File:Sarodiya Brothers.png” under ticket:2024090310004796. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just accepted permission for “File:Telegraph Online Edugraph 18 under 18 Award 2024.png” under ticket:2024090310005339. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just accepted permission for “File:The Doverlane Music Conference Winner's Award.png” under ticket:2024090310005115. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just accepted permission for “File:Bharat Ratna Dr. M.S. Subbulakshmi Fellowship Award 2022.png” under ticket:2024090310005188. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 17:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Martin (cropped) (cropped).jpg

Possible copyvio: The original source from Paul Billet is deleted, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ex-Philippe Estimated Rainfall map 24h 2023-10-08 1600Z.png

This image is sourced from an interactiive mapping tool (Esri) embedded in an NWS web page.[1]

1. It contains a precipitation map which is in the public domain as a work of the US federal government, overlayed on a basemap provided by Garmin and by Here Maps, credited in the image itself. Coming from Garmin and Here, whatever elements each is providing to the basemap are presumably protected by copyright.

The web tool lets you change the basemap, and it looks like at least the Topographic version contains only free imagery (USGS), but I couldn't figure out how to combine this with the precipitation data.

2. Regardless of how differently we might interpret part of the NWS general disclaimer, this particular image is directly and unambiguously covered by the part that reads "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. This third-party information may contain trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features to identify the source of the information. This does not imply an endorsement of the third-party data/products or their provider by NOAA/National Weather Service. Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products."[2]

This is a clear copyvio and we need to delete it in its current form.

Maybe someone can regenerate the image without the copyrighted elements? Simply cropping them out would also work, but I think this would lose important context for the map. Rlandmann (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete per PRP. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For several reasons, this should be kept. First off, the rainfall data is clearly the work of a U.S. government employee working for NOAA. This is confirmed via the NOAA logo in the top-right corner. The entire deletion reasoning rests on the background being somehow copyrighted, despite the satellite view clearly not being produced by a human. I also do not believe any aspect of this image is not free-to-use, given a U.S. government employee used it for official work, which was published to the public. That said, going on the sole theory of the nominator being correct (note, I don't believe they are correct), I fail to see how a satellite view, clearly made via a satellite/computer with almost certainly no human interaction, at least no human manually changing the satellite's data, meets the threshold of originality. What I see is a U.S. government employee, while on official duty, creating a map, with official government data, using satellite data, which was almost certainly not manually altered by a human between the satellite capturing photo & computer posting it. That does not pass the threshold of originality in my books, and the official U.S. government logo/known creation help me believe that as well. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few points here:
- the overall work is of a US government employee, yes abolutely, but works can be composed of many elements (doctrine of separability), and the resulting work is only as free as the least free of its components. In this case, it's the background layer that's unfree.
- there's quite a bit online to learn more about the work that satellite imagery providers do to prepare it for release in their commercial products. Two articles I readily turned up: [3][4]
- because this kind of human input does arguably cross the TOO, and because we can't usually be sure of whether any particular image crosses this threshold, Commons has a rule disallowing this kind of image: "Satellite pictures and derived maps from commercial projects like Google Earth, Google Maps, bing.com, and others are based on a combination of free and copyrighted satellite imagery and are, therefore, not acceptable on Commons." (COM:SAT)
- notwithstanding the previous point, if you can locate the original satellite image Garmin or Here used, so that we can compare it to the one screenshotted, you might be able to prove that their modifications (if any) in this specific case do not cross the TOO. To me, this kind of evidence would trump the general rule. (At the same time, I think it would just be easier to re-create the image with free imagery than to go to these lengths.)
--Rlandmann (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have uploaded a free version of this file here: File:Ex-Philippe Estimated Rainfall map 24h 2023-10-08 1600Z - free.png --Rlandmann (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rlandmann and Hurricane Clyde: I think this image should probably be a stand-alone Commons policy-discussion (not directly related to the ongoing RFC). So I reviewed the ESRI terms of use [5][6]. It appears government use falls under "commercial license". It also appears ESRI creations are non-commercial free-to-use. Non-commercial images are currently not allowed on the Commons (previous proposals rejected). However, this image (and for that matter, the handful of other NOAA/ESRI images we have come across) are unique. Since they are being made on official government time, i.e. PD information and content, I wonder if a special tag/special template should be proposed. (1) Information on the NOAA-based ESRI documents is confirmed to be PD. (2) ESRI allows for non-commercial use free use. Basically, we have PD-data that is free-to-use as long as it is for a non-commercial use. That is a rare case I feel like for non-commercial uses, since per ESRI even, "By sharing content publicly...you expressly grant Esri and end users of ArcGIS Online permission to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute content, subject to any use constraints you provide. The government/NOAA data has no constrains since it is PD. Basically, even under some precautionary principle, the photos are 100% (per NOAA and per ESRI) free to use, free to modify, free to tansform, in any shape or capacity, as long as it is not for monetary gain. That seems like a rare combination that could probably be proposed for some special and specific-case template, which clearly specifies it is free-to-use however you see fit as long as it is for a non-commercial purpose. You can probably see how this differs from the RFC a lot and probably needs a special policy-discussion specific to NOAA/ESRI cases. WeatherWriter (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

There's no evidence that the basemaps are free (the only problem with this image), and their incorporation into a work that would otherwise be PD does not make them so.

What we'd need to see evidence for here is not ERSI's ToS, but any evidence that Garmin and Here release their content under a free license.

But yes, if this is unclear, then VP/C would be the right forum to bring it up. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per ESRI, they are. If they were not free, then ESRI could not legally give the ability for users to use them freely. Like physically, if they could not give permission, then Esri's entire TOS would be null and void as Esri would be license laundering. WeatherWriter (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true.

This looks like a simple, common, and strightforward case of sublicensing: ESRI licenses content from Garmin (and others), and one of the terms of that agreement is that ESRI customers are allowed to publish static maps that contain Garmin's content. The fact that ESRI's agreement with Garmin allows ESRI to sublicense to their customers the right to publish static maps that incorporate the Garmin imagery in no way implies that Garmin's content is free for anyone else other than ESRI's direct customers to use. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By sharing content publicly...you expressly grant Esri and end users of ArcGIS Online permission to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute content, subject to any use constraints you provide." I bolded the key parts. Esri's terms of use say the creator provides the constraints, not Garmin. If Garmin had additional constrains, Esri could not say you could do that as a user would need Garmin's permission to reproduce/distribute it. Esri stating the creator provides the constraints for not. No where in their terms do they say something related to "this is not free to use only if you get Garmin's permission". Quite the oppose. Esri is very clear everyone is allowed to use any creator on Esri products for any purpose as long as it is not for monetary gain.

This is what I see your argument is on, if I interpret it correctly: Esri has a deal with Garmin that allows users to publish their info. There is no way to tell if Garmin allows their project to be used.

If I understood you correctly, that is what you alluded to. The key part I think to counter that is Esri saying "subject to any use constraints you provide". WeatherWriter (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that at a much more fundamental level, the suggestion that ESRI would not be able to give permission for their customers to publish static maps that contain imagery protected by the copyright of one or more of ESRI's suppliers is legally nonsensical. That's a commonplace type of sublicensing arrangement where effectively, ESRI is on-selling permission from their supplier (Garmin, Here, Earthstar, probably others) to their customer (in this case, the NWS) to use imagery and other assets.

This permission does not extend to the world at large. The agreements you're diving into are between ESRI and their customers, not ESRI and us.

Although we do not have access to ESRI's agreements with their suppliers, they are unlikely (to say the least...) to amount to "We (eg Garmin) will sell you (ESRI) the rights to use our imagery, and you can license your customers (eg NWS) to release that imagery in the Public Domain".

To use an analogy of how sublicensing works:

Anna takes a photo. Bob tells Anna that he knows some folk who would love to use her image on their websites and asks if he can buy the right to onsell her permission to them. Anna agrees, charges Bob $100 per year for the right to do that, and sets some other conditions that will govern how Bob's customers use her image. Bob now sells Carla, Dave, and Edith the permission to use Anna's image on their websites for $5 each. Bob is now sublicensing an image that belongs to Anna.
This does not mean that Freddy can download the image from Carla's website and publish it on his own website. Bob's agreement with Carla did not extend to Carla's site visitors.
Dave has a notice on his website that says "All contents of this website are in the public domain and can be used for whatever you like". This still doesn't mean that the image he licensed from Anna via Bob is now in the public domain, nor does it mean that Glenda, who finds the image on Dave's website, is legally able to re-use it. Bob's agreement with Dave did not extend to Dave's site visitors either, and Dave's disclaimer does not change that.
Bob also sells the rights to use Anna's image for another $5 to NISA, so they can use it on their website too. NISA (National Institute for Sparrow Aerodynamics) is a US federal government agency whose own work is ineligible for copyright. This too does not put the image in the public domain, nor does it mean that Harry, who finds the image on the NISA website is legally able to re-use it.

Attempts to analyse a situation like this by working backwards (for example, by extrapolating from what it says on Dave's website, or just the simple presence of the image on the NISA website) are unlikely to yield the correct answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merooj-trademark.png

Hello, this image is the logo of a sports company, which is placed without considering the terms of fair use and with the wrong license AMiR SLiDER (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Single letter M without any unusual stylistic elements. This would be {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The 2002 Van Wert, Ohio F4 Tornado.png

This image is a screencap from this video hosted on the NWSNorthernIndiana YouTube channel, which credits it to the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

The Ohio State Highway Patrol is part of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and not an agency of the US federal government. There is no presumption that the video this frame was captured from is ineligible for copyright.

The video does seem to have been created via a dashcam. (Compare this OSHP dashcam footage; warning: graphic content) However there is clearly a human operator turning the camera to follow the tornado's path, so this does not fall under PD-automated.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete per precautionary principle. Borders license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twin landspouts south of Milton-Freewater, Oregon on March 5, 2024.jpg

This image of an event that happened on March 6, 2024 was published on the @NWSPendleton X stream with the attribution "Thank you to Tonya Brewer for sharing these pictures with us!"[7]

There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

The attribution does not claim or imply that the photographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this image under a free license.

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete again possible license laundering. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been well over a week without additional replies. I’m going to ping some folks into the discussion. @WeatherWriter @Sir MemeGod @GeorgeMemulous @Berchanhimez @Consigned @Hurricanehink @Ks0stm @Jmabel @Yann @ChessEric @ChrisWx Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete NOT automatically an NWS photo. NWS offices can post whatever they want on Twitter, and it doesn't automatically put it into the public domain, especially if it's posted with attribution to someone who's sharing the photo with the office. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has any effort been made to contact the photographer to ask their understanding of the matter? - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not of this one specifically, since it's completely outside the claimed upload rationale. However we interpret the disclaimer on weather.gov and how it operates, this image was never hosted there. So, in this and a bunch of similar cases, the disclaimer is a moot point.

More broadly:

you can see the state of photographer outreach over NWS images noted here
and the responses received to date here -- I haven't requested deletion of the "No"s on this list yet because many conversations over willingness to release are still open.

One pecularity of all these discussions is that the folks seeking to keep these images have not, generally, involved themselves in seeking or confirming photographers' permissions.

This reversal of the COM:ONUS derives from some folks insisting that the weather.gov disclaimer amounts to an assertion by the NWS that any images not marked with a formal copyright notice are in the public domain, and therefore no further permission is necessary.

This, despite the fact that we now have ample evidence that either this interpretation is incorrect, or that if it is correct, then what NWS employees do in practice when uploading and captioning files deviates so far from that intention as to make the disclaimer worthless.

We'll see how the RfC over this question shakes out.

But it's all irrelevant to this particular image and others like it. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is it not public domain if the caption thanks the person for sharing it to a government agency? ChessEric (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"w:Public Domain" has a very specific meaning here. It doesn't just mean "available to the public". It means that nobody owns copyright over the image.

Images might be in the Public Domain for a variety of reasons. The ones most commonly relevant to these discussions are:

it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was taken by a US federal government employee while on duty (for example, the DAT photos)
it wasn't ever eligible for copyright because it was produced by an automated system like a radar or uncontrolled webcam
for some pre-1989 images, because copyright wasn't properly registered under the laws of the time
for some pre-1963 images, copyright might have already expired
the one relevant to most of the images under discussion: the photographer willingly and explicitly gave up all their rights to their photo.

Sending a copy of a photo you took to somebody else (even a government agency) does not mean you are giving up all your rights to your photo. Nor does allowing somebody else (even a government agency) to use or publish your photo mean that you are giving up all your rights.

Just like, if I tell you you can use my car on Saturday afternoon, it doesn't mean you can just use it whenever you want. And it certainly doesn't mean that you can allow other people to use it (even if you park it under a sign that says "Feel free to use this car!" -- still not OK) --Rlandmann (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Credit to the photographer is absolutely not evidence of public domain - in fact, if anything, it's evidence that they aren't public domain. This also was never published on their website. By the logic of User:ChessEric we can take any image from X/Twitter that's shared with the caption "Thanks to (photographer)" and treat it as public domain... absurd. Berchanhimez (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: My apologies; I did not know that these photos came off a X/Twitter post. ChessEric (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The photograph of the tornado in Madera County, California on March 1, 2024.png

This image of an event that happened on March 2, 2024 is a screencap taken from a video that was published on the @NWSHanford X stream, [8] crediting it further in the thread "it came from a user on Facebook - Gillian Salgado".[9]

There is no claim that she was acting as an employee of the US federal government, or that the photo was ineligible for copyright for any other reason. Therefore, as a photo taken in the United States after 1989, copyright existed from the moment it was taken.

The attribution does not claim or imply that the videographer transferred her rights into the public domain or published this video under a free license. (indeed, the NWS only credited the creator when someone from the LA Times sought permission to use it)

This image has been uploaded to Commons based on a rationale that it is covered by the site disclaimer for weather.gov and/or the submission guidelines for the Sioux City NWS office.

This file is not hosted on weather.gov, so the disclaimer for that site does not appear to apply, and there is no evidence to connect it with the Sioux City office image submission guidelines, so this rationale does not appear to apply either. Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per precautionary principle. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ludwig von Stieglitz.jpg

Der Name dieser Datei entspricht nicht der dargestellten Person. Das Bild wird bereits unter https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drachenfels_Litho.jpg verwendet unter der richtigen Bezeichnung. Eine zeitgenössische Darstellug von Ludwig von Stieglitz ist unter https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Stieglitz#/media/Datei:Ludwig_Baron_Stieglitz_1779_Arolsen_-1843_St._Petersburg.jpg zu finden, die mit den erhaltenen Ölporträts in Übereinstimmung zu bringen ist. Sixtnitgern (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sixtnitgern: Peter Geymayer, der das Bild hochgeladen hat, ist leider schon verstorben. --Kuhni74 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COM:INUSE. Edit the file description as needed and change the filename or request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can`t find any possibilty to rename this file or to request COM:File renaming.It is not even necessary: The same file is already existing with the correct file name here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drachenfels_Litho.jpg . To compare you can find a photograph of Drachenfels (1795–1863) here:

www.lagis-hessen.de/de/subjects/rsrec/sn/bio/register/person/entry/drachenfels%252C%2Bchristopher%252A%2Bfriedrich%2Bfreiherr%2Bvon

May be, the inventary of the Albertina-Collection is wrong. But Ludwig von Stieglitz is not the Person shown here, L v. S. died 1843 in St. Petersburg in the age of 64, much older than this person her. A real lithography portrait of Ludwig Baron Stieglitz i linked above. It is not signed, the artist not known. Sixtnitgern (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RS Group logo.svg

Same argument as I made in Commons:Deletion requests/File:RS Group plc logo.jpg; the UK has a very low threshold for copyright protection. It would be fine to host locally on enWiki and deWiki. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Livermore View East from McLeod Building 1896 01.jpg

Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [10]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Livermore View East from McLeod Building 1896 uncaptioned.jpg

Publication date is unknown and may be after 1929: Livermore Heritage Guild states that people should not use the photos without permission and it should probably be assumed that they are right. (see [11]) Mrfoogles (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio: According to the file information, the author says that this logo is copyright-free, but it is unclear whether this means it is in the public domain (or licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0). So this logo may not be acceptable on Commons. Momiji-Penguin (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/28

August 28

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Museumsinsel

Files uploaded by Sarodiyabrothers (talk · contribs)

Navigation menu

Search