Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
7 September 2024
9 September 2024
Deletion requests on 8 September 2024

September 8

[edit]

File:Reformed.png

[edit]

i would think this is beyond TOO for Sweden? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AUR Logo.svg

[edit]

"Disagree with deletion. Vector shape of map of Romania I don't see as eligible for deletion." - ThecentreCZ Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, a complex shape regardless. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No, it is not complex shape. This is few stars, 20 points-curved simple line of map of Romania and text font. You should not start requests anymore please. Some of these you've nominated and deleted have been already restored and you just added unecessary troubles. Thank you.--ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Because of the simple font, the simple stars and the shape of Romania. Welkend (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Romania has no data on TOO, delete per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CSSD Teillogo.svg

[edit]

"Disagree with deletion of this file uploaded in 2012." -ThecentreCZ Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, still think the arrangement of shapes is original enough to put it above COM:TOO Czech Republic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep You are wrong. These are not unique. You've would question entire thousands of files with simple shape consensus. As I stated before, these are simple geometric shapes of and 5 times with one two pointed object. Cannot be seen as such. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arrangement of the simple shapes may be "a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author" per my previous linked page. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These shapes can be arranged in multiple ways in a creative manner. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can, according to previous assements, in this case this is simple case adequate to be on Commons is accordance with thousands of other logos. Not uniquely designed, on which treshold of originality can apply. ThecentreCZ (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the other logos were kept because the TOO of the country of origin was high. I'm not sure if Czech has a high TOO, as a strict interpretation of the law can mean that this logo can be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I'm sorry, @Grandmaster Huon, but your perception of when something should be deleted does not match the TOO. Furthermore, a normal request for deletion of a file will also do. The fact that you are requesting quick deletions everywhere is not exactly useful. Welkend (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What TOO in question? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that non-obvious speedy deletion requests are wrong. But why do you think this file is below COM:TOO Czech Republic? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arrangement of geometric shapes in a unique manner can be a creative effort as per COM:TOO Czech Republic. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a fair argument, but it's not so obvious as to warrant speedy deletion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it enough to merit deletion regardless? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. And that's why I asked User:Welkend why they think the file is below COM:TOO Czech Republic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 10 September 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 KlaudeMan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per website listed, photo is copyrighted by Time, with usage being "for personal non-commercial use only"

reppoptalk 06:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lol, I didn’t realize could you send me the link? KlaudeMan (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reppop I apologize could you delete these images immediately they are in fact copyrighted. KlaudeMan (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by KlaudeMan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These two images were previously deleted as they didn't show that it was out of copyright as photographer Wally McNamee died in 2017. Reuploaded with the template {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but there's currently no indication that it was published in the first place. this collection of his works states that "McNamee retains copyright to his images".

reppoptalk 16:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search online on the records, pre march 1989 images needed to be copyrighted but if you search on the records no indication of copyright is made. KlaudeMan (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reppop Please remove the notice of deletion, just search the copyright records the image is in the public domain KlaudeMan (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-US-1978-89}} directly states: "published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice", and there is no indication that it was published (as I said). If you can give me where it was published, and that it didn't have a copyright notice there, I'll withdraw it as it would show that it wasn't copyrighted and not registered. reppoptalk 18:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: echoed the same thing in your undeletion request for one of the images deleted. reppoptalk 18:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reppop Please delete the photos I agree with you they are copyrighted KlaudeMan (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the pd notice and thought it was just an extension of copyright KlaudeMan (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:112096 beit kama aerial photograph PikiWiki Israel.jpg

[edit]

This photo is from 2008, how is this public? Poliocretes (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaulBernNote.JPG

[edit]

While the text of the note may have been published, bibliographically speaking, in newspapers in 1932, with or without a copyright notice, for US copyright purposes publication (general publication) can only happen if authorised by the author. Any contemporary newspapers publishing this text would have done so as fair use, not because the suicide note was somehow public domain or, even more ridiculously, licensed under a compatible free license. In order to ascertain the note's copyright term we need to know when the first authorized publication happened, which, absent evidence to the contrary may have been "never"—it is entirely possible that all subsequent publications have been on similar fair use grounds—or may have happened at any point in the intervening years (if the estate or heirs granted permission to someone writing a book about the affair, say).

Since it is pretty much impossible to prove that it was never published with permission before 2003 (when {{PD-US-unpublished}} would come into play), we must assume per COM:PRP that publication with permission happened somewhere in the time window where a pub. +95 term applies (if publication was late enough that the term was pma. 70 it would have long since expired).

The best bet for anyone wanting to try to save this file is to trawl through the oldest books about this topic looking for one giving the full text of the note and mentioning in the text somewhere that they have the permission of the heirs (even indirectly in the form of thanking them for assistance or graciously permitting etc.). If found it may be reasonable to conclude that first publication happened no later than that time and copyright expires 95 years after that book was published, or it could be that that book either lacked a copyright notice or failed to renew copyright in the 28th year after publication.

Note that the file is in use on many Wikipedias and several of them may have EDPs permitting fair use material ala. enWP. Before deleting these should be notified and given the opportunity to import the file locally if desired and permitted by their policy. Xover (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You disregard the very valid {{PD-US-unpublished}} option as "Since it is pretty much impossible to prove that it was never published with permission before 2003". It is just as impossible to prove that it was published with explicit permission. (If it was widely published without anything being done againest it by the heirs, I'd count that as implicit permission to have it published). PCP good & fine, but this arguing about a 92 year old low res one-sentence long suicide scribbeling is copyright paranoia. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. You can positively prove that it has been published any number of ways. A prime example, a book that publishes it and says it is used by permission of the heirs (which is a very common practice). But as I also mentioned, you could even just make it plausible that this has happened by finding a book where the heirs have in some way participated, for example by the author thanking them for assistance or similar, without making the permission explicit. The opposite is true for proving it was never published, simply because you cannot prove a negative. Failing to find a publication does not mean there isn't one, just that you failed to find it.
And copyright owners failing to act in some way has never been a valid argument. The heirs could have failed to act for any number of reasons, lack of awareness being one obvious possibility, and unlike trademarks this affects their rights not one bit. But more to the point, the contemporary publications were in newspapers and were reporting on current events. That is, they were publishing it under the fair use doctrine (an affirmative defence against a claim of copyright infringement which does not apply to Commons and is explicitly not permitted under Commons policy). There was essentially nothing the heirs could have done to prevent this.
So… In order to preserve this you'd need to find a publication that is 1) plausibly the first (general) publication, and 2) that failed to comply with the required formalities (notice, renewal, etc.). Xover (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PCP requires "significant doubt" (emphasis original). What I see here are vague claims that the publication might not be authorized, or it might have been authorized, but too recent, or it might not have been at all. And any of this might be a problem. I think that's far from significant doubt.
The file in question is either {{PD-US-no notice}}, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If we're not sure, we can add both tags.
And the purely hypothetical case that the heirs -zero clue who they are- have somehow agreed the "publication" of a 1932 suicide note between 1977-2003? This goes wayyy beyond any reasonable research, and it is up to you to prove that.
And that this would somehow reset the copyright clock, are there any cases to look at? (Copyrighting someone's 92 year old suicide note.........)
Either way, some more input is certainly needed here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NTNU Store, Fat Daddy American Fried Chicken 20190216.jpg

[edit]

Advertising poster of recent origin. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising poster have been edited. Solomon203 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Central Broadcasting System logo on Changsha Street 20240907.jpg

[edit]

Commerical logo , Tawian has FoP for architecture and buildings only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aadawani lakshmidevi.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. Clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted film being played on a media-device. Uploader has 100% record of copyright violations on screenshot-upolads, please see uploader's talkpage.

Uploader has done things like:

  • uploading mirror screenshot image for escaping copyvio: [1]
  • uploading copyrighted-screenshot images from Youtube by mentioning them as taken during film-shooting. [2], [3], [4], [5]
  • uploading copyrighted Youtube interviews as his/her own works: [6]
  • deceiving surveillance by saying the images were taken by his/her old camera devices, but which are actually a simple Youtube screenshots of copyrighted films: [7], [8]
Its 100% confirm that the uploader has faked a permission email to clear permission-status.
You can see the image in Youtube: Video link, Thumbnail of video The image is of a film-scene being captured by film-crew's camera.

   --2406:7400:107:682:0:0:0:1 08:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: this is indeed a serial uploader of copyvios and deceiving people about that. Someone from the VRT team should check the ticket again, noting that good faith cannot be assumed from this user. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I informed Admin:Krd regarding the same: [9] about how did bot approve, but I dont have an evidence as proof for the permission-mail being invalid. If we come to know the email-id from which the uploader reached VRT, things will be easy. It surely is ‘Aadawani_lakshmidevi@gmail.com’ I bet. 😆 --106.51.110.101 04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbeiderpartiet logo (hvit).svg

[edit]

I appeal the nomination for speedy deletion due to copyright. This file is clearly above COM:TO for protection. Lots of the non-copyrightable examples have simple shapes in a similar or more complicated arrangement. Ved havet (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this can vary depending on country. This logo can definitely be copyrighted in UK or France. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
British and French copyright law is completely irrelevant to the logo of a Norwegian political party, hosted on the American Wikimedia Commons service. Ved havet (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in order for the file to be hosted, it must be both free in the United States and its home country. The flower of this logo is more complex than the hat in the logo of the TV series Jul i Blåfjell, which is copyrighted in Norway. Thus  Delete per COM:PCP. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbeiderpartiet logo.svg

[edit]

I appeal the nomination for speedy deletion due to copyright. This file is clearly above COM:TO for protection. Lots of the non-copyrightable examples have simple shapes in a similar or more complicated arrangement. Ved havet (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Kuban.png

[edit]

Lower quality version of File:Flag of Kuban.svg and File:Flag of Kuban People's Republic.svg Wheatley2 (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:F5 Ruskin Heights, Missouri tornado in Kansas 1957.jpg

[edit]

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/eax/RuskinHeights where it's been hosted since at least 2016.

Per the source the photo was taken by Reverend Robert Alexander from the Methodist parsonage at Spring Hill, Kansas, in 1957, and that the photo came to the NWS via Tim Janicke of the Kansas City Star. A Rev. Robert Alexander died at the Methodist church in nearby Wellsville in 1971, aged 69,[10] who might plausibly have been the photographer.

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

  • a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on there site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
  • a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

  1. There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Kansas City office)
  2. A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.
The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

This image might already have entered the public domain if it were first published before 1989 without meeting all the requirements for protection, but this cannot simply be assumed. Alternatively, for example, if it was first published in a book somewhere between 1957 and 1977 (and the formalities were correctly carried out), it will enter the public domain somewhere between 2053 and 2073. Or if the Rev Robert Alexander who died in 1971 was indeed the photographer and the photo was never published before 1989, then it will pass into the public domain in 2042, 70 years after his death.

I have searched The Kansas City Star's coverage of this tornado in the days following the event via newspapers.com but have been unable to find this photo. I tentatively conclude that they didn't have it at the time and the KCS connection must have come later.

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this per-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep For the following reasons (long post…sorry):
  1. The image originates from this web site by the National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS noted the following caption with the photo: "Tornado near Spring Hill, Kansas. Original photograph taken from the north porch of the parsonage of the Methodist Church. Photographer looking north. Photograph has been cosmetically enhanced. As the storm strikes the small town of Spring Hill, Kansas, four members of the Isham Davis family were killed. Photo courtesy of Tim Janicke, Kansas City Star. Photographed by Reverend Robert Alexander.". Per the disclaimer linked at the bottom on the webpage, "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." We have confirmed evidence this image exists on a web site as well as the web servers of the National Weather Service (weather.gov).
  2. 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.
  3. The NWS disclaimer also states, "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products." See instances of usage below:
  • MissouriLife used the photo in this article where it is attributed “National Weather Service”.
  • The city government of Spring Hill, Kansas used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook.
  • The Kansas State Mesonet used the photo with no attribution in this post on X. To note, the Kansas State Mesonet is operated by Kansas State University.
  • The National Weather Service office of Omaha/Valley, Nebraska used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook. This is included as the NWS webpage with the image was from the NWS office in Kansas City/Pleasant Hill, MO.
  • WDAF used the photo with no attribution in this post on Facebook.
  • KEY: Martin City, Missouri, a city largely destroyed by this specific tornado, uses the photo on its own city history website, where it is attributed with the caption: “Actual photo of the ‘Ruskin Heights Tornado’ approaching Martin City from the direction of Spring Hill Kansas. Courtesy: National Weather Service”.
  • KMBC used the photo in this article from 2020 where it is credited “Rev. Robert Alexander”. The article cites the U.S. Weather Bureau throughout the article (not for the photo). Mr. Alexander was already dead at the time of this article, so copyright for the image physically could not have been given, indicating it is free-to-use.
To me, all the things above point to this image being in the public domain. So, I vote to Keep this photograph as it seems clear the U.S. government, local city governments, universities, and RS media indicate there is no copyright on the photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per WeatherWriter. ChessEric (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be clear @WeatherWriter @ChessEric: that it is possible that this image could have already entered the public domain if they didn’t register the copyright and didn’t provide notice. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 15:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this a little:
  • the earliest source for the image I know of is a book from 1983 published without a copyright notice and for which copyright was not registered within the statutory five-year period. If this was the first publication (and there's no reason to think it was...) this would place the image in the public domain.
  • I have interesting but uncorroborated evidence that the original photographic print of Alexander's image might have been on public display in Spring Hill prior to that date; if so, and if it was publicly displayed without a copyright notice, and if it it hadn't already been published elsewhere with a copyright notice, then this would also place the image in the public domain.
I'm noting these things not to try and change anybody's position here, but simply to illustrate that clearing pre-1989 US images is not straightforward and why significant doubt exists around their copyrights until we can zero in on the (actual or very likely) first publication of an image. Right now, for this image, 26 years still separates the photo from its first known publication, so we can't say anything with certainty. Speculating: if first publication was in a newspaper, it's probably in the public domain -- in this era only the very largest papers registered copyrights. If it was in a magazine or book, copyright might very well have been registered, and even renewed.
I recently got my hands on a 1930s book on sailing published in the US, which included some photos that I thought would be great for the Commons. This book only had one, single print run, and the author has been dead for very many decades now. However, when researching its copyright status, I discovered that (for whatever reason) his estate had paid to renew the copyright within the expiry window, and it will now still be protected for copyright for another decade or so! (I say "for whatever reason" because they never actually reprinted it; maybe they had planned to?) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by User:Keetanii

[edit]

These images were all uploaded by myself User:Keetanii about 12 years ago. I believe they should now be deleted because they're of poor quality (literally scanned copies of printed photos (not digital)) and there are better photos that do the same job available on Wikimedia Commons. Keetanii (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment a number are in use Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those images that are in use, I'd be happy to replace them with a better photo, available on commons, however I didn't do this myself as I felt it was a conflict of interest since I'm the one asking for my photos to be deleted. Please advise. Keetanii (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Czech Social Democratic Party (1998–2021).svg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Logo and ThecentreCZ wrote "Disagree with deletion." in incomplete special:diff/920781845.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Grandmaster Huon. The uploader claimed to be the copyright holder of a copyrightable work in this edit. The file is over COM:TOO Czechia. Yet, they stole it from Česká strana sociálně demokratická (ČSSD).[1][2]   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy delete per Jeff G. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ↑ https://prima.iprima.cz/zpravodajstvi/26-7-2018-velke-zpravy-kauza-lidovy-dum-i-politicke-strany-nekdy-nerespektuji-rozsudek
  2. ↑ http://www.cssd.cz/ www.cssd.cz
 Keep No, this is in my view not over COM:TOO Czech. Jeff G., you claims are absolutely not correct, sourcing of the logo was added immadiatelly 10 minutes after original upload to fulfill description of the file. You define stating original sourcing file as "stealing" is absolutely not a proper dictionary. Licensing original and derived file were already part of some discussions, and it was concluded that statement of it in the permisson column is acceptable as sources are given too. Please follow discussion at sourced file uploaded 8 years ago from German Wikipedia, seem as in-accordance with PD-Czech at here Commons:Deletion requests/File:CSSD Teillogo.svg. We were discussing this also with @Yann: gratitude for your assesments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThecentreCZ (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep per ThecentreCZ --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:جامعة النور.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted Materials: no information on the licence Michel Bakni (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:جامعة النور 2.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted Materials Michel Bakni (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Unnecessary directory of gallery page categories, since you browse Commons categories more often than galleries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about revert it to the original redirect? Bennylin (yes?) 10:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal Lake, Illinois, Holter home foundation.png

[edit]

The uploader sourced this file from the website of the US National Weather Service: https://www.weather.gov/lot/Palm_Sunday_Outbreak where it's been hosted since 2015 without attribution

The Crystal Lake Historical Society identifies it as the work of local photographer Jim Seymour (d.1988[11]) It is one of a batch of 21 photographic prints that was donated to the society in 2000. The Society is unaware of any prior publication.

The Society has featured Seymour's photos of the tornado aftermath in a slideshow on its website since at least 2010, although due to a technology change, it's not possible to verify with complete certainty that this photo was among them. Nevertheless, the physical print in the Society's collection is the only original source known and documented for this image.

The tornado took place in the United States in 1965

The rationale for hosting it on the Commons has been:

  • a belief when the NWS general website disclaimer states that information on the site is "in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" it necessarily means noted with a formal copyright notice, and that the absence of a formal notice accompanying an image equates to an assertion by the NWS that the image is in the public domain.
  • a set of terms and conditions used for a time by the NWS Sioux City office for public contributions

However:

  1. There is nothing to connect this image with the Sioux City office (it was published by the Chicago office)
  2. A recent analysis of over 200 third-party images has found that whatever the NWS intends by "specifically noted otherwise" in their disclaimer, images that are known to be protected by copyright are routinely published on NWS websites without formal copyright notices, or sometimes without any attribution at all. Very many examples exist, spanning major media outlets, photographers who claim that they never relinquished their rights to their photos, and permissions granted to the NWS in public that did not include release into the public domain. Not a single one of these examples was published by the NWS with a formal copyright notice.
The most likely conclusion is that the NWS does not intend "specifically noted otherwise" to mean "specifically noted with a formal copyright notice". Alternatively, if that really is the intention of those words, the NWS has deviated from this intention so thoroughly as to render the disclaimer unreliable as an assertion of public domain status.

Copyright of images taken in the United States prior to March 1, 1989 depends on the circumstances of their first publication, rather than when they were actually taken. (see COM:HIRTLE).

This image might already have entered the public domain if it were first published before 1989 without meeting all the requirements for protection, but this cannot simply be assumed. Alternatively, for example, if it was first published in a book somewhere between 1965 and 1977 (and the formalities were correctly carried out), it will enter the public domain somewhere between 2061 and 2073. Or if the photo was never published before 1989, then it will pass into the public domain in 2059, 70 years after Seymour's death.

Without details of its first publication, we cannot assess the copyright status of this pre-1989 US image and therefore must delete it unless someone can provide this information.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak delete per @Rlandmann. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Map of Pala Empire under Devapala.png

[edit]

The map is highly exaggerated AlvaKedak (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map is contradicted by the sources it cites, like Kamboja for instance, Chakrabarti in the exact same page that @Based Kashmiri cited, said," the inscriptional claim of Devapala’s subjugation of the Kambojas in the northwest is an exaggeration because the Sahi rulers were then very powerful in Punjab and the northwestern province." So clearly the creator does not know what they are talking about. AlvaKedak (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep “Chakrabarti in the exact same page that @Based Kashmiri cited, said," the inscriptional claim of Devapala’s subjugation of the Kambojas in the northwest is an exaggeration because the Sahi rulers were then very powerful in Punjab and the northwestern province." So clearly the creator does not know what they are talking about.”
    No? Shah Sufi Mostafizur Rahman & Dilip K. Chakrabarti has states that A. M. Chowdhury believes that subjugation of the Kambojas may be exaggeration. However the both of them have rejected A. M. Chowdhury's theory in the next page and states We also find no difficulty in accepting the idea of a Pala raid in the Kamboja land in the northwest. and they also mentions and accept the subjugation of the Kambojas in the previous page. (See page no: 75 (Chakrabarti; Oxford), 51 (Rahman; Archeological Department) Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD request is filed by an long term sockpuppet who has been personal attacking me and creating disruptive edits in multiple wiki projects. Please see [12] and [13] Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neither a sockpuppet nor do I have any personal dislike for this user, I just don't like this map because it is exaggerated, I haven't made disruptive edits in multiple wiki projects, this is just a blatant lie you can personally check my edits if you want to. AlvaKedak (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We will see that in the SPI. [14] Based Kashmiri (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder, @Based Kashmiri, you still haven't responded to my defense in the SPI, you only responded to the claim about the map, which while relevant to the conversation, was not the main point of the discussion.
    Also if you want to talk about the Sockpuppet allegations, please do it in the SPI page and not here, this page is for the map only. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are reading this after the 16th of September, please ignore these messages, the situation has been resolved, my name has been cleared. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • COM:INUSE. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma ChievoVerona 1993-2001.png

[edit]

Although COM:TOO Italy is high, the knight is not a simple geometric shape. Permission from Chievo Verona is required. Arrow303 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created and uploaded the file taking inspiration by football kits in pictures of the 90s. The logo is nowhere to find on the internet.
I noticed that another version of the logo is present on Wikipedia, though with different colour combination than the original crest. This version has a proper copyright description referring to the registration number 0001154331 at UIBM. I really don't know how to add this kind of copyright template, can someone of you change the licence of my picture to this one [[15]]? Thanks El passs (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El passs That image is uploaded on it.wiki because it's not releasable under a free license (that logo is still copyrighted and even recreating a logo yourself does not make possibile to license it under a free license, and fair use claims - such as italian it:WP:EDP - are not allowed on Commons). Thanks, Arrow303 (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I didn't understand 100% what you mean. Let's make it simple:
  • Can I upload my image with the same license of the other image already existing? It's the same kind of file (own), referring to the same UIBM registration number, just with slightly different colours in order to be closer to reality.
El passs (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El passs (IT) Dal momento che sei italiano, ti rispondo così che ci capiamo anche meglio rispetto all'inglese. La risposta è no, perché qui (su Commons) quel tipo di licenza non è accettato.
Il presupposto è che il file è sotto copyright del Chievo Verona quindi:
- può stare su it.wiki unicamente sotto quella licenza indicata (che contrassegna comunque un file non libero e che presenta anche delle limitazioni nel suo utilizzo, proprio perché trattasi di un utilizzo limitato ed eccezionale)
- non può stare su Commons a meno che non sia talmente semplice da essere considerato semplice figura geometrica, cosa che però non è (perché Commons accetta solo materiale libero). Arrow303 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bene dunque, se ho capito bene, posso caricare il file su it.wiki seguendo le licenze e seguendo le limitazioni del suo utilizzo (l'utilizzo è analogo a quello già presente dunque nessun problema). Ho caricato altri file e quelli credo rientrino nella semplicità delle figure geometriche. Grazie per il chiarimento. El passs (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Di conseguenza (se può valere qualcosa il parere di chi l'ha caricato) approvo la cancellazione del file su Commons, e pure del file Stemma ChievoVerona 1993-2001.png El passs (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Πέτρα ,ήλιος ,θάλασσα .jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since).

I really see no reason to doubt the uploader's “own work” here.

 Comment This also affects other images by that uploader that have been tagged Εὐθυμένης. Msb (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosbatho: No Metadata or EXIF data is available to sustain the "own work" claim here. And the upload date of the said file(s) seems to be a quite recent one in order to claim that the technology wasn't that advanced back then, at the time of the original upload or of the photo shoot/take. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an image file has no EXIF data can sometimes indicate a copyvio under certain circumstances, but definately not in this case. Oftenly, the EXIF info is automatically removed by certain programs/apps automatically, or the user has selected settings that remove EXIFs by default.
In the case of this photo, IMO it is more than obvious that it was probably taken using an older digicam or smartphone - no problem at all. The image quality is accordingly. Furthermore, the image was claimed as “own work” from the beginning by the uploader (no reason to doubt that) and there is really no proof, not even an indication, that copyvio can even begin to substantiate. Msb (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mosbatho: Unfortunately, this has been proven multiple times on Commons, that uploaders tend to claim an image/file as "own work" despite it being not. 😕🤷‍♂️ Does this apply to every single case, though? Well, not necessarily... 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EXIF issue is well known. But once again: the lack of EXIF information is not automatically a copyright problem. Be aware of that, please. Msb (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:ὐθυμένης, please read COM:DR: "small size and missing EXIF data" is not a deletion reason by itself (at best that is merely supporting evidence for copyvio). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. If we keep this file, we should seriously consider undeleting the other files by the uploader. All look like they have been tagged as "no source" by User:Εὐθυμένης, which was inappropriate to my mind, as the uploader claimed they were {{Own}} work. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No reverse image search hits on Tineye or Google Images for this file. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IronGargoyle: Unfortunately, many locally based websites or personal blogs in Greece, or websites in general, tend not to keep much archive from their past or simply disappear in the nature. This, in turn, means that - as an example - today I can download and keep a photo from a local news website, tomorrow this website in no more, and then afterwards, if the file in question can't be found anywhere else at least in equal or larger resolution, I can upload it and present it as a work of my own. I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, I'm just raising a general concern of mine, especially since I've seen quite a few websites coming and going during the most recent years in Greece, thanks to the crisis, among other factors. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are all fine arguments to bring up in a deletion request, but tagging these as "no source" when there is clearly a claimed source (own work) is problematic. In balance, the fact that the images of this uploader seemed to be around the same place and did not have other suspicious elements, would lead me to assume good faith. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Msb (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Хан Крум

[edit]

User:Εὐθυμένης had asked for a speedy deletion for this gallery page, but I do not see why. So please give a reason and we can discuss it. JopkeB (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: The said page/gallery doesn't seem to follow the overall guidelines that seem to be applied to such type of content pages. Be it for the title or the content. 😕🤷‍♂️ 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exact guideline is this gallery page not following? In what aspect does it fail? JopkeB (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:CGI Showreels HD -- 2015 ” Texturing - LookDev - Lighting - Compositing” - by Florian Magnin.webm

[edit]

what is the music used here? If it's not CCBY the file needs to be deleted or the audio get muted. Somebody please do so. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma Campiotti.jpg

[edit]

Copyviol from https://www.diocesivolterra.it/s-e-mons-roberto-campiotti/lo-stemma/ . Antonio1952 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Courtney Taylor Taylor and David Bowie at Meltdown Festival 2002.jpg

[edit]

No permission from the source and author A1Cafel (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ellidette (talk · contribs)

[edit]

not own work and above COM:TOO UK, which is very low

Yeeno (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ΚΑΒΒΑΔΙΑΣ23Α15.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted text material title ("ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΕΠΙΔΑΪΡΙΑ ΑΝΑΣΚΑΦΩΝ.") and subsequent cursory google search seems to indicate book is PD —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:St.Paul Poznan interior.JPG

[edit]

Wnętrze kościoła zbudowane w latach 90. XX wieku, jako takie chronione prawem autorskim. Teukros (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embassy of India, Addis Ababa.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. Falls under {{GODL-India}} if explicit source is found —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embassy of India, Kabul.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source. caption on NDTV says "Image posted on Facebook by India in Afghanistan (Embassy of India, Kabul)" so it's likely to fall under {{GODL-India}} —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 19:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enregistrement Au-Delà.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio: A copyright appears in the metadata, VRT requested https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator CoffeeEngineer (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:OIP (1) (1).png

[edit]

There is no evidence that this logo was created by someone who has been dead for over 70 years. The Wanderers club active between 1859 and the 1880s never used this logo. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research this logo was made in 1860 Cbilbs (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Vanished user ee748d473e9122ac1a7e4de97de86108 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I think the user has no idea about free images or Commons policies, from the description he wrote on the images in Arabic he is using them to express something, he doesn't add any information or details about the images and that confirms that he is not the owner, I also searched for this image using Google Lens and found that it is spread on other sites and most likely he re-uploaded these images.

Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

كيفية التعامل مع المشاع الابداعي 105.103.247.133 13:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to prevent this account from being deleted
I am the owner of this account 41.111.105.182 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is suggesting that your account be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be rather something like "this historical account of an event" = photo / image. Not user account. Nakonana (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. A record, so to speak. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruined homes in Kalbajar city, Azerbaijan.jpg

[edit]

Requesting deletion of file I uploaded because an exact duplicate already exists at File:Кельбаджар Последствия войны с. Заллар 16 августа 2021.jpg — Golden talk 21:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iulian Ciocan in Berlin.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio © Josef Sallanz - we would need a COM:VRT permission to keep this M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, ich habe die Erlaubnis des Eigentümers/Fotografen zum Hochladen. wurde auch beim Hochladen so angegeben. Plupp (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Plupp, please either have the photographer contact COM:VRT or contact them yourself with written proof that you have the permission of the photographer to license their photo for commercial use under the terms of COM:Licensing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is it enough if the original photographer, Josef Sallanz, sends a short email with the picture name and the license type, e.g CC BY-SA to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org Plupp (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, because I haven't worked on the VRT. My guess is, probably, but they'll let him know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ANA MA HDZ.jpg

[edit]

unclear if original not-upscaled version is copyrighted, also unsuitable to illustrate the article of the person it may or may not depict (the article says "photo from the 1950s") Carl Ha (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI art for historical scenes

[edit]

most images seems to be deleted, makes no sense anymore, also in general person page and not proper Gallery page Carl Ha (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no problem with historical images. It is still in scope. If anything I think this helps people see what happens if it is a lesser known historical event. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AI has no place on Commons or any other Wikimedia project. By letting AI stay on this platform, we are essentially keeping what could be misinformation. AI does not know how history truly was like humans do, why should we risk it? Wheatley2 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes AI does not know. People shouldn't just prompt "give me an image of XYZ", instead they need to engineer it to precisely show what they have in mind which should match some descriptions, like those in books about the matter. It's not the AI that makes it accurate but the human and it's no less accurate than artworks about historic events made manually. Rather than outright censorship of everything historic made using modern tools (you really don't see a problem with that?), only clearly inaccurate or low-quality ones should be deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should see how long it takes for an AI to make one of my uploads. It took hours to get one that is historically accurate, if someone trys to make a good one, we should keep it. As Prototyperspective said: “AI art for historical scenes makes sense for example for scenes for which there are no photos and maybe not even artworks.” Like my work (AI’s work) on the Lot Smith Cavalry and Morrisite War. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed in a bad state now because people unjustifiably deleted in use useful images and it was only a stub earlier. AI art for historical scenes makes sense for example for scenes for which there are no photos and maybe not even artworks. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, @Prototyperspective. AI imagined images are more likely to skew than to inform understanding of historical events, both because of less-thoughtful use of the technology when writing prompts and because of the still-significant limiations of the technology. A portrait of a hisorical event (contemporary or from later) might suffer from similar biases, but that can be mitigated through context about the painter and when they were working in a way that AI-generated images can't. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's more likely but it's not generally the case and probably also not sufficiently likely...that is because as things become more accessible and less expensive (good things), there is a greater likelihood of the person creating the image not being very familiar with the matter including the details. A portrait image of some historical event can just as well be contextualized through context about it being AI made. There is no advantage of normal paintings (made in the past or present) in that regard. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well  Keep because solid arguments for deletion are missing and if / because it can be improved. It says As just explained, AI generators still have problems with generating faces and other issues. Please keep that in mind since correcting that can require significant skills and may limit the usefulness or realism of the images. for example, so also serves to inform about issues with such images, and thus is also useful in respect to the mostly refuted arguments made in favor of deletion that seem to argue for censorship and making artworks depicting historical figures and events less accessible again. Inaccurate images of that kind should get Template:Inaccurate and be corrected, not used, and/or deleted which does not relate to this gallery whose contents have been censored or deleted in violation of the well-established important COM:SCOPE policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about examples like Lot Smith Cavalry and Morrisite War, it’s hard to mess those up. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective Your uploads do not seem to be very constructive. You seem to only mass upload Creative Commons YouTube videos, most of them not even used on a single page. Clearly you don't understand Commons. How is any of this useful? Wheatley2 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious? Please look at actual mass uploaders, especially of useless large videos. I upload lots of useful things and most of it is very useful, and an unusually large fraction in use which is more than can be said about most uploaders. Same for images from studies which I upload and which are particularly useful. In any case, this is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category for these made up images would be sufficient. Thi gallery has no value. The Banner (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are pictures being deleted? We have not reached a consensus. I still belive this is the best way to show Historical events or groups that are lesser known and do not have pictures in the public domain or any pictures in general. If this is deleated could I just one of my artist friends to draw or paint something and upload it to wikipida? LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures were deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator where a consensus was reached in December 2023; images are inaccurate, don't look anything like the people they supposedly depict. Belbury (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done It looks like most of the images have been deleted in the meantime anyway. And no, you can't. Otherwise the images will probably just get deleted like these ones. Maybe take the hint. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete for being a how-to essay that claims to be a gallery and reads like official Commons policy, and which seems at odds with how consensus actually goes on this type of content. Belbury (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, it shouldn't be a gallery. It wasn't meant to be a gallery but the type can be changed. This type of content is largely not useful relatively low-quality content, if people used the info on this page they may created something that is actually useful but that seems rare and currently it seems like people only upload mostly the least useful kind of AI images instead of most-useful ones. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonnell, James S. - 5021345708.jpg

[edit]

Likely copyrighted artwork. Artist signed in lower left (illegible). Ooligan (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was created by the artist, its copyright was transferred to San Diego Air and Space Musuem after the museum's repository earned the custody of the artwork. Hence, its no longer under the copyright of the artist but in public domain as per SDASM posting of the image in its Flickr account. Bookish Worm (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:James McDonnell portrait.jpg

[edit]

Likely copyrighted artwork. Artist signed at bottom right (illegible). Ooligan (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was created by the artist, its copyright was transferred to San Diego Air and Space Musuem after the museum's repository earned the custody of the artwork. Hence, its no longer under the copyright of the artist but in public domain as per SDASM posting of the image in its Flickr account. Bookish Worm (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jawad ahmed.JPG

[edit]

Copyright holder: Asad Hayat, is this the uploader? 186.175.78.77 22:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La-voz-argentina-logo.png

[edit]

There is a possibility that this logo may pass the COM:TOO due to the specific angle and shape of the figure representing the V, which could be represented as a hook as well. In that context, I prefer to open a deletion request and decide on its permanence. Taichi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Lavoz-argentina-logo.jpg. Taichi (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tratohecho-logotipo.jpg

[edit]

This logo has a texture that does not make it a simple figure, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Educando-a-nina-logo.png

[edit]

Logo with texture and three-dimensionality that does not make it simple, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Viudas-e-hijos-del-rock.jpg

[edit]

Logo with different specific fonts in each letter and placed at specific angles on a very specific irregular background, therefore it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo de eltrece lanzado en 2016.png

[edit]

Logo with a specific texture and shape, so it could be exceeding the COM:TOO. Taichi (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Logo de eltrece lanzado en 2016 (cropped).png. Taichi (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by LordBirdWord (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unable to confirm the source, all images are credited to George Micro YouTube videos which do not, twelve hours after these images were uploaded, exist.

Copyright concerns per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with @GeorgeMicro1, where George Micro appeared to be posting stills of candidates' social media footage to Twitter and incorrectly claiming them to be photos that he had personally taken. This may be the same thing but on YouTube.

Belbury (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the video exists. It has YouTube BY-CC Marked. What’s the problem? And also, why is Tony Jones image in here? It’s not even apart of the Debate2024. The debate would’ve been copyright claimed if none of the content was original. LordBirdWord (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the video? The URL source given for all four of these images goes to a This page isn't available. Sorry about that. YouTube 404 page.
My mistake on the Tony Jones image, I see you're crediting it to the New Era Party of Florida rather to George Micro. But the YouTube link you provide for that file's source is still a 404 page. Belbury (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m terribly sorry. Is there an email I can send the links too? I tried sending them through here but the message wouldn’t send. LordBirdWord (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons filters out short links like youtu.be, so it might work to write out the full youtube.com URL. You can email via COM:VRT if not. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hunt, Carpio, and Daví: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=iAvDIO7Z-b7OCe3o&v=F0i5KXMs2A4&feature=youtu.be
New Era Party of Florida Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=3ZXoth_HOQDkiwYa&v=1A4majDGAJY&feature=youtu.be LordBirdWord (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the broken link with the new link in all 4 photos. LordBirdWord (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
The first link is a livestream of a promotional video call between several people. Is there anything that tells us that George Micro owns the copyright to that broadcast, rather than it being an upload of a livestream that he watched online?
The second link is a minute-long video of a low-end AI voice reading out a script over this static low resolution photo of Tony Jones, on a channel with no other uploads. I wouldn't have much confidence that this was the channel's own picture of Jones, from that, although I can't find the image anywhere else online. Belbury (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no idea about all of that information. I just saw CC-BY and thought that meant it was Copyright free. I deeply apologize for all of that. If these images are copyright, then please delete them. I understand, and I’m sorry for the mistake. I’m friends to George Micro, and he doesn’t know the answers to these questions as well. LordBirdWord (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was actually gonna comment before it was closed and reopened, but  Delete the Tony Jones one, as its a crop from this photo from Jones's Facebook page. For the first one though, there is a part where the moderator Jackie Carpio thanks George Micro, so I think there's a chance that he could actually be the organizer as he claims in the description. reppoptalk 18:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that too. George was mentioned in the beginning and the end by Jackie. Would that mean he had copyright claims? LordBirdWord (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the beginning and end, George Micro is directly mentioned as organizer by Jackie Carpio. LordBirdWord (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/08&oldid=958157254"