Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/12

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

September 12

[edit]
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:Intertoto.svg

[edit]

Looks like the Italian wiki user copied it from http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Intertoto.svg

[edit]

In the image, I can say that it comes from this Italian Wikipedia account https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intertoto.svg where it indicates that the drawing comes from the source http://www.juventus.com/media/images/internal-pages-images/coppa%20intertoto.jpg , also use the image on other wikipedia pages in Italian language, it would not be plagiarism but an inspiration, I hope you understand it thanks--LIBRE CONOCIMIENTO (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intertoto.svg

[edit]

Very likely it is hasn't a compatible license; even if it really is "own work", the license applied is that of the logo. Stego (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gonfalone Comune Montebuono.PNG

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Arrow303 as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turtle Cove mural - Roger Witter.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the actual license tags? It has nothing to do with FOP, it was made by someone employed by the Bureau of Land Management and uploaded by them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is painter Roger Witter a federal government officer? Krd 07:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was hired by the Bureau of Land Management to make it, the organisation that uploaded it to Flickr under that licence, and nothing indicates the employee has to specifically be "a federal government officer" for this tag to apply. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Studio

[edit]

I am afraid but we will have to delete these photos because they depict protected artworks and photographs displayed in a private museum, where freedom of panorama does not apply.

Gnom (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. The Museo Casa Estudio Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo is a government run museum, which means these should be allowable under Mexico's liberal freedom of panorama law (see COM:FOP Mexico). IronGargoyle (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The museum is not a lugar publico (public place), as it charges a fee to enter. Gnom (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see evidence there that fee charging restricts something from being a public place. One of the points includes "every kind of building used for education" (emphasis mine) which a museum would qualify as. While COM:FOP Mexico notes that some government places (like train stations) restrict photography, this sounds very much like a non-copyright restriction. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A museum, albeit public, is not a lugar publico within the meaning of the Mexican copyright act. You are quoting from the definition in the Mexican telecommunications act, which does not apply to copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You offer no evidence that "lugar publico" is defined differently in Mexican copyright law vs Mexican telecommunications law and it would be a very unusual case if it was. Beyond that, COM:FOP Mexico says that "Government-owned places...have no restrictions against freedom of panorama." before the telecommunications law is even brought up as an extra bit of information. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lugar publico is a place that can be freely accessed by anyone. Lacking any better sources, this is how we interpret this term all across Commons. This requirement is not fulfilled for museums that charge an entrance fee. Gnom (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is absolutely not "how we interpret this term all across Commons"; that's absurd. "Lacking any better sources" is the phrase to note in your reply, as you continue to lack sources. US law for example treats public places very broadly, including places which charge admission and it seems clear from the plain wording of Commons policy that Mexico does the same. I think you are overgeneralizing from other countries which follow a more restrictive interpretation of public places. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I don't think we can use the United States as a reference point here, because US FOP only applies to architecture in the first place, and not to artworks of any kind (not even those displayed outside). Gnom (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The objects protected by US FoP are different, but public place is still a relevant consideration; read the policy and law please. That is not the point I was trying to make though. I was just using the US as an example that shows different countries use different standards for what is a public place. You seem to think there is a Commons-wide rule for what is a public place based on whatever body of law you happen to be most familiar with. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to be taught otherwise, but if what you are saying is correct, then we could suddenly upload all artworks displayed in all government-run museums within Mexico. That would be quite a deviation from the current practice on Commons, wouldn't it? I suppose what we need is a more reliable source of what is a public place under Mexican copyright law. Gnom (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any obvious cases from Mexican government museums at Category:Mexican FOP cases/deleted, so this is not a precedent-breaking issue. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to my earlier comment, this case seems to agree with my take on the situation here. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see also:
--Gnom (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think per COM:FOP Mexico the files can and should be kept. If COM:FOP Mexico is wrong, it should be corrected. --Krd 09:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Krd: Please read COM:FOP Mexico very closely, and note that these photos are from a museum that charges a fee to enter. Also, the second half of the paragraph talks about the definition of public place in a different context in a different law, not under Mexican copyright law. Gnom (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krd can, and I'm sure has, read what you wrote in our long back-and-forth above. There's no need to bludgeon the process. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RuthSelfPortrait.png

[edit]

If it's a self-portrait by the late Ruth Rogers-Altmann, who died in 2015, a permission by her (resp. her heirs) is required and it's not "own work" by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pastoor van Arskerk Den Haag (02).jpg

[edit]

Scan from a book or other publication (see EXIF). No source pointing towards which publication, and no evidence that the uploader is indeed the photographer. Spinster (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See in book "Strukturalismus in Architektur und Städtebau" by User:Leuk2, on page 143, about photo on page 109-7. 14:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Photographer: Arnulf Lüchinger (=Leuk2) 12:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FOP issues. --Krd 09:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted derivated is still visible in history - meanwhile, the blurred part to circumvent copyrights takes away the entire [political] message of the banner. This is useless crap this way. Labrang (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Comment Wondering whether two users are competing on who got the better photo of the protest. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg. Nakonana (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, both photos are from the same photographer (and that's me all right) - see Flickr source.
Uploader of the photo from this nomination User:A1Cafel first nominated for deletion File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg for alleged violation of Freedom of Panorama (of an alleged copyrighted item in the protest poster, the drawing - not photo - of Bidzina Ivanishvili). 5 minutes after that nomination User A1Cafel uploaded the photo of this nomination page (File:Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024 (53987798696).jpg), which actually does contain a photo (and not own drawing) of Ivanishvili and therefore is in violation of FOP. I pointed out this and their double standards. To correct their error / circumvent the rules, they decided to blur out the copyrighted element, thereby rendering the message of the poster useless, and thereby the photo as such here in Commons. Even though according to the license this is fine to do, nobody is going to use this photo. It's incomplete like this. This has nothing to do with competing photos. They're both mine anyways. The blur doesn't add anything to the photo other than rendering it completely useless. Labrang (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep this image BUT the initial version from "03:42, 12 September 2024" shall be deleted. --Msb (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with the blurred object the entire political message has been damaged. There is no value for it, not even "educational value", unless you want to keep it for Georgian language training. I mean really, just delete the photo why keep (political activism) photos that miss the point? Nobody is going to use this photo this way anyways, especially since third parties can just use the unedited and undamaged file directly from Flickr, so why would you want to keep it? It's not even valuable for archiving and history purposes just in case I delete the Flickr original. You guys are really funny. Just delete it. Tons of images are deleted every day, what would be so special to keep this? Why would you want to hang on to it? There are plenty of protest photos by now in this category.Labrang (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that even if the small detail of that poster (it is actually not a banner) has been removed, it is suitable for illustrating the protests there satisfyingly. After all, the protest poster was photographed in such a way that it is shown in the overall setting of the protest: surrounding buildings, protest poster and, above all, other protesters.
It should also be noted that deleting the original version does not mean that the image material is lost forever on Commons. It can be easily restored in the future once the copyright has expired.
BTW: It's not a good idea to verbally attack someone if they disagree with you. -- Msb (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody is going to use this photo this way (I can predict that and I think you actually are aware of that as well), so why would one maintain the desire to keep it here if an element in the original would violate the rules and cannot simply be cropped out. Rules that are odd in the first place, as anyone in the world can and will use the original from Flickr with the so-called copyrighted element. Of course I won't start a discussion about the rules, that's out of place here, but just to highlight how silly odd it is to rather blur parts to maintain the photo here for rules sake. Nobody will use it. Why cling on to it? What's the big deal?
The sole reason this photo was uploaded to Commons in the first place was because the uploader applied this very same rule to another photo a few minutes prior and then hastily mass-uploaded photos from the same Flickr album without looking properly, ignoring the rules "they" just applied to a photo they nominated for deletion. I, as owner creator of the photo, would not have uploaded this one, and had to point out the rules "they" applied to another photo of the same series minutes earlier. Only after that "they" backtracked and edited hours later the photo, just so they can cling on to a photo. While I am happy enough to see photos deleted if they don't qualify, I see here people who hang on to it like it is something they own and never want to let go, and rather dismember the "artwork" of the protester.
This really is becoming comedic and totally silly. That is not verbally attacking anyone personally here. It's this way of dealing with requests of the owners creators of the original photo that I wonder whether I should contribute to Commons my photos that you (plural, not insult) value so much apparently. I mean, it's just a matter of notching the license slightly just so that it can be used everywhere in the world freely except here.Labrang (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as OP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please  Delete per COM:POSTER - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2024 Georgian Protests, April 28 (3).jpg Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tagging Wdwd. Labrang (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What copyrighted items do you see on that image? Msb (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which copyrighted items do you see on the above mentioned (and deleted) poster - which was this poster - and where is the difference with COM:Poster for both items. I also want to learn from the judgement grounds in commons. Labrang (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was probably the drawings, which are copyrighted by the creator. The font is not considered worthy of protection. In this picture here, elements worthy of protection have been removed, see its file history. Msb (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So street graffiti drawings/stamps are also copyright protected, being put by ordinary citizens just like any random protest poster? Just trying to find consistency here. As for the blurred out parts: this renders the political message useless as explained above and nobody will use the photo like this. The whole point was the presentation of the oligarch in question as a crocodile. Labrang (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A graffito is permanently visible (preferably) in a publicly accessible place. The “permanently” is decisive here. It is not a protest poster, it disappears after the demonstration in the private household of the creator (maybe). If you are of the opinion that such a protest poster without this negligible image does not represent any added value for Commons, that it is “out of scope”, then that is a different matter. In any case, there was definitely no copyright infringement with this file. Msb (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was prior to me highlighting to the uploader he/she applied double standards and uploaded the file regardless with the copyright violation. Only after that, the uploader corrected his/her flaw by essentially damaging the political message here. Sure, the picture is now not in so-called violation, but at the same time is essentially useless - the entire world can just move to the original on Flickr and use that. Freely. As I allow that via Flickr. But hey, if Commons community thinks that the commons archive is supposed to hold useless photos, be my guest. ;-) No insult, but just a critical remark on what we are actually doing here. Labrang (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After two months it seems about time to make a decision. --Labrang (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, COM:POSTER does not apply anymore for this image. Msb (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by InfinitiBowie97 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

User has previously implied that they were uploading images of this basketball player without permission from the photographers. No source cited.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Not understanding what the issue is here now. I spoke with other admin previously about errors made when uploading images of Darnell. These images on the current page are works of my own, which I was told I am allowed to upload. What other source would I need to provide if these images are my own self works? InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been notified that three of the images I uploaded onto Darnell's page have been wrongfully flagged for deletion. I will start by saying that I do know Darnell personally and have taken images of him in the past and recently with my iPhone. I uploaded and shared this info under own works for each image. Previously when I first created this page, I did discuss with other with other Wiki admin that the images I was originally using derived from other news sources, as I did not understand Wiki's image upload practices at the time, and simply thought I was able to just cite the work, not knowing that I had to receive explicit permission. Once Wiki's admins explained the process to me, I sought and received permissions to use two photos that I uploaded onto Commons (these are two FDU photos that I received explicit permission from and have been communicated to Wiki Permissions via email from the copyright holder). However, the three images currently uploaded are own works I have taken myself recently and previously. I initially did not use those as I originally did not feel they were of great quality - however, I decided to upload the old ones and the new one I recently took of him in August after Wiki admin said I can upload own works. How can I remove the deletion request from the three photos currently on his page? Thanks! InfinitiBowie97 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InfinitiBowie97: Consider following the similar instructions as specified at User_talk:InfinitiBowie97#File_tagging_File:Darnell_Indios.jpg. As these files are low resolution and missing EXIF meta data, please understand the need for Commons to be cautious. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davy Jones (Humano).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darth Plagueis el Sabio.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Obito-Zetsu.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S. Snape.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it looks a lot like the character in the movie, isn't this a fan art derivative then Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahsoka Tano.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Grandmaster Huon as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work of copyrighted material. Derivative work of copyrighted characters King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BUGWUFlierPride.jpg

[edit]

Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama for posters in the US. Permission from the union sent via VTRS would be needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea, damn :( thanks for letting me know about this Pacamah (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellada İlyasqızı.jpg

[edit]

Şəkilin yerləşdiyi məqalə silinib. Zəhmət olmasa şəkilin özünü də silərdiniz. TahirGuliyev (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Heinz Piontek.jpg

[edit]

Offensichtliche Fehllizenzierung, zum einen sollen der Urheber und die abgebildete Peron identisch sein, es handelt sich aber zweífellos nicht um ein -Selfie, um anderen wird nicht klar, welches Recht der Hochlader hat, dieses Foto hochzuladen und unter eine CC-Lizenz zu stellen

Obvious mislicensing, on the one hand the author and the person depicted are supposed to be identical, but it is undoubtedly not a selfie, on the other hand it is not clear what right the uploader has to upload this photo and place it under a CC licence Lutheraner (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Foto wurde dem Autor von Anton Hirner zum Upload zur Verfügung gestellt. Anton Hirner verwahrt die Nutzungsrechte sämtlicher Werke von Heinz Piontek.
Weitere Informationen unter https://heinz-piontek.de/impressum Webulrich (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Webulrich: In diesem Fall benötigen wir eine Genehmigung per E-Mail von Herrn Hirner. Details, zu verwendender Text, Adresse siehe COM:VRT/de. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 08:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pery Broad - Auschwitz trial (1964).jpg

[edit]

This file was already kept in 2016, but it was a procedural keep because of an unwieldy DR. So there is no impediment for a new nomination.

The file was transferred here in 2014 from en.wp, where it was uploaded in 2010 and is still available today as en:File:Perybroad.jpg. It was uploaded there by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com, who uploaded (at least) three files there, see en:Special:ListFiles/Anthraxx56@yahoo.com. All with a similar credit, Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH or Pic by Ryza Jane, BSPSYCH grad or Pic by R.J.M, BSPsych. It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

This photo is claimed to have been "photographed in the 60's or 70's". It looks like it was scanned from somewhere. Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karl Fritzsch at Auschwitz.jpg. Two other Ryza Jane files were already deleted many years ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KAEichmann RyzaJaneMPics.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhlem Boger RhyzMarananPix.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karl Fritzsch at Auschwitz.jpg

[edit]

Similar case as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pery Broad - Auschwitz trial (1964).jpg:

The file was transferred here in 2008 from en.wp, where it had been uploaded by en:User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com with a credit Pic by Ryza Jane Maranan, BSPSYCH 3rd yr. And again: It is completely unclear who this Ryza Jane person is or was and why User:Anthraxx56@yahoo.com would be authorized to upload images provided (?) or taken (?) by this person to en.wp under Creative Commons licenses.

Without more information about source, time, place, author etc. we cannot determine the copyright status of this photo other than that it is apparently not old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. So the file should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless convincingly shown to actually be in the public domain or under a free license. Rosenzweig τ 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two other Ryza Jane files were already deleted many years ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KAEichmann RyzaJaneMPics.JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wilhlem Boger RhyzMarananPix.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caribana Toronto 2015 (20416869330).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license ... this robot thinks it should over-ride human judgement. I think it is now understood that close to half of flickr contributors honestly think they should apply a public domain mark to their own images, so robots should stop flagging these images for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill Brown MP.jpg

[edit]

copyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1960 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2010, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2055 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harry Keun..jpg

[edit]

본인이 원하지 않습니다. Gashorn (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSIR Grasslands Department.jpg

[edit]

copyvio because not PD in the United States - taken 1962 unknown photographer means PD in NZ from 2012, which is after the URAA date wont be PD in US until 95 years which is 2057 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/12&oldid=970127365"