Commons:Deletion requests/2024/09/30

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
29 September 2024
1 October 2024
Deletion requests on 30 September 2024

September 30

[edit]

File:Publicity shoot ziegfeld girl 1941.jpg

[edit]

No explanation why this is a public domain work. Some random Flickr account cannot confer public domain status on this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep "PD-US-not renewed" While the show is copyrighted any publicity images would not have been. A copyright symbol added to publicity images did not start occurring until the 1980s. The purpose of the publicity image was to get it reprinted as widely as possible at no cost. The alternative was to pay for advertising space in periodicals. --RAN (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This is jayanta (user jay.hete). You can remove the picture as it's not neeting the standard, and it's not very clean too. It's perfectly ok to take off the picture from wiki — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 106.222.230.52 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Food Served at Shatabdi Express.JPG

[edit]

blurry image, poor quality, superceded with more current, crisp image - Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Napoleonic Rask.png

[edit]

As the original uploader and commissioner of this work, I no longer wish for it to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons for my userpage. Raskuly (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Satellite imagery of Washington, Illinois a day after the tornado.jpg

[edit]

This image has been sourced from an NWS website,[1] which attributes it to Google Earth.

The image has been trimmed to remove most of the Google logo, but the "G" and half the first "o" is still visible at the lower right of the photo.

Per COM:CB: "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."

Without any evidence that Google has placed this image in the public domain, or that it was created using only free imagery, this is presumably an unfree image and we must delete.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is showing how destructive the tornado was Hoguert (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons can only accept free images -- that is, images that was ineligible for copyright when they were created, or their copyright has expired, or the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain or under a free license. What evidence do you have that this image falls into one of those categories? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the NWS website so it should be public domain, if its not, it's fair use Hoguert (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all contents of the NWS website are in the public domain; only contents that were created by the NWS or other federal agency, which Google is not (plus some very old images whose copyright has expired.)
And the Commons does not accept "fair use" files. See COM:FAIRUSE. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still want to show satelitte imagery of Washington, Il after the tornado, do you have any images that are public domain? Hoguert (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia accepts fair use.  Delete from Commons. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, and I think it's unlikely that any free imagery of this exists (or the NWS would probably have used it instead of commercial imagery). That said, English Wikipedia accepts files under fair use. You can find the policy here. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete – per reasons given by Rlandmann. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:গ্রাফিতি - ভাতের হোটেল.jpg

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in Bangladesh according to 2023 copyright act. Syrus257 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Syrus257: could you please help us by explaining what is the prohibition regarding graffiti?--Rocky Masum (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Though you stated in the description that it's a graffiti but it seems more like a street art regarding the recent movement in Bangladesh. Graffitis are in Public Domain but I'm not sure about the street arts. Syrus257 (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2002 La Plata Tornado Funnel.jpg

[edit]

This image is sourced from a web page of the National Weather Service.

Such pages host a mixture of NWS-created content (clearly public domain), and material from third parties, including businesses and individuals.

Although Mike Eckert was an NWS meteorologist, this image appears to be his personal property and is watermarked with an explicit copyright notice: "© Michael T. Eckert".

This is an unfree image and we cannot host it here.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong delete per watermark. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:2011 Joplin Tornado Timeline.jpg

[edit]

This image has been sourced from an NWS website, and contains a mixture of free and unfree elements.

The image captioned "St John's Regional Medi[c]al Center before May 22nd" contains a watermark at its bottom right that contains an explicit copyright notice: "© Google 2011" (The "after" photo to its right is a known free image from the NOAA).

The underlying grayscale satellite image that makes up most of the background of this infographic also strongly resembles a commercial satellite map (note the "Joplin MO" and "Iron Gate" legends), although I do not have a match for it.

Per COM:CB: "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."

In its place, I've trimmed the infographic down to just its timeline element, which is unquestionably free: File:2011_Joplin_Tornado_Timeline_-_trimmed.jpg

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

Rlandmann (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep With Solution — Given the only element of the photo that is copyrighted is the first of the satellite images, can someone reupload the image with a black box over that image? On Wikisource, if a U.S. government document was mostly public domain, but contained a copyrighted element, that copyrighted element could be blacked out/hidden and the rest of the content could remain. So, to prevent full deletion of the large bulk of the image, I propose we black out that small satellite imagery, reupload it, and then delete the previous version which contains the copyrighted image. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:OVERWRITE, only the original uploader (you) can overwrite a file with a major modification like that.
That aside, I would still pursue deletion of that modified version as described due to (very) significant doubt that the greyscale background is actually a free image and not sourced from a commercial satellite map, as it appears to be.
Of course, it would be possible to replace that background with a free one. With that change in place as well, there would be no reason to delete it. Assuming a suitable source is available, it's probably only a few minutes' work for someone who knows their way around Photoshop or GIMP. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete – as this is similar to the 2020 derecho image I nominated. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google copyright ©️ element. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I made a free alternative here: File:2011 Joplin Tornado Timeline - free.png --Rlandmann (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. We can now unambiguously  delete this not-fully-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:MuncieIce.JPG

[edit]

This file is sourced to a National Weather Service website.

Such sites host a mixture of content created by the US federal government (public domain) and content created by businesses and private individuals (a wide variety of free and unfree licenses). We rely on the captions they were published with to tell us where the photo originated.

Unfortunately, the citation we have points directly to the image itself and so although we can verify that in the Internet Archive, we no longer have access to its copyright and licensing information.

Because it is unlike the images usually taken by NWS staff in the course of their duties and looks more like a public submission, I reached out the to NWS office that published this photo (Indianopolis).

They do not know who took this photo.

I have forwarded this response to the VRT (ticket:2024093010007205).

Because we cannot verify that it is (or was ever) available under a free license, we must delete as a precaution unless the precise creator and evidence of permission can be found. If it is truly an orphan image, it will enter the public domain 120 years after it was taken, in 2126.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like to pass along this to any closing admin: the English Wikipedia uses this image in the Ice Storm Warning article. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Trees with Ice.JPG would be a good replacement photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlandmann: I found the original source website containing the photo. Unfortunately, there is still no author information. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(N)ice work! Thank you! But yes, still sufficiently unlike the types of images that NWS employees usually take in the line of duty to cross the "significant doubt" line (and obviously especially so since the WFO has no record of its provenance). --Rlandmann (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Ростов Великий - Дом жилой с лавками купцов Емельяновых-Хомяковых.jpg

[edit]

Неправильно указана фотография (ошибка при добавлении). Перепутала изображение. 91.228.66.4 13:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:He hesaplar ikonu.png

[edit]

Kalitesiz içerik olduğu için. Hayalperest Evreni (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Ahmed Bilal Mehboob delivering a talk at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC on Pakistan's Institutions, January 2017.png

[edit]

This is a screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJOjyqX-iXw which is a copyright violation Saiphani02 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:God Disorder.djvu

[edit]

Not the original of my unfinished copyrighted book. Tolga Theo Yalur (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crazy Horse Memorial (30661349704).jpg

[edit]

Reupload of a previously-deleted Flickr import; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Crazy Horse Memorial for the reason. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Crazy Horse Memorial. (53585216777).jpg

[edit]

Flickr import is a violation of sculptural copyrights, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Crazy Horse Memorial and Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial for the artwork's details. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Material.jpg

[edit]

Quelle: https://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Datei:Material.jpg hat keine CC-Lizenz. Ralf Roletschek 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads in 2006 by en:User:Bundeena2230

[edit]

No source or date specified. User released under the claim "I purchased this image for my personal collection" which does not convey copyright. User had similar images deleted on Wikipedia in 2006, but this one appears to have been missed.

Some of these may be {{PD-old}} or {{PD-UK}} but an internet search for comparable images comes up with photographs from the 1960s. For reference: {{PD-UK-Unknown}} indicates a life of 70 years after photograph was taken. - Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. The information in en:LMS Garratt is helpful in establishing context - assuming that the photo hasn't been grossly misidentified, it's of a locomotive which was used in the UK, and which was scrapped no later than 1958. Unfortunately, that's just barely within the 70-year boundary for {{PD-UK}}. Undelete in 2029. Omphalographer (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note "LMS Garratt 4977 01", at least, has the loco in pre-nationalisation livery, so is before 1948. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all three. The OP claims that "I purchased this image for my personal collection". Selling implies publication, so none of the prongs of {{PD-UK-Unknown}} apply for the first two. For me, the OP might reasonably know the photographer's identity, so reasonable inquiry has not been exhausted (PMA 70 territory for all three). In any event, as I understand it, the photographs must satisfy both UK and US copyright law. When were the photographs published? Presumably shortly after the images were taken (worst case when OP bought them). The US term is 95 years after publication (Hirtle chart foreign pub before 1977), so undelete in 2053. The struck-out request would have been in copyright on the URAA date, so although it is PD UK today, it will not be PD US until 2043. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{PD-UK-unknown}} is rather likely (near certain) to apply to all three. But then, so is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If they were available for purchase, they were published then or before (and probably long before). One has a very bright number on the side, the struck out one, so is far more likely to have been during the early 1930s. The other two have faded numbers, so are from later, but most likely before the 1948 nationalization, so still quite likely PD-UK-unknown. Here is a photo of one after nationalization, where the digit "4" was prefixed to the old number, which is not present on any of these. So, all three seem to be from between 1930 and 1948, with the last one probably in 1930 or shortly thereafter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm a little ignorant of the status of British Railways status in 1948 when it was created -- was it a separate corporation, or was it all considered part of the British Transport Commission? That was dissolved in the 1960s, but UK copyright law was very aggressive about converting private copyrights into Crown Copyright in those days (only relaxed from 1989 onwards). If these were publications by the rail companies themselves, they may have eventually become Crown Copyright, which would mean they are PD in both the US and the UK. But I don't think we have enough information on their origin to really know that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Drie naakten, RP-P-2010-222-3019.jpg

[edit]

copyvio - Copyright Aat Verhoog Peli (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rits, RP-P-2010-222-3028.jpg

[edit]

copyright error - artist died 2015 , please undelete in due time Peli (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The Rijksmuseum claim that the painting is CC0. Is there any information about why the museum claim that it is free? For example that the artist or the hiers donated the painting to the museum? --MGA73 (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zeeschip achter schutting, RP-P-2010-222-898.jpg

[edit]

copyright error - living artist, no permission. Please store for undeletion in due time. Peli (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UIPM UN Ecosoc.png

[edit]

Not an actual logo of a organization Urang Kamang (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Weimar Republic Notgeld of Tonndorf-Lohe

[edit]

These German Notgeld (emergency money) bills from the 1920s are works of Josef Nägele, who died in 1966. So they are not in the public domain in Germany yet, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2037.

Rosenzweig τ 18:14, 30 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 Archivehindu (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Possible copyvio: unclear copyright status on these works. Clearly not own work as stated, as en:Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh passed away last year.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This content does not come under any copyright hence this content is copyright free and reusing. 2409:408A:1E89:C77E:E4A:55F9:8FEA:634F 20:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow. Any creative work, such as these books, created in India is by default copyrighted by the author until 60 years after their death. While it's possible that HBN Singh released these books under some sort of permissive license, I don't see any evidence that he did so. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, Undelete in 2094. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Files uploaded by Archivehindu (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright: these are all tagged as {{PD-India}} (60 year pma or post publication for anonymous works), but it doesn't appear that this license is valid.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psychoanalysto - Turkish Revolution of Letters.webm

[edit]

Convered the video with wikimedia, this is redundant. Tolga Theo Yalur (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hal B. Jackson.jpg

[edit]

Doubtful own work given the uploader's history of copyvios. The photo has also been misleadingly processed - note the polygonal background that's a hallmark of certian photo processing apps. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'utile Mode de Corsets.jpg

[edit]

A better quality version of a similar image with more information about the artist and time period is already on Wikimedia. File:L'utile Mde. de corsets. N°37. G.7043(2).jpg ThePinkShoes (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr.Niklas.Lidströmer.CC.BY4.0.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Riggwelter as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: The given copyright license can not be verified. The only available source does not state any copyright information, nor the photographer's name. There is no indication that this is a free image.|url=https://nyheter.ki.se/molnbaserad-personlig-halsojournal-med-ai-ar-det-sakert King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only available online image is not identical with the here present image. If you look carefully the medallion on the wall behind is in the middle of the image in the Karolinska News image. And in the present image the medallion is to the right. The Karolinska News have now been alerted about the source and photo copyright info and will change the info online, in both the Swedish and English versions of the article. Please note that this photograph was taken by an unnamed photographer working for Springer Nature during the release of the book depicted in the image on 7 March 2022. The license accompanying the image explicitly states that it is under the CC BY 4.0 license (Creative Commons Attribution), which allows free use with appropriate attribution. The photograph will also be used in Nature Communications, Nature Medicine, and has already been featured in Karolinska News. Additionally, it will be included in an upcoming biography and in an article in the biannual magazine Arte et Marte this year. The license specifies 'photo: Springer Nature, Nature Portfolio' but does not name the photographer. GustenGast (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fact remains: we can not verify your claim that this image is available under a free licence, i e compatible with a licence that Wikipedia can use, because you do not provide a proper and verifiable source. According to Swedish legislation, only the photographer can agree to the use of a free licence, no matter what Karolinska publishes on their web site. The EXIF data reveals that the image was taken on an iPhone 13 - I find it somewhat hard to believe that a professional photographer would use an iPhone to take official photographs (even if the quality isn't bad at all). Furthermore: the uploader, i e you, does not state where and how you got the photo in the first place. Riggwelter (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Riggwelter, as I have said I write a biography and I have contact but I am not employed by anyone in conflict with the family. There is no conflict of interest. GustenGast (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that we can not verify your claim that this image is available under a copyright licence that we can use on Wikipedia. We just have your words to go by, and that is not enough. Riggwelter (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GustenGast, if you are writing a biography then you have a COI, as you are communicating with the family, and most likely will receive either an advance, stipend or royalties for the publication of the biography. Netherzone (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cajas de cereales en un Supermercado Ley, Mazatlán, 21 de octubre de 2022 02.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Belbury as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:PACKAGING. Ineligible for speedy per COM:CSD#F3. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep De minimis El Nuevo Doge (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. The cereal boxes are the intended subject of the photo (as per its title), and are the only objects visible. De minimis only applies where some copyrighted content is truly incidental to a photo, e.g. it could be blurred out without affecting the usability of the image. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Omphalographer (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have hidden the original file and the latest version is so cropped that almost only text exist. I think we could argue that the rest is now De minimis. --MGA73 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commander-jeff.jpg

[edit]

Not an own work. 186.173.20.184 22:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Mogil (10 22).jpg

[edit]

Own work? 186.173.20.184 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Juridum (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused logos and content related to non-notable company, uploaded for advertisement purposes, out of the project scope: sv:Juridum

Nutshinou Talk! 22:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by SusanLGodfrey (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused low quality images of non-notable musician, out of the project scope: en:User talk:SusanLGodfrey

Nutshinou Talk! 22:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Popularnow (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused low quality images of non-notable musician, out of the project scope: en:User talk:SusanLGodfrey

Nutshinou Talk! 22:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/09/30&oldid=952012170"