Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/31

30 October 2024

1 November 2024

Deletion requests on 31 October 2024

October 31

File:Exposición de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación.jpg

The picture have the copyright of the Caretas Magazine Librero2109 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitreinfo.png

Unused screenshot snippet of a WP infobox, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cropped the logo to a more useful size and added it to Category:Club Ferrocarril Mitre, where it might become useful. Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the original logo instead? Krd 08:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Ainhayati (talk · contribs)

Historical photos, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case my reasoning at VPC is correct and we trust the uploader on the dates, we could keep File:Gambar Sekolah.jpg and one of File:Bangunan1.jpg and File:Bangunan Sekolah.jpg (to me, those two are essentially duplicates). Felix QW (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portada RMEE Núm. 18 (2017).jpg

Unused bookcover, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In COM:SCOPE: The cover of Volume 2, No. 19 is used in es.Wikipedia:Sociedad Mexicana de Estudios Electorales. And it would appear to be PD, based on COM:TOO Mexico. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animation of C／2024 S1 - SOHO LASCO C2.gif

The SOHO (ESA & NASA) joint project implies that all materials created by its probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? This is clearly an instance of non-commercial, educational use, hence no permission required. And proper attribution has been provided. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.133.86.223 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Commons must be available for commercial license too. See COM:L. The current license is wrong as it isn't a work solely by NASA. C messier (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Concourse of Shilipu Station (20160909092540).jpg

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after cropping the rightmost third of the image. The mural becomes de minimis then. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:راية عباس.png

per COM:EDUSE: fictional flag of a historical entity Constantine ✍ 07:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This banner was designed according to the historians' description of the banner used by Caliph Al-Mu'tadid Billah in war. Ahmadf.alabbasi (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source. And 'designed according to a description' is not enough for such a complex design. You need a contemporary depiction of such a flag, otherwise it is an interpretation at best, and still ahistorical as a result. Constantine ✍ 08:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ṭululnid State Banner and War Flag.png

per COM:EDUSE: fictional flag of a historical entity. Currently used only in userspaces. Constantine ✍ 07:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlMamunFlag.jpg

per COM:EDUSE: fictional flag of a historical entity Constantine ✍ 07:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep This is in use in the mainspace of a sister project. It must be removed from there before it can be deleted here, per COM:INUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abbassid900.png

per COM:EDUSE: fictional flag Constantine ✍ 07:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep This is in use in the mainspace of a sister project. It must be removed from there before it can be deleted here, per COM:INUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024-09-19 18-05-38 (B,Radius8,Smoothing4) 2 Frames.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Volgens mij is alles oké.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seseorang ISTJ dapat cermat dalam menyelesaikan tugas.jpg

Kesalahan pada berkas Trivalprim (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for deletion given ("Kesalahan pada berkas" means "Error in file", useless in the context), unsure whether in scope. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Weather Service April 2 tornado outbreak 14.png

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source on October 2, but they never replied. (VRT ticket:2024102910012137)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as it pains me; since I was the one who submitted the FFU on this one; I’m going to !vote

Weak delete on this on account of the fact that it’s been a month and Wellston FD hasn’t responded to @Rlandmann; although they may have also treated as junk mail and simply ignored it, either way better safe than sorry. And besides there should be an unambiguously free DAT alternative. It is not uncommon for NWS Charleston (And other offices) to have the local fire department or local EMA assist in their surveys. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm there are plenty of ground-level photos of tree damage from this incident in the DAT, but none that show a view like this of the convergent damage from the air. Aerial photos of weather damage taken by the NWS are practically unknown, and even ones by the NOAA seem to be rare. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann, I would strongly encourage looking into the other areal tornado pictures then; including ones I posted upload requests on before registering.

Because there is at least one other areal picture taken by the West Virginia Civil Air Patrol of tornado damage in Fayette County, West Virginia. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the URL of that image?

Although federally funded, the CAP is not a federal agency, and can and does own their own copyrights. I have had senior officers in the Alabama Wing and the Kentucky Wing explain the complexity around image ownership.

More generally, I have yet to see an aerial photo that actually belonged to the NWS; although some have belonged to other federal agencies, including the NOAA and USAF. Most of the aerial damage photos on NWS sites seem to come from state or county-level EMAs or other state or county-level agencies. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m not mistaken it is already on Commons. File:National Weather Service April 2 tornado outbreak 16.png might be the CAP image. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: apparently 16 is another Boyd County EM image. Still unfree. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museu do Forte de Copacabana - Rio de Janeiro (35644454153).jpg

Although Brazil has usable freedom of panorama, it does not allow for direct reproductions. In this case, no context is included at all, and therefore in my opinion it may well cross the line. There is no provenance for the image being reproduced, and the motif suggests it to be a post-war work. Felix QW (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is indeed some context in the image, and, even if it were more apparent, it should not make much difference considering that it is set in a museum, and what surrounds the painting is likely just a plain wall. That said, while there is no credit to the artist in the description, it is present within the image itself. Although I am having some difficulty deciphering it, there is indeed a credit, which suffices for this deletion request. It appears to be by an artist named "[a?]M[r?]artins", created in [19]98, and, because it is permanently displayed in a public space, it qualifies for Brazilian freedom of panorama. Reuses should be approached with some caution, of course (as is the case with the vast majority of content on Commons), considering that attribution is mandatory in this instance. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم يهود اليمن.jpg

خارج النطاق وعلم غير صحيح Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم الأرمن العراقيون.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم البخاريون في السعودية.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم تركمان الجزائر.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم تركمان مصر.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete انا مصرى لا يوجد علم كهذا فى مصر 197.54.17.205 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم شيعة العرب العراقيين.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم منطقة الجوف السعودية.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم منطقة القطيف.jpg

تخريب ولا يوجد علم بهذا الشكل Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علم تركمان الأردن.jpg

صورة علم غير صحيحة Mohammed Qays 🗣 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Novinky logo.png

I do not think that this logo does not meet the threshold of originality, as it uses specific fonts which are copyright elligible themselves. Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greenfield IA tornado 2024.jpg

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source on September 5, and again on September 17 but they never replied. (VRT ticket:2024102710006041)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am in communication with NWS Des Moines on this. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case it helps, you can see what the photographer originally agreed to here: https://twitter.com/miwx97/status/1793339235249885663

It is of course possible that they and the NWS eventually came to some other separate agreement "behind closed doors". Thanks for checking this out. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the NWS employee I contacted pointed to the Twitter thread. So it looks like this is not Public Domain. Because this is a featured picture on EN, I think we have a fair use rationale for it. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming with them. Would you mind forwarding that correspondence to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and then pasting the VRT ticket number you get back into this thread please?

And yes, I think there's a good case here for fair use on EN (although being a featured image is completely irrelevant to that determination, one way or the other). --Rlandmann (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author also has an email address listed on his Facebook Page. [1] Ixfd64 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's the one I used (twice; in addition to Facebook Messenger, which I knew he saw). --Rlandmann (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LosAngelesAirTrafficControl.PNG

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. The uploader indicated the source as "An associate of the webmaster"

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the NWS regional office who published the photo to ask about its origins on September 20, but they never replied. (VRT ticket:2024103110006014)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and we do not know who took it, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can check to see which page used the image by poking around the Wayback Machine. From https://web.archive.org/web/20050904232814/http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/images/zla/zlacwsu_bldg_n.jpg I see a larger text that says "ZLA CWSU at Los Angeles ARTCC". One can peek in the Wayback Machine for particular pages, but I havent located the specific one yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the image is being used here: https://web.archive.org/web/20041205000431/http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/zla/ I don't see any particular photo credits. disclaimer of the current 2024 page states: "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise," (When I try to click the archive link on the Wayback Machine page, I got redirected to the current page). WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page from 2004 stated: "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." The disclaimer is in all probability free use was presumed for so long. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhisperToMe -- We are now a couple of months into a deep-dive into third-party images hosted on NWS websites. The disclaimer you're pointing to has been found to be completely unreliable as evidence of the copyright status of an image. We have dozens and dozens of confirmed instances where third-party photographers never released their copyrights, and the NWS pubished their images without a formal copyright notice. And, conversely, not a single third-party photographer out of hundreds approached as ever confirmed that yes, they released their image into the public domain. Please read the RfC linked in the DR.

To keep this image, we really need specific and proximate confirmation that this image in particular was released by its creator. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it was you who stated that the photo was taken by "An associate of the webmaster".[2] You don't seem to me to be the kind of contributor who would just invent a specific detail like that. Is there some chance that information might have been provided to you via an email account that you still have access to? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was some Yahoo! account I used a while ago but I forgot the password :( ... I could try to see if I remember it, but no guarantees... WhisperToMe (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the off-chance I remembered the password, I tried to sign back in, but I couldn't enter a password. I was told it was deactivated due to inactivity :( .. I also searched the Gmail account I do currently use and so far haven't found an e-mail related to this. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying! FWIW, I just found and uploaded an FAA image of the building, as a free (as far as we know) alternative: File:Los Angeles ARTCC.jpg --Rlandmann (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. This is even better than the original image despite having a smaller file size. We can now unambiguously delete the one with the questionable copyright status. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Max Headroom broadcast intrusion.webm

File:WGN-TV 'Max Headroom' Incident" (1987).webm

A concern by User:Wound theology, originally posted on the Wikisource talk page of s:Talk:Max Headroom signal hijacking of WTTW: "The copyright template here notes that the source was "legally published within the United States" but the definition of legally published is clearly not applicable here: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending [...] A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Emphasis my own." Does Commons agree? SnowyCinema (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Racconish, Clindberg, and Yann: What are your thoughts? SnowyCinema (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See here a discussion of the clause "of itself". — Racconish ^💬 19:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure what is clear (either direction). Usually, works are published before they are broadcast -- when you even offer the work to a broadcaster, that is often publication right then. The actual act of broadcast does not cause publication. And these days, with digital distribution, the mechanism is different than over-the-air broadcasting and may change things too. For the pirate transmission, that was over the air. Was it published beforehand? That depends on the details of the pirates and how they handled the video. Did one person make it, give it to someone else for purposes of public display? That may be publication. If one person did both, maybe not. Copies were almost certainly made in order to make the pirate transmission, and "publication" depends on how they were handled beforehand. From a practical standpoint, there likely can never be a lawsuit because the copyright owner would have to come forward. Granted, the statute of limitations is long over so maybe that could happen now. I guess it's possible someone made the video privately, and someone else broadcast it (without permission) for fun. If they gave it to a friend without restriction, that on the other hand could be publication. And then there is the legality aspect -- any money made off this copyright may be considered profiting from a crime, similar to graffiti, where we have that somewhat contentious policy which isn't really tested in court. This could well fall under something like that de facto policy. Lots of hypotheticals, really. Fair use, easily. On the theoretical doubt / significant doubt barrier, I don't have a good feel. Kinda in that same area as graffiti to me, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Being that these tapes are among the most widely-known unsolved media mysteries in modern history, the identity of the masked man in the video, his spanking accomplice (in the second video), and their motives/methods, are in quite high demand but in absolutely no supply. In other words, nobody has any idea about any of it, but a lot of people sure do want to know. There's more speculation than there is fact. I bet people have even put money behind some modern investigations. It seems more likely to me (personally) that the video was broadcasted by the same man who was speaking in the tape, given my reading on the subject puts the likelihood that the person behind this was an anonymized broadcasting-industry professional very high. The likelihood of a small team of technicians/hackers also seems likely. If this is how it happened, according to what you're saying this would mean it would be copyrighted?

As to the likelihood of Max ever "coming out", this seems extremely unlikely (though we may find out who he is through some other means, like someone working on the project at the time or a colleague of Max spilling the beans online with evidence, becoming more likely once people start retiring). The overtly sexual and bizarre nature of especially the second tape is, in my personal opinion, probably a lot of the reason Max never "came out" to this very day.

So if you want to assess it on the grounds of "likelihood of suing for copyright", it's about as low as it gets, as you say, since he'd have to reveal himself in the first place before that (and what reason would he have to sue for copyright?). That being said, Commons seems to make it very clear, that we don't keep things on the grounds of "being likely not to sue", so there might not be a public-domain status we could associate with it.

But in this case, the possibility of a public-domain status (being if he sent the tape to someone else to actually do the broadcast—still unlikely, but not entirely impossible, and we probably won't know for a long time or ever), combined with the absolute lack of desire for anyone to sue over the tape, makes me think that maybe this could be an exception? These are my thoughts on the issue.

c.f. certainly no one really cares about its copyright anyway, but would it hold up in the Wikimedia Commons "courthouse"? SnowyCinema (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The pirate broadcast constituted publication, as broadcasting is generally sufficient (either of itself or owing to prior actions) for publication. The reference to “legal[]” publication is for copyright law, not law generally, so even the pirate broadcast counts. The “public performance or display” clause is meant to eliminate cases where a work is shown in a transient form, such as Dr. King’s speech or the exhibition of a painting at a gallery (both cases which interpreted that clause). The new rule of the “public performance or display” clause by its very essence does not apply to cases where the “performance or display” can be retained by electronic devices, which of course is true of broadcasts to individual television units (as opposed to the traditional “public performance or display” of a television broadcast, viz. a filming). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Said to be KELVEDON Essex North Eastern Railway Loco 8636 Stopped at Platform.jpg

By their own Flickr user information page, this Flickr account collects an archive of old postcards, of which they are neither the creator nor rights holder. According to this railway enthusiasts' website, the pictured locomotive was only bearing the number 8636 between 1946 and 1950. This implies that, given that this is a British photo unlikely to have been contemporaneously published in the US, it would be copyrighted in the US until at least 2041 inclusive. British copyright depends on whether the photographer is anonymous, in which case it would probably have expired, and their life dates if not. Felix QW (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TTV 0888.jpg

It has been held the copyright from National Geographic. Tran Tuan Viet (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trantuanviet Did you take this photograph under a contract with National Geographic whereby they hold copyright to the photos you took? Do you no longer hold the copyright to this photo? Băng Tỏa 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Historical photos. Proper author/source and country of origin should be provided and license tags corrected.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Commons:Derivative work from award and diploma.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2018 (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 Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DONT delete any picture from OUR SCHOOL WIKIPEDIA information, otherwise your information about our school in your WIKIPEDIA will be obselete and not accurate with newest data, i am headmaster & teacher in this school, i will update regularly about my school information, if you have any question feel free to contact us via email : elaksamana@yahoo.com / sekolah534@moe-dl.edu.my OR can call use from via MALAYSIA number 6056466253, if you dont trust please visit our school facebook account - https://www.facebook.com/sksungaipergamrasmi Elaksamana (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find existing relevant templates for same purpose? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Likely not own works: low-res/web-size images with disparate quality and styles, missing or inconsistent EXIF data. Some DW and logos that are above COM:TOO. And out of scope.

P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If copyright issues can be resolved for the files that are COM:INUSE, those files should be kept. Otherwise, I would say File:Sukan Memanah merupakan sukan terbaru yang disertai atlet SUPER bermula 2023..jpg is in scope as a photo of people with bows and arrows, as long as it's User:Elaksamana's own work or the photographer gives permission for an appropriate COM:License and the "Author" line is corrected. I notice that no-one ever referred Elaksamana to COM:VRT in previous deletion requests, and I don't understand why. "In some cases, sending email to the VRT may be required in order to provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish a file under a free license. Such evidence should be sent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org." I think we should do our best to work with school principals/headmasters and not dismiss them so quickly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zs 1966 FK.jpg

They are not the owner of this artwork. https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=28&kulupID=2434 Kutay_(talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Preparativos Wiki Takes Manchuela 2017.jpg

Unused low-quality image of notes, illegible, unusable, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take this picture, but I took part in the activity, and the idea is showing how WT Manchuela was done. B25es (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems illegible, though, like P199 said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Statue of Lenin in Lipetsk

There's no FOP in Russia and it's pretty unlikely the artist of this statue has been dead for more then 70 years since it was created in the 1980s. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO.

Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:RIAN archive 35861 YCL'ers arrival in Lipetsk.jpg features a different statue than the other ones, doesn't it? Lenin isn't wearing a coat in that one. As for the other images, they appear to be of a mass produced statue that was first erected in the 1970s and was authored by sculptor L.E. Kerbel (Л.Е.Кербель); see [3] under "Тип "кербелевский"". Nakonana (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, File:RIAN archive 35861 YCL'ers arrival in Lipetsk.jpg is definitely a different statue than the other one. This one is located on the territory of the company Novolipetsk Steel instead of the square of in front of the administration, and was already there in 1973 when the RIA Novosti photo was taken. I'd also say that the statue is de minimis in File:Administration Lipezk Region.JPG as this photo focuses on the administration building, not the statue. I'm also going to mark all images for transfer to Ru Wikivoyage where they can be hosted without issues according to a new court decision regarding FoP in Russia. Please wait with any deletions until the images have been transferred (there will be a bot entry in the image history about the transfer). Nakonana (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Соборная площадь (Липецк) 3.jpg might also qualify for de minimis. And this source[4] confirms that Lev Kerbel (1917–2003) is the sculptor of this statue, and the source also lists N.F. Brovkin (ru:Бровкин, Николай Фёдорович (1916–1986)) as architect. So, undelete in 2074? Nakonana (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edgar Victory Night 1990.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: From a meuseum administered by the State of Illinois (works not public domain), PD-US does not apply as made in 1990 Yann (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my comments from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edgar-gallery-4.jpg: Echoing my comments from the undeletion request, I'd like to see a little more information about who owns the thing so if it can be considered public domain by them, as its made past the 1989 date. If they own it, and they say it's public domain, then the license should be changed to something else, although I don't know what the license would be changed to. Maybe {{Cc-zero}}? reppop^talk 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edgar-gallery-4.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Reppop as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: From a meuseum administered by the State of Illinois (works not public domain), PD-US does not apply as made in 1990 Yann (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing my comments from the undeletion request, I'd like to see a little more information about who owns the thing so if it can be considered public domain by them, as its made past the 1989 date. If they own it, and they say it's public domain, then the license should be changed to something else, although I don't know what the license would be changed to. Maybe {{Cc-zero}}? reppop^talk 20:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to doubt that it's owned by the museum, what more evidence is required? They guy who uploaded it just made a mistake when placing in the license. Bramnickatriot (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complicated than that. The museum may own a copy, or even the original negative, but who owns the copyright? Which leads to, who is the author, i.e. the photographer? Yann (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odile Tremblay, journaliste.jpg

Autre photo de meilleure qualité pour la page Wikipédia Dalloss (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo-PSB40.png

Not own work Heylenny (talk) 19:23, 31 October 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 Kolacja64 (talk · contribs)

Self-drawn and thus very low quality logos.

~Cybularny ^Speak? 21:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Kolacja64 (talk · contribs)

Low quality (self drawn?) logos with no use or use in plwiki userspace only

InternetowyGołąb (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:The Brest Fortress (2010 film)

It is possible I am missing something, because I have very limited Russian, but I do not see any indication of the claimed licenses at the source site. The source is given strictly in terms of a domain, not more specific URLs, and so it is imaginable that these particular images might have the stated licenses, but if so someone needs to come forward and demonstrate that.

Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ru Wiki has also at least one image from that website, however, that image is clearly marked as non-free (even though it is a historical photo of Petya Klypa who served as a model for the role of Sashka Akimov in the movie). See https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Пётр_Клыпа.jpg. I'm guessing, the images are not free. Nakonana (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated images are from the gallery of the website: http://brestkrepost-film.ru/gallery/photo/film/index.html. They are not from the download section of the website: http://brestkrepost-film.ru/gallery/download/index.html. And even if they were, Ru Wiki has a poster from the download section (from here: http://brestkrepost-film.ru/gallery/download/poster.html) and it's still only under a fair use rationale (see [5]). Nakonana (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The uploader says that the authorization was granted by the copyright owner. There was a discussion there in 2011. Was there something in the OTRS ticket mentioned at C:VRT/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Files by User:Vysota1079 or in another ticket? Apparently seven files remained on Commons after the discussion, which may be why the uploader thought that things were fine for those files and that nothing more was needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of sylheti.png

It is a duplicate of: File:Sylheti Map.png, seems to have been uploaded separately than uploaded in its original file Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sylheti.Dialect.Bangla.png

It is a duplicate of: File:Sylheti Map.png, seems to have been uploaded separately than uploaded in its original file Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charleston County Sunset.jpg

The uploader wishes to repost this file with no changes except for removing the image title section. Sl4d56 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monticello church damages 1974 Super Outbreak.jpg

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is sourced to a third party, although it is unclear whether the supplier of the image was actually the photographer and presumably copyright owner.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder or that copyright has expired or never existed.

The NWS credits the Monticello Herald newspaper for this image, but this image does not look like a scan of a newspaper, and may have been an unpublished image from the newspaper archives. Unfortuntely, this period of the Herald has not been digitized, at least not for public access, so I have not been able to search it.

Conversely, although the Herald published a commemorative issue in 2014 and a photo gallery of the tornado damage in 2019, this image is not among them.

I emailed the newspaper asking about the image on September 20, but received no response. (VRT ticket:2024103110011124)

Since this is an image created in the US before 1989, its copyright status will depend on the circumstances of its first publication, in particular, whether it was published before or after March 1, 1989. The earliest known publication of this image is on the NWS website where it was sourced. Unless any evidence of a previous publication can be found, this image is protected for 70 years after the death of its creator, or 120 years (2095) if its creator is never identified or if it were a work for hire belonging to the newspaper.

Without evidence to the contrary, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to temporarily

Abstain from !voting on this one; and give it another week or two just to be sure. Because it is an organization; it might take a while for them to reply to @Rlandmann. If no reply is seen by November 15; I will update it to delete. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gitornadopic2.jpg

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is sourced to a third party, although it is unclear whether the supplier of the image was actually the photographer and presumably copyright owner.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US before 1989, its copyright status will depend on the circumstances of its first publication, in particular, whether it was published before or after March 1, 1989. The earliest known publication of this image is on the NWS website where it was sourced. Unless any evidence of a previous publication can be found, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

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

Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sylheti map.png

The author had uploaded a new version: File:Sylheti Map.png while it should have been uploaded in this file as there were multiple uploads, the new file is more detailed and accurate Abu Ayyub (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Catrina statue.jpg

No Freedom of Panorama for statues in the United States. Ooligan (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling my attention to this potential copyright issue. The statue is in front of and owned by the Colores Mexicanos store. If I receive written permission from them to use the photo, would that satisfy the copyright requirement? Michael Geary (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/31

October 31

Files uploaded by Ainhayati (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Elaksamana (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:Statue of Lenin in Lipetsk

Files uploaded by Kolacja64 (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Kolacja64 (talk · contribs)

Files in Category:The Brest Fortress (2010 film)

Navigation menu

Search