Commons:Deletion requests/2024/11/17

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
16 November 2024
18 November 2024
Deletion requests on 17 November 2024

November 17

[edit]

File:Little blue big pink (3192743169).jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Lemon (3193582832).jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JON BROOKS.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to doubt the own work claim. The EXIF data is there. Google Lens does not find any matches except for one[1] that vaguely says that it was posted "more than one year ago", the photo on Commons on the other hand was uploaded in 2011 -- that's more than a decade ago...  Keep unless the tagger provides further explanation for their request of a permission. Nakonana (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jon Brooks.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sholam Weiss.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 06:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero matches with Google Lens There are 3 matches on Google Lens, but two of them are referencing Wikipedia and the third one appears to have been published 5 months after the upload on Commons (though, I can't confirm that for sure, as I don't have a Facebook account to see the post[2]).  Keep unless tagger provides a reason why they are questioning the own work claim. Nakonana (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:金志遙JINLIN.jpg

[edit]

same photo File:金志遙Jin.jpg Txkk (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other photo seems to be a crop of this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caricature of Mohammad Bin Salman 01.jpg

[edit]

Violates Wikimedia Commons policy. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question @ARABCREATOR7: which specific policy does this violate? Dmartin969 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot, for example:
    in Commons:Project scope: Aim of Wikimedia Commons:
    • The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:
      • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
      • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
      • The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
    Now, i don't think this is educational.. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caricature of Mohammad Bin Salman 04.jpg

[edit]

Violates Wikimedia Commons policy. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question @ARABCREATOR7: which specific policy does this violate? Dmartin969 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot, for example:
    in Commons:Project scope: Aim of Wikimedia Commons:
    • The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:
      • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
      • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.
      • The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".
    Now, i don't think this is educational.. ARABCREATOR7 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:61-220-0336 Dorohychivka WW2 Monument RB.jpg

[edit]

And also

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1967. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jpesch95 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|NoFoP-US This may be simple enough. FoP issues need a regular DR anyway. Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Is this simple pictogram even a copyrightable work? Herbert Ortner (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jpesch95 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|NoFoP-US This may be simple enough. FoP issues need a regular DR anyway. Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jpesch95 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|NoFoP-US This may be simple enough. FoP issues need a regular DR anyway. Yann (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:COVID-19 PSA board on the Arts Quad at Cornell.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jpesch95 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|NoFoP-US This may be simple enough. FoP issues need a regular DR anyway. Yann (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jpesch95 as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1|NoFoP-US This may be simple enough. FoP issues need a regular DR anyway. Yann (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 £2 coin.jpg

[edit]

The UK does NOT license their currency under CC-BY-SA or anything else. The copyright status of the picture itself is irrelevant; because the United Kingdom copyrights their currency. The creator of this image was violating the Royal Mint’s copyright. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 11:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frénuloplastie.jpg

[edit]

Could use a VRT 200.39.139.6 16:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Me llamo Rojo.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Zafer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Poster or book/album cover Yann (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The cover is a derivative work of two works that are in the public domain, and it is not necessarily in the public domain (e.g. the Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.). Notice that there is a claim of copyright in the book [3]. The image in this DR uses the same Carpin's work with the same cropping but with a different Arabic illustration and it is clear from the context it tries to imitate the original book cover. Thus, it is a copyright infringement. Also a fake book cover has a dubious educational value. Günther Frager (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Persian miniature, not "Arabic illustration". Saludos. Rojo Edwards 186.173.121.130 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot copyright an idea, only specific works. The image in question uses no material from the commercial cover and you cannot hold copyright over the idea of putting an unspecified miniature on a section of Werl Triptych in the same way you couldn't hold copyright over the idea of putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa--Plank (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping the original work in the same way (it is way less than 25% of the original), mirroring the image in the same way, and changing the natural light to a penumbra (in the original there someone reading without difficulty) is not an "idea". If you place the original book cover and the original painting, almost everyone will say the image in this DR is a derivative of the book cover and not a derivative or the painting. Günther Frager (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hungary2024EU.png

[edit]

does not match the source whe there's only the cube without texts (also mentions Hungarian Presidency copyright) Mykhal (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the link in https://hungarian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/presidency/visual-identity/. In this page there is this version of the logo taken from a frame of the video at the end of the page. --Pierluigi05 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krenkingen Waldshut-Tiengen Wappen Vektorgrafik.svg

[edit]

Handelt es sich hier um ein offizielles Wappen, z. B. einer ehemaligen Gemeinde? Oder um ein inoffizielles PR-Wappen, welches out of scope wäre? Copyright wohl kein Problem, da wenig Schöpfungshöhe (zum Thema "eigenes Werk") GerritR (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Es handelt sich um ein offizielles Wappen der Ortschafts Krenkingen. Das Wappen ist auch heute schon im Wikipedia-Artikel aufgeführt, allerdings in schlechter Auflösung.
Daher habe ich eine Vektorgrafik erstellt, die beliebig skaliert werden kann. JonasM93 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dass ein Wappen in den Wikipedia-Artikel übernommen wurde, sagt nichts über den offiziellen Charakter aus. Gerade Ortsteilen werden häufig inoffizielle Wappen zu PR-Zwecken zugeschrieben. Diese haben das Problem, dass sie erstens out of scope sind und zweitens auch aus Copyright-Gesichtspunkten nicht wie offizielle Wappen behandelt werden können. Die hier vorliegende Grafik ist aber vermutlich zu simpel, um Copyright beanspruchen zu können (so genannte Schöpfungshöhe). GerritR (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich bin leider unerfahren was wiki angeht. Ich wollte lediglich ein besseres Wappen der Öffentlichkeit bereitstellen ;) Was muss ich denn anpassen, damit das durchgeht? JonasM93 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anpassen kann man hier nichts, außer sich bei der Gemeinde zu erkundigen, wie es um die Historie und den Status des Wappens bestellt ist. Existierte es schon vor der Gebietsreform als Wappen einer ehemals eigenständigen Gemeinde? Wurde es irgendwann später zu Werbezwecken erfunden? Wann tauchte es erstmals auf und unter welchen Umständen?--GerritR (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/11/17&oldid=969447741"