Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1 January 2024
3 January 2024
Deletion requests on 2 January 2024

January 2[edit]

Files found with Special:Search/"Jean Brusselmans"[edit]

While the works of Jean Brusselmans are now in the public domain in Belgium, these two paintings are from 1935 and 1939 and therefore still copyrighted in the USA because the URAA restored their US copyright. Per Commons:Licensing, they are therefore not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, and the files should be deleted. They can be restored in 2031 and 2035, respectively.

Rosenzweig τ 02:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So would that delete-happy persons please save the pictures to those projects, that don't have this ridiculous regulation and can keep clearly and unambiguous PD-data, like deWP, nlWP, frWP etc? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anybody who wants them there should transfer them now. But even deleted files can be temporarily restored to enable transfers if needed. --Rosenzweig τ 13:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the duty of those, who want to delete PD-files, to move them to those projects, who have all the rights to use them. Simply and lazy deletion without thinking is no constructive way of dealing with this assault on the world outside the small USA and it's obscure regulations. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you aware that there is no longer a local upload possibility at the Dutch WP? We put our faith in Commons. Karmakolle (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That means you will either have to live with the rules of Wikimedia Commons or reinstate local uploads. --Rosenzweig τ 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh huh. As Commons turns out to be first and foremost a US project rather than a global project, that would be the obvious necessity. Karmakolle (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bland statement that URAA restored copyright is not sufficient for deletion. Commons:Licensing, to which you refer, says it clearly: A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. So which specific reason do you invoke in support of URAA application? I would argue to the contrary that it is unlikely these works were published (as in: distribution of copies) or registered in the US. If that is correct, they are PD in the US as well (see COM:HIRTLE). Karmakolle (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a "mere allegation". What is meant by that phrase is that you have to check if the work was actually protected in its country of origin on the respective URAA date (usually January 1, 1996). Some EU countries already had copyright terms of 70 years pma on that date, while others still had shorter terms – Portugal had 50 years, France had 58 years and 120 days. Belgium however already had 70 years pma, you can check at en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights. So the copyrights of the works of Brusselmans were restored by the URAA. For artists who died after 1945 those shorter terms in 1996 are almost never relevant anyway, because even with a 50 year term works of authors who died in 1946 or later were still protected on the URAA date.
For copyright restoration by the URAA to happen, there was no need for publication in the US, registration and all that. That is only for works originally from the US (until 1989), not for foreign works which had their copyrights restored by the URAA. See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights for more on the subject. --Rosenzweig τ 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That limited check is not at all what is stated in the policy. Read the whole paragraph. You need to show which of the different tests apply, not just a preliminary condition. Only then can you justify you "undelete" categorisation. Karmakolle (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are wrong. --Rosenzweig τ 22:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand why you would want to make it easy on yourself, but that is not what is written. Karmakolle (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, let me rephrase that so you can perhaps understand it. This is not about "making it easy on yourself". The other tests mentioned there are either not relevant or self-evident in this case. Most only apply in certain (fringe) scenarios, and it's not like you have to fill out a checklist every time and present it in a deletion request. Commons does have a certain bureaucracy, but this is not a part of it. A DR is decided by an admin, and they can decide if they follow the rationale of the nomination or not.
Specifically, in order: 1)a) the source country is not the US, 1)b) subsisting copyrights are almost never a thing except for books and perhaps music (but I'll check it just for you, see below), 2) the work was not published before 1929, 3) paintings are copyrightable in the US, 4)a) Belgium is a Berne Convention state and thus eligible (like all nations except a handful), 4)b) there is no indication at all that the painting was first "published" in the US or simultaneously published there (simultaneous publication is a thing for books etc., not for paintings which only exist in one copy), 5) the painting was still copyrighted in Belgium on the URAA date of January 1, 1996 (as mentioned above), 6) the painter did have a sufficient connection to Belgium, 7) there is no indication at all that the painting was ever administered by the Alien Property Custodian (and its copyright was then never restored), which is almost never a thing except for Mein Kampf and very few other German works from the Nazi era.
Now, the "subsisting copyrights". Per en:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, Belgium is one of the countries with a bilateral copyright treaty with the US, which is from the late 19th century, but still in force. Which means that Belgians did have the possibility to register their works for US copyright and comply with all the formalities to gain an American copyright for their work. To a certain extent this was done by some publishers (books and music), especially from the UK, but foreign artists rarely bothered to do this. For a 1935 work, one would have also needed to renew the copyright after 28 years. If the work was registered and the copyright renewed, the work is still protected in the US, just not because of the URAA, but because of an original US copyright. Only if the copyright was not renewed, the work would have fallen in the public domain in the US.
You can check the US copyright record books from 1891 to 1977 here (select "Search text contents"). A search for Brusselmans will show that various works by composer Michel Brusselmans were registered, also some books by authors like Christiane Brusselmans. There are no hits for "Jean Brusselmans" or "Brusselmans, Jean", and all the volumes that come up for the Brusselmans search are either Music, Musical Compositions, Books and Pamphlets or Nondramatic Literary Works. There are separate volumes for Works of Art, but none of those show up in a search. Conclusion: no works by Jean Brusselmans were registered for copyright from 1891 to 1977. --Rosenzweig τ 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I bow to your superior analysis. Ceterum censeo a project which purports to foster the public domain should not establish itself in a jurisdiction where intellectual property is pursued with religious fanaticism. Karmakolle (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice a tendency in Commons to apply URAA far more strict than years ago. I browsed through this category and found some stunning examples. The Brusselmans case has led to a discussion on the Dutch language Wikipedia about reopening the possibility of local uploads - or explore other venues. Brusselmans is a clear-cut case: PD in Belgium - so we could explore possiblities to make usage on Dutch language Wikipedia possible. After all, English language Wikipedia permits usage of copyrighted Belgian images under fair use. (Yes, I know: American copyright because etc.). Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi is so old-fashioned. Vysotsky (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The German Wikipedia never abolished local uploads. While the majority of files are uploaded to Commons, anything that is not ok for Commons, but ok by German/Austrian/Swiss law, can be uploaded locally, including works affected by the URAA, fop works from countries which have no (commercial) freedom of panorama (but are ok by German laws), and logos from countries with a low threshold of originality. On the other hand, you're not supposed to use files which are only ok in countries like the US or Italy, but not in Germany, even if they are available at Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 06:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know that this is still illegal if not done in the tiny fair use format? The WMF is entirely responsible that American law be complied with on the German Wikipedia. It gets harder to avoid the impression that you are applying a double standard since the German WP has a practical (if not legal) workaround. Karmakolle (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep... I am very amazed about this DR initiated by User:Rosenzweig. I asked for general help around the URAA Deletion request in May 2022. Per this edit Rosenzweig commented and stated that there is "contradicting contradictory information" and that the Foundation "will only step in and delete something themselves by an Office Action if forced to do so by an official legal request." Rosenzweig added "let sleeping dogs lie and so on." So I would propose indeed to let the dogs sleep next to the oxes mentioned by Vysotsky and keep these images. The Foundation will act when the heirs of Jean Brusselmans come into action. I consider this a very important DR. Public Domain Day has just passed in various European countries, "celebrating" the pma70. This year, I will only start uploading PD images from female artists from my country as well as Belgium after this DR has been closed. I try to avoid my uploads to be deleted of course. Ellywa (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's our official policy that works must be free in the US as well as the source country, and while some may want to ignore that, I don't. --Rosenzweig τ 06:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though my Japanese is a bit rusty, it seems that the Japanese Wikipedia has introduced fair use for images that are in the public domain in Japan but are still under American copyright. They did so years ago. And no, I don't want to ignore URAA, but I am looking for a lawful bypass that respects European and American copyright rules. Vysotsky (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
meta:Non-free content is an overview page. --Rosenzweig τ 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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:Charles III Signature.png[edit]

mistaken Flix11 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Charles III Signature.png[edit]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles III Signature.svg A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Nastik-nation-new-logo.png[edit]

Logo is fair use and not ok with Commons ~AntanO4task (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Foto des außer Betrieb genommenen Stellwerks des Bahnhofs Waltrop!jpg.jpg[edit]

Das Bild ist von 1998 und keine eigene Aufnahme. Das Bild stammt von hier (auf das Bild klicken). Ursprünglich stammt das Bild von hier. Die Lizenz dort ist CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 2003:DE:745:B5A7:808B:EE:74AF:B730 09:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file is not own work, its from 1998. The file is from here (klick on the pic) under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Greats ○●○2003:DE:725:50F8:F80A:66:D72B:FE08 06:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)●○●Reply[reply]

File:Jiří Šrámek, parte.pdf[edit]

A private death notice is not a government/official work as the PD-CzechGov license states. Harold (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dobrý den, při vkládání licence jsem se inspirovala některými jinými soubory, které jsou v Category:Death notices in Czechia, ale uznávám, že to není zrovna vhodná licence, proto se nebráním smazání souboru. Nicméně mám otázku, jestli je možno File:Jiří Šrámek, parte.pdf v Commons ponechat, když změním licenci, například na PD-ineligible, která je občas také u Death notices in Czechia použita? Anaj7 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anaj7: Zdravím. PD-CzechGov je určitě nepoužitelná, protože parte není úředním dílem (jako např. zákon, obecní kronika, apod.), čili pokud u jiných souborů je uvedena tato licence, pak je patrně chybná. PD-ineligible oproti tomu u řady parte může být, což ale podle mě není případ tohoto. Pokud by šlo o čistě textové parte, šlo by použít PD-ineligible, problémem zde ale jsou dvě fotky, portrét osoby a pozadí parte, které jsou nepochybně autorskými díly, a tedy i autorskoprávně chráněny. Možná by šlo provést něco jako je u File:Libuše Šafránková parte.png, tedy fotky zakrýt. --Harold (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harold: Díky za vysvětlení a souhlasím se smazáním souboru. Zdravím, --Anaj7 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Angel ornament blowing a horn by THE BLUESMITH COMPANY Philippines 04.JPG[edit]

I am afraid but I would say that this is a (simple) work of art and therefore protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also see the other similar files in category:Angel ornaments. Gnom (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Nicole Schneider[edit]

Broken files. BTW I don't see the point to upload all these images.

Yann (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In use at phab:T354007: PNG files with truncated PNG IEND chunk are published, but no thumbs are generated. The files are missing the last byte because of an error in the MediaWiki upload process, once the issue is resolved i will replace the files with complete versions. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Valerii Demchenko (talk · contribs)[edit]

there is no proof these files are freelicensed. news pages are, may be, copyrightable too. NOTE(SORRY FOR CAPS), THAT İS !!!!NOT!!!! ONLY FİLE NEEDS TO BE DELETED. THERE IS APPROX. 250 FILES, I DONT WANNA EXPLODE MY LOG HERE. SEE: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Valerii_Demchenko&ilshowall=1 

----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 16:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!250 FILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 16:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wow, actually there is 500 files... number is so high... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 16:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't read ukrainian, but the linked permission document File:Дозвіл на вільне використання газети Отчий поріг.jpg looks indeed like a permission to use the files. At least it does mention "Wikimedia commons". --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. how we do know is it actually real paper? whatever that is, we need VRT.
2. you said it, "we dont know ukrainian", it is not real work to write something like this: "this paper is for to show these news papers are freelicensed".
at this point we need VRT. @Valerii Demchenko, please contact VRT to show they are freelicensed. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 10:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (850 files!). Either these are paper publication, so we need a proper VRT permission, or digital only, and then out of scope. --Yann (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Valerii Demchenko (talk · contribs)[edit]

No permission from authors. User claims that Чернігівське земляцтво is sole owner of its copyright and provided permission from this organization. But in fact Чернігівське земляцтво is not copyright owner. In uploaded books we can see: © О. Деко, © І. Корбач, © Туркевич, Чубук and others. So we need permission from Деко, Корбач, Туркевич, Чубук, Not from Чернігівське земляцтво. // Нема дозволу від авторів. Користувач надав дозвіл від Чернігівського земляцтва, в якому стверджується, що воно є власником виключних авторських прав на ці книги, проте в самих книгах ми бачимо інакше, там є позначки © О. Деко, © І. Корбач, © Туркевич, Чубук тощо. Саме Декові, Корбачу, Туркевичу, Чубуку та іншим належать авторські права на ці книги, і від них повинен бути дозвіл.

Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Доброго часу доби.
Дякую за Вашу увагу до видання, але прошу також звернути увагу, що на кожному виданні чітко зазначено, що це - "Видання товариства "Чернігівське земляцтво". Це чітко видно на кожному титульному аркуші кожної книги. Враховуючи це і дозвіл на публікацію творів надавала ГО "Товариство "Чернігівське земляцтво". Valerii Demchenko (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Відповідно до абзацу другого частини третьої ст. 9 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» суб'єкт авторського права для повідомлення про свої майнові права може використовувати знак охорони авторського права ©, поряд з яким зазначаються ім'я (найменування) суб'єкта майнових прав на твір, рік першого опублікування твору. У цих календарях після знаку © вказано упорядників, отже авторські права належать їм, відповідно від них і потрібен дозвіл. Те, що, можливо, хтось не догледів при друці і не того вписав автором, це не наші проблеми. Юридично авторські права належать упорядникам.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:F-GFKC Air France Airbus A320 - 4.jpg[edit]

This photo of a French historic incident has no publication information that could prove that it was first published in the United States in 1988 and not published in France within 30 days (which is a requirement for {{PD-US-1978-89}}). As such we have to consider it copyrighted until publication information is provided. 2A02:908:122:55C0:468A:5BFF:FECC:62BA 19:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Portrait of Bhai Sant Singh "Giani", acclaimed Jathedar of the Damdami Taksaal and teacher of the poet "Santokh Singh".jpg[edit]

Redundant, already uploaded https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giani_Sant_Singh%27s_Ramcharitmanas_commentary.jpg Usingh0663 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Run Faster Filmcover.jpg[edit]

Offensichtlich Fehllizenzierung als "Eigenes Werk" - offensichtlich abfotografiert, eine gültige Lizenz des Grafikers, der das Plakat entworfen hat, fehlt Lutheraner (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sticklerbüste Neunkirchen.jpg[edit]

copyright violation, does not meet conditions of Austrian FoP JordiCuber (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im Kommentar zur österreichischen Panoramafreiheit heißt es ausdrücklich: An einem öffentlichen, also dem öffentlichen Verkehr dienenden, Ort befindet sich nach allgemeiner Auffassung zumindest nicht mehr das, was in Kirchen, Museen oder Theatern aufgestellt bzw. angebracht ist.[1]

Die Büste steht ausweislich dieses Videos aktuell im Inneren der Pfarrkirche von Neunkirchen (das Video ist 2 Monate alt). Der Schöpfer der Büste wird auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite nicht namentlich genannt und ich konnte ihn auf die Schnelle auch nicht ermitteln, die Büste dürfte aber neueren Datums und der Mann oder die Frau noch am Leben oder jedenfalls noch nicht lange tot sein.--JordiCuber (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/02&oldid=849102973"