Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/03

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

January 3[edit]

Files in Category:Steamboat Willie[edit]

While these are drawings that were ultimately used in a public domain work, I do not believe them to have been considered published in 1928. These are unpublished works most likely and should be treated with such rules. I believe we should delete these until 2042, which will be 70 years after the death of Ub Iwerks, the likely animator of the works.

SDudley (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Uploader - Thank you so much for letting me know. Especially with the unpublished nature of the drawings. I found both of them at a Heritage Auction site. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! It is a new and exciting time with Mickey Mouse in the public domain, so I'm glad to see the excitement for the character shining through in the upload. SDudley (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. When I uploaded them, I thought that the unpublished sketches was part of the public domain since they were made for Steamboat Willie - which was published. I will wait and see what Wikimedia Commons (or the other users) says about it. Worst case scenario, I'll reupload them in 2042. I even have both images saved onto my computer. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... I'd imagine they might have been considered published when they incorporated in Steamboat Willie, much as a court once ruled that McLintock's script was PD because it was incorporated in the movie. Thoughts, Clindberg? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 05:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any expression that exists in these which also exists in Steamboat Willie was published. In other words, you can't consider Steamboat Willie a derivative of still-copyrighted unpublished works. But, if there is expression in these which does not exist in the movie (pretty much certain), then that much remained unpublished. When did these drawings first surface? Were they kept private by Disney and/or Iwerks until recently? Or have they been sold before? Definitely agree they were not published in 1928 but I guess the main question is whether they were still unpublished as of 1989. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Monograms of Somdet Phra Sangharaja (Amborn Ambaro)[edit]

For the two monograms, not own work and too complex for pd-textlogo. For the award photo, COM:DW of said monogram. Closing admin, please also delete the category as it'll be empty.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep for File:Thailand Developed Temple Award 06.jpg, as a COM:FOP with publicly published, not fall to COM:DW (in case of two cyphers are subject to copyrighted.
 Comment for File:ตรา อ.อ.ป..png and File:ตราประจำพระองค์สมเด็จพระสังฆราช พระองค์ที่ 20.png, it could be discussed. Although the cyphers are too complex to be PD logotype, the cyphers might be recreated differently from the original one and goes to COM:COA. Wutkh (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:L’EXPLOSIVA ROSA MARIA ARQUIMBAU.jpg[edit]

It is unlikely that the both photos of this image, and also the text, were created and therefore owned by the Flickr account Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Francesco Camarda[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this painting, Francesco Camarda, died in 1962. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2033 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Keep It seems that this paragraph (from the first bullet point) is applicable here:
    "Note that before 1996/7 the duration was 50 years after the author's death, with wartime extensions of six years for any work published before August 16, 1945. Therefore the calculation of the duration of copyright before the URAA date must consider these protected for 56 years after the author's death, meaning that were in the public domain at the URAA date works of authors died before 1940. Artistic photographs had been protected for 50 years from creation, plus the same six-year extension, so non-simple photographs created before 1940 were public domain on the URAA date."
    Based on my reading of that, all works by this individual would be protected for 56 years following their death because the works were published prior to August 16, 1945. This means they became public domain in 2002. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe its just me, but I don't see how a rule having to do with paragraphs would be relevant to paintings. Their different mediums, obviously. And there is no special rule as far as I can tell saying that Italian artwork created before 1945 is de facto, or otherwise,PD simply because of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#General rules. Let alone for any other reason. Otherwise be guest and point it out. These images should still be deleted as COPYVIO in absence of that though. Since there's still the normal term of 70 years after death in Italy, which isn't nullified by the URAA. At least not that I'm aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about? The rule doesn't have anything to do with paragraphs. The content of the paragraph is applicable here as this work was published in 1910 (according to the file name). The artist, as you mentioned, died in 1962. Per the paragraph I quoted above, that means the copyright expired after the end of 56 after his death, which would be in 2002 (which is two years prior to the date in the tag on the images dated 2004). Additionally, any work published prior to 1929, regardless of where in the world it was first published, is public domain in the United States and multiple other countries. Once a work is in the public domain, it cannot be taken back out of the public domain. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah well, works have to public domain in both the United States and the country of publication. So the only thing that matters here if its PD in Italy or not, and as far as I know the normal term in Italy is 70 years after the creators death. As I've said that doesn't change because of the URAA or the work being PD in the United States or any other country outside of Italy either and there is no stipulation in Italy that works published there before a certain date are public domain, IN ITALY. The URAA is a seperate issue that only pertains to the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Italian law allow things that became public domain to be removed from the public domain? From my understanding, the 70 year time frame came into effect after 2002 (2004 or so, I think), so unless Italy removed a bunch of stuff from public domain retroactively, that 70 year timeframe doesn't apply since the works had already entered public domain under the 56 year timeframe. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's how it works. There's zero evidence that there are two terms based on if the work was PD before or after 2002. I linked to the guideline a few comments ago though. Your free to read through it, but from what I can tell it doesn't say that's how things work. Everything has the same term regardless of if it was created before 2002 or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Giuseppe Capogrossi[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these paintings, Giuseppe Capogrossi, died in 1972. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2043 unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we generally assume that cultural institutions "have the legal right to release images under a creative commons license, and they have cleared the rights through their legal departments." No we don't. And as you should be aware from previous DRs BEICs licensing of photographs by Fondo Paolo Monti is questionable at best, if not totally bad at worst. As much as you can point out that one DR related to BEIC that was kept I point out multiple other ones where the outcome was that images were deleted. One's that I'm pretty sure you participated in. Just to reiterate what I said in the other DR for whomever closes this though Commons:BEIC clearly says their claim that Paolo Monti obtained the rights to the buildings from the originals architects is "the story of the photos as they know of it" and that even if he did retain the rights, said rights specifically only covered "future publications authored by Paolo Monti." Commons and re-users of the image clearly aren't Paolo Monti. So the images can't be hosted on Common based on their own licensing terms. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it was before the other one closed keeping the images, I wasn't aware of this practice before reading that other DR and I couldn't cite it as a precedent. Anyway the first one doesn't have to do with BEIC. Friniate (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. There have been ones having to do BEIC and photographs from them by Paolo Monti that were deleted because of the questionable license on their side though. But I'm more then willing to leave it up to whomever closes this to decide if their own license terms restrict reusage like I think they do or not. Otherwise, I guess one of us could start a discussion about it on the Village Pump so it can be clarified, but I rather we didn't. Although it would be good if there was clear consensus about it either way. Instead of every other DR involving images from BEIC being deleted or kept based on whomever closes it at the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ines morigi, su dis. di giuseppe capogrossi, superficie 332, 1957.jpg - This one was specifically authorized via OTRS for WLM Italy 2016, so should not be deleted. Authortization is clearly stated in the file AND in the category of the museum. --Sailko ([[User talk:Sailko|

@Sailko: I moved your comment. I'd appreciate it if you didn't alter my comments or insert other people's words into them. Thanks. Also, just because there is an authorization from WLM Italy doesn't mean museum owned the copyright to the statue in the first place or could therefore give WLM permission to photograph it. There's been plenty of files uploaded as part of WLM projects, including WLM Italy, that have been deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is already been discussed so many times... I'm tired to explain all over again any time. It DOES NOT matter the agreement between the museum and the artist's fund, as long as the museum has guaranteed us to freely upload the images of their artworks, for that specific event. Any legal problem will be eventually addressed back to the museum. The authorization was explicit about the artworks, not generic (like they authorize the building, not the single items inside it), so this is not the case of WLM deletion for COPYVIO. PLEASE help me to find a better way to EXPLAIN this in the file description, as I am tired of having to discuss this every time. There have been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016. Everytime the file was saved. Then there's another user asking again "Are we sure?" Yes - we are definitely sure by now. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sailko: What part of me asking you not to edit my comments are you having such a hard time with? Seriously, stop doing it. There's already a comment from you saying the file has ORTS permission without you having to screw with the original nomination. Also, no one has nominated these image for deletion before. So your comment that there has been deletion requests of these mosaics and models since 2016 is patently false. Regardless, we don't just host images that might be copyrighted until any legal problems are eventually addressed back to the museum or whatever nonsense your going off about. The files have to be usable by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose and ones where the source of the files says the original artists only authored Paolo Monti to use the images for future publications clearly doesn't meet that standard. ORTS permission isn't a free pass either. Nor is getting defensive about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not syaing this single file was nominated before, but some else in the same category. You can understand it is very annoying to have somebody doubting again after 8 years of reviewing authorizations and legal aspects. Same about BEIC files, as Friniate already explained. This is a behaviour that wastes users' and admins' time, we could use to do something more useful for the project. --Sailko (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this, closed with law citation by User:Ruthven --Sailko (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I don't really see how people nominating other files in the same category for deletion before is relevant to this. Like we can only nominate a certain number of images per category for deletion or something. That's not how it works. No offense, but I don't really care if you find the whole thing annoying. No one is forcing you to upload the files or participate in these discussions. It's your responsibility to make sure the licenses on files you upload are valid and verifiable. I've cited BEICs own terms as a reason why neither one of those. To which your only response seems to be going off about how inconvenient the whole thing is. It's no wonder this keeps coming up if that's how you respond to people.
As to the law cited by Ruthven, according to this website by the Italian government "The Art bonus allows a tax credit, equal to 65% of the amount donated, to those who make donations to support the Italian public cultural heritage." Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how a law having to with tax credits has anything to do with whom owns the copyright to these paintings. So can you cite what part of the law you think is relevant here? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a comment: the authorization was NOT from Wikimedia Italy, but from the museum Museo d'Arte di Ravenna and it's visible here. I understand that there have been doubts regarding the authorizations from BEIC, but sofar no one has raised doubts regarding the authorizations from this other specific institution. So I don't see why we should assume that they didn't have the right to authorize the WLM participants to take photos of their collections. Friniate (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it or anything if that one file is kept. The other ones should clearly be deleted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Onfreq i2p.svg[edit]

I created this file, and now I've created its successor: Onfreq.png Bob K (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Berlin.Mitte.Festivaloflights.jpg[edit]

This art is protected by copyright. It can not be covered ffrom FOP-Germany, because it's just a temporary art. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Nobody's Sweetheart Now.ogg[edit]

Sound recordings have different copyright rules. Undelete in 2033. SDudley (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Eurostar logo.svg[edit]

The logo design contains shading, gradients, and drawing that are above the threshold of originality in the UK. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:हनुमान जी मंदिर सिंधु.jpg[edit]

unnecessary image 2409:4052:4D11:DC39:3D94:3CF0:20E1:2E86 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Radhika Kumaraswamy (2).jpg[edit]

The YouTube video is inaccessible. The channel where the videos were posted has been terminated due to multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding the material posted by the user. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Robin dippy figurita.jpg[edit]

Per COM:CHAR, copyright of Goofy expired in 2030 A1Cafel (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:A betty Boop christmas decoration.jpg[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What's the copyright status of Betty Boop? We have some images of her, where a patent application from 1931 is used as PD rationale. Would this apply to this derivative work as well? PaterMcFly (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit skeptical regarding File:Betty Boop colored patent.png. U.S. Patent D86,224 was filed for a "doll or similar article" depicting the Betty Boop character, and the line of thought here is, as the patent does not contain a copyright notice for the character, that at least this particular depiction of Betty Boop is in the public domain. But I wonder if this really covers derivative works such as the altered and colored version which is at least partly based on "a more recent drawing of Betty Boop", as the uploader comments: I colored the original black and white drawing, and I also altered the drawing a little bit. I lengthened the dress. I made the eyes more symmetrical. I shortened the lengthy eyelashes to model them after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I added green irises to the eyes which I modeled after a more recent drawing of Betty Boop. I fixed the unrealistic thicknesses of the knee joints. Lastly, I changed the thigh accessory to make it a heart design. - The Betty Boop character design existed prior to that patent application, and was assumedly already copyrighted. So I think this rests on shaky grounds. For the christmas decoration, I'd say it's another unique design incorporating additional elements that would probably create a copyright protection even if the Betty Boop character were in the public domain which I think it probably isn't yet (but in two or three years from now). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds about right. What date would be her first publication? Our article says 1930, but with a quite different appearance, the current form was used from 1932, which is then after that patent, however. That would make her PD for sure in 2028 (also in Europe, since the author is unknown). PaterMcFly (talk) 07:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English Wikipedia's article says that the Betty Boop character was "designed by Grim Natwick at the request of Max Fleischer". As Grim Natwick died in 1990, this would make Betty Boop protected by copyright until 2060 in European countries with 70 years p.m.a. and a treaty with the USA that grants US works the same protection (such as Germany's Urheberrechtsübereinkommen zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und den USA]). Maybe even longer, as there were more people involved in the design, according to the English WP article, such as Bernard Wolf (died in 2006). This doesn't matter for Commons, as we host US works that are free in the US (per the "must be free in the US and the country of origin" rule), but will probably prevent some language versions of Wikipedia (that don't have a fair use provision) from using Betty Boop images. - I'm not sure which year we should consider as the year of first publication, as I'm also not sure how much the change of appearance matters. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: I see that this phrasing is the result of today's edit by User:PCC556; previously, it said "created by Max Fleischer, with help from animators including Grim Natwick". If Fleischer were the creator, protection in 70 years p.m.a. countries would last "only" until 2042 (expiring January 1, 2043). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A Betty Boop christmas decoration (2).jpg[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Vespula germanica - Williams Jose Toledo Sosa.jpg[edit]

Although the artwork is very beautiful, this image does not depict Vespula germanica (the antennae are yellow, which is not the case for V. germanica). In order to not mislead wikimedia commons users, I recommend to delete the image (re-upload in other section is not meaningful as the writing in the image states the wrong species). All the best, seewiese Seewiese (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BALANÇA DOS PRIMOS A RESOLUÇÃO E DEMONSTRAÇÃO DA CONJECTURA DE GOLDBACH (1).pdf[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A prova e resolução da conjetura de Goldbach não é plágio, esta tem os limites mínimos e máximos de encontra primos, primos gêmeos e até mesmo dois pares de primos formando o mesmo par. Com um simples algoritmo além de reduzir a procura de uma forma como uma balança. Posso afirma que sou autor único desta Obra que demorou mais de 300 anos para ser confirmada no seu aspecto ideologico. José Carlos Dias de Araújo (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Para um nome comum no Brasil pode existir dezenas o que difere são documentos de identificação quanto ao trabalho exposto é único José Carlos Dias de Araújo (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Etchings by Antonio Carbonati[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these drawings, Antonio Carbonati, died in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027 per the normal term of 70 years after the artist's death.

Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure that my file File:Raffineria Aquila Antonio Carbonati.jpg has to be deleted. The photo does not portray the works in detail, which can be seen from afar and with a fairly low quality. The photo was taken with the full consent of the museum that exhibits it --Moxmarco (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo was also uploaded as part of a GLAM project --Moxmarco (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moxmarco: I can see the details perfectly fine. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the fact the photograph was taken with consent of the museum really matters either. Since I assume they wouldn't own the copyright to the drawings to begin with and we really need permission from the original copyright holder to host the images. Same for the files being uploaded as part of a GLAM project. They aren't the copyright holders anymore then the museum would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moxmarco Devi dire al museo di mandare l'autorizzazione via VRT. Friniate (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Friniate: Ma come spiegato sopra, il museo non detiene comunque il copyright. Circa i permessi del Museo, la foto è stata scattata nell'ambito di un progetto GLAM a cui ha partecipato il Museo, che ha finanziato l'acquisto delle attrezzature fotografiche con cui lo scatto stesso è stato realizzato, quindi era già tutto parte del progetto. --Moxmarco (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Moxmarco Ah, se il museo non detiene il copyright c'è poco che tu possa fare, ma glielo hai già chiesto se ce l'hanno o no? Se non ce l'hanno loro va chiesto il permesso agli eredi. Friniate (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Lithographs by Antonio Carbonati[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of these drawings, Antonio Carbonati, died in 1956. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2027 per the normal term of 70 years after the artist's death.

Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Unknown starlet at Corruption Party 31.jpg[edit]

Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Unknown starlet at Corruption Party 33.jpg[edit]

Non-notable person ("unknown starlet"); low-quality image, unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE GnocchiFan (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Angelo Biancini collezione Museo Internazionale Design Ceramico di Laveno Mombello, 14.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist of this sculpture, Angelo Biancini, died in 1988. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2059. Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files in Category:Madonna di Fatima (Milan)[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Enrico Lenti, seems to still be alive or at least hasn't been dead for then 70 years since it was built in 1962. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enrico Lenti died in 1981 cfr Friniate (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Tercer moviment Simfonia 8 Xostakóvitx - Vents.png[edit]

This file was initially tagged by D. Benjamin Miller as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Obviously not the uploader's own work. Substantial excerpt from Symphony No. 8 by Dmitry Shostakovich (under copyright everywhere). Fair use excerpts are not permitted on Commons.

Converting to DR for easier undeletion. 1943 composition by a Russian who worked during WW2 and died in 1975. Undelete in 2050 Abzeronow (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Madonna di Fatima (Milan) - Interior[edit]

Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the architect of this building, Enrico Lenti, seems to still be alive or at least hasn't been dead for then 70 years since it was built in 1962. So these images should be deleted as COPYVIO until an undetermined date unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enrico Lenti died in 1981 see. Friniate (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/01/03&oldid=849103028"